Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old August 20th, 2012 #1
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default Philosophers: Fichte, Kant, Hegel and More

http://www.counter-currents.com/2012...an-philosophy/
 
Old April 16th, 2013 #2
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default



Johann Gottlieb Fichte (German: [ˈjoːhan ˈɡɔtliːp ˈfɪçtə]; May 19, 1762 – January 27, 1814) was a German philosopher. He was one of the founding figures of the philosophical movement known as German idealism, which developed from the theoretical and ethical writings of Immanuel Kant. Fichte is often perceived as a figure whose philosophy forms a bridge between the ideas of Kant and those of the German Idealist Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Recently, philosophers and scholars have begun to appreciate Fichte as an important philosopher in his own right due to his original insights into the nature of self-consciousness or self-awareness. Like Descartes and Kant before him, he was motivated by the problem of subjectivity and consciousness. Fichte also wrote works of political philosophy and is considered one of the fathers of German nationalism.


Nationalism

Fichte made important contributions to political nationalism in Germany. In his Addresses to the German Nation (1808), a series of speeches delivered in Berlin under French occupation, he urged the German peoples to "have character and be German"--entailed in his idea of Germanness was antisemitism, since he argued that "making Jews free German citizens would hurt the German nation."[9] Fichte answered the call of Freiherr vom Stein, who attempted to develop the patriotism necessary to resist the French specifically among the "educated and cultural elites of the kingdom." Fichte located Germanness in the supposed continuity of the German language, and based it on Tacitus, who had hailed German virtues in Germania and celebrated the heroism of Arminius in his Annales.[10]

In an earlier work from 1793 dealing with the ideals and politics of the French Revolution, Beiträge zur Berichtigung der Urteile des Publikums über die Französische Revolution (Contributions to the Correction of the Public's Judgment concerning the French Revolution), he called Jews a "state within a state" that could "undermine" the German nation.[11] In regard to Jews getting "civil rights," he wrote that this would only be possible if one managed "to cut off all their heads in one night, and to set new ones on their shoulders, which should contain not a single Jewish idea."[11]

Historian Robert Nisbet [jew] thought him to be "the true author of National Socialism".[12]

Women

Fichte argued that "active citizenship, civic freedom and even property rights should be withheld from women, whose calling was to subject themselves utterly to the authority of their fathers and husbands."[13]

Johann_Gottlieb_Fichte Johann_Gottlieb_Fichte
 
Old June 13th, 2013 #3
Tintin
∞ 𐌙 λ
 
Tintin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 7,497
Default

It does seem that Fichte's works are being reevaluated for their quality, originality, and inspiration to other great philosophy.

In his own life time, he was highly respected. For example:

- Fichte's anonymously early published works were thought to be works of Kant. Kant had to publicly deny this.

- Hagel requested and was buried next to Fichte.


How to explain is relative unknown status today? He is considered a/the father of German Idealism, German Nationalism and National Socialism. Not to mention, an anti-jew (aka anti-semite).


http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Johann_Gottlieb_Fichte

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Johann_Gottlieb_Fichte

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Address..._German_Nation
__________________
Quote:
"I die in the faith of my people. May the German people be aware of its enemies!"
Paul Blobel, SS Officer, 1951, last words prior to being executed
 
Old June 13th, 2013 #4
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Default

German Idealism is also the basis of American Pragmatism, in case ye didn't know it.


I watched a bit of this. No wonder the "man in the street" thinks intellectuals are insane. They are.

If you are into self-flagellation, watch the whole thing.

Last edited by Rick Ronsavelle; June 13th, 2013 at 03:10 PM.
 
Old July 28th, 2013 #5
Jean West
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 476
Default

The Psychology of Apostasy
By Greg Johnson
July 23, 2013

Il Sodoma, “The Martyrdom of Saint Sebastian,” c. 1525

Derek Black’s renunciation of White Nationalism raises questions of wider significance about how people form and reject beliefs. There are two basic kinds of beliefs: those you think are true based on reality and reason vs. those you think are true based on other people’s opinions.

If you base your beliefs on reality and reason, then you will change them as new facts come to light or as better arguments are presented. For example, I used to be a classical liberal, but classical liberalism grants no importance to racial and cultural differences, and when I realized that these were more important than individual freedom and capitalist economics, I rejected classical liberalism as subversive of higher values.

Why I am a White Nationalist

I am a White Nationalist because I believe that the survival of my race is threatened by the present political and economic system, which prizes individualist, capitalist, liberal, multicultural, and multiracial values. I see that these “race blind” and “race neutral” values are incompatible with the preservation and flourishing of my race. Race is real. Racial conflict is real. The other races are not going to trade racial competition for race-blind universalism. And any race that will not take its own side in racial conflict has no future.

I am concerned to preserve my race simply because it is mine, because it is my extended family. I also wish to preserve my race because I believe that it most closely approximates to the aesthetic and moral ideals I hold dear, ideals which may be race-specific but which seem to be universal because they are cherished by other races as well, so far as they are able. Finally, I want to preserve my race because I believe that biology has a huge impact on culture, thus many of my most cherished cultural, political, and scientific values could not have arisen without white people and will not be appreciated or preserved without white people.

Because the survival of my race is threatened by the current political and economic system, I believe that we need a new system that puts race at the center of political priorities—not individual freedom, capitalism, or tolerance and pluralism, which are genuine values, but lesser values than the preservation of the race that creates and sustains them. I believe that each race and each distinct people should have a nation or nations of its own, in which it can live according to its own identity and values and pursue its own destiny, free from the interference of other races and peoples. Finally, I believe that the main enemy of the idea of nationalism for every nation is the organized Jewish community, which promotes race-destroying values for other societies as a tool of ethnic warfare.

The Derek Black Case

It is my understanding that Derek Black more or less believed the same things I do. Because I strive to base my views on reality and reason, I was naturally curious to hear why Derek Black had rejected White Nationalism. Did he have new arguments that I could not answer? Had he discovered hitherto unknown facts about race, the Jewish question, and the present-day political system? With these questions in mind, I eagerly scanned the news reports, only to be disappointed.

Derek Black has apparently rejected White Nationalism not for new truths but for old lies: pure Leftist boilerplate that rejects biology and biological inequality and explains unequal group performance in terms of social injustice, which in America means white injustice, for which whites can atone though affirmative action, non-white immigration, and all other forms of white dispossession and self-abasement.

Many people have speculated about Derek Black’s motives for abandoning White Nationalism for this kind of mush. Is it peer pressure? Rebellion against his parents? Love? Perversion? Blackmail? Insanity? Did he grow tired of alienation and want to be plugged into the Matrix?

I am less interested in Derek Black’s particular motives, or in the Derek Black case in general, than in what would make it possible for anyone to abandon truth for any reason. Two factors strike me as relevant, the first having to do with the basis of belief, the second having to do with strength of character.

Objective Truth vs. Common Opinion

People who base their beliefs on reason and reality generally will change them only if given better facts and better arguments. People who base their beliefs on the opinions of others generally hold the beliefs of the people around them, particularly the most important people around them. When one grows up, one’s beliefs are shaped primarily by one’s parents and other authority figures. As one grows older, one’s beliefs are shaped primarily by one’s peers. Derek Black may simply have adopted White Nationalism because it was the worldview of his father, whom he wished to please. When he went off to college, he found a new, politically-correct peer group and authority figures, and he may have changed his opinions to suit them.

If this is the case, then we can say that it is possible to reject White Nationalism for Political Correctness—truth for falsehood—if one never really thought that White Nationalism was true in the first place—if one never really understood that truth means correspondence with reality, not mere agreement with other people. I don’t believe that it is possible to reject truth for lies if one really believes that truths are based on objective reality and lies are not. But if one merely adopts beliefs to please other people, then truth and falsehood have no objective meaning. They are just different ways that people express approval and disapproval. Then it becomes possible to adopt and discard radically different beliefs at will, based on the audience and aims of the moment.

Of course, there are two kinds of apostasy: one in which one actually changes one’s beliefs, the other in which one merely verbally renounces them under duress without changing one’s inner convictions. The first kind can be explained entirely in terms of a deep-dyed conventionalism, but the latter can’t. Moral factors come into play.

Furthermore, nobody is entirely unconcerned with objective truth. It matters when you balance your check book, or if you are falsely accused of a crime. But when it comes to the moral and political opinions that one has to profess to be considered cool or enlightened or just mainstream, their connection to the real world is nebulous to begin with. For one thing, the worst consequences of multiculturalism lie far into the future. And since at present most liberals occupy reality-free bubbles of prosperity and security—college campuses, college towns, resort communities, wealthy urban and suburban enclaves—they are insulated from the costs of diversity and even positioned to profit from it, financially and in terms of status, by abasing themselves before the black idols of white guilt. Thus for most people, politically correct opinions are entirely divorced from objective reality in terms of their grounds and consequences. Instead, they function as cheap tokens of status, easy ways of seeking social approval.

The closer you are to reality, and the more accountable you are for the objective consequences of your actions, the greater the importance of objective truth in determining your belief system. The further you are from reality and the less accountable you are for the objective consequences of your actions and beliefs, the greater the importance of social approval in selecting one’s opinions.

The Issue of Character

Strength of character comes in as follows. All human beings value truth and the good opinions of their fellows to some extent. But these values often conflict. Strength of character is required to cleave to the greater good. The truth of White Nationalism is, of course, more important than the approval of a decadent society based on lies and hell-bent on destruction. This does not mean that you are a coward if you choose not discuss White Nationalism where it is not socially appropriate (over Thanksgiving dinner) or where it is not likely to produce a positive effect (with your boss, or your congressman, or your Jewish dentist). But if forced to choose publicly between White Nationalism and Political Correctness, the man of character will choose truth over lies.

Of course, many people have good reasons to want to avoid having to make that choice. They require the approval of their families, friends, colleagues, employers, and customers to lead good lives. Some of them wish to burrow into the system, gain as much wealth and influence as possible, and use it to advance our cause. They are secret agents. So they keep their views secret. And the rest of us have to respect that. If the system were able to socially and economically destroy every White Nationalist, it would be stronger and our movement would be weaker.

I have argued that if White Nationalism is to grow as a force, we have to follow two basic rules :

1. Everyone gets to choose his own level of involvement with White Nationalism and explicitness in advocating it.

2. Everybody else has to respect those decisions, while, of course, maintaining that the most admirable position is that of the fully explicit and proud White Nationalist.

In particular, everyone has to respect the anonymity of fellow White Nationalists. Anyone who “outs” fellow White Nationalists to expose them to harm from the system should suffer the social death of shunning. Similarly, any White Nationalist who through lax security measures allows personal information about White Nationalists to fall into the hands of “anti-fa” hackers, or movement kooks with track records of “outing” people, should suffer social death as well.

In exchange for these courtesies from explicit White Nationalists, I have asked implicit White Nationalists to reciprocate as follows.

1. Stop complaining about the eccentric and marginal people who are willing to be explicit White Nationalists. It is easier to be brave when you have less to lose. Courage and principle are also often paired with prickly or eccentric personalities.

2. Stop rehearsing horror stories and gloom and doom scenarios that make it harder for White Nationalists to become or remain explicit.

What If You are Outed?

Another bit of advice for White Nationalists who wish to remain anonymous or silent: If you are outed—whether by yourself, a group like the Southern Poverty Law Center, or a turncoat in our own ranks—do not apologize or surrender or go groveling for absolution from our enemies. It doesn’t help you or the cause.

Don’t focus on how being exposed as a White Nationalist will ruin your credibility. Instead, try to control the damage. Try to maintain your credibility and moral stature by not apologizing and not backing down. Then, think of how you can lend some of your dignity and credibility to our ideas.

Don’t count the “friends” you are losing. They’re gone anyway. Surrender and groveling will not win them back. That will merely disgust and dishearten movement people who would otherwise be sympathetic to your plight. So instead count the friends that you will be gaining by not backing down.

Don’t let the online kooks fool you. The White Nationalist community is filled with highly intelligent, accomplished, morally upright, and neurologically normal people. Many of the finest people I have met are White Nationalists. You should be proud to count them as friends and ashamed to dishonor them with your apostasy. Furthermore, outside the movement, there are still people who admire moral character, even in people with whom they disagree.

It is easy to understand and even forgive a Galileo, who paid lip-service to the church’s dogmas when threatened with torture and death. But White Nationalists today are being threatened with nothing worse than social disapproval and employment discrimination. Furthermore, the church had the power to force Galileo into apostasy in part because of a long litany of Christian martyrs who chose differently: they preferred death before apostasy, or even mere lip-service to ideas they considered false. All things being equal, the side that is willing to fight the hardest and give up the most—even life itself—will win.

Ultimately, White Nationalism will not win until we can inspire people to prefer death to dishonor—until we can inspire people to martyr themselves for our racial survival. People who will suffer dishonor to preserve their economic status and the good opinion of complete strangers are natural slaves. The system can easily control them. But it cannot control people who would rather die than submit. It fears them, because a man who has conquered the fear of death has conquered all lesser fears, and he may inspire others to do so as well.

Thus White Nationalists must give the highest honors to explicit White Nationalists who demonstrate that they are willing to give everything to the cause by living a warrior’s life and dying a martyr’s death.

High honors are also due explicit White Nationalists who fight for our cause but never face the ultimate defining choice of martyrdom.

White Nationalists like Charles Krafft, who stand their ground when the system outs them and targets them for economic and social destruction, also deserve high honors.

Explicit White Nationalists need, in turn, to respect those who choose to remain secret agents within the system, particularly those who give active support to explicit White Nationalists.

Teach Your Children Well

With the apostasy of Derek Black—and the somewhat similar case of Lynx and Lamb Gaede of Prussian Blue—there is a significant mitigating factor. They were brought into public roles in White Nationalism as children. They were not allowed to determine their own level of explicitness and involvement. Their parents played a large role as well. Thus it was perfectly natural, when they grew up, to decide for themselves how involved they wanted to be, and to revise matters accordingly. One may quarrel with how they went about it, particularly in the case of Derek Black. But, in principle, I think they have the right to decide to leave the movement and lead private lives, as far as that is possible.

I think it is unethical for parents to involve their children publicly in White Nationalism, just as it is unethical to involve them in child-acting, child-modeling, and child-beauty pageants. These scenes are psychologically stressful for even the strongest adults. For children, whose characters and tastes are still developing, they can be psychologically crushing. The whole thing smacks of another scarring decision foisted upon children by parents: infant circumcision. In both cases, part of a child—be it only his innocence, his privacy, his childhood—is snipped off and discarded by his parents to consecrate him to their idols.

I do not, however, subscribe to the common view that it is a waste of time to try to pass one’s values on to one’s children because they will only “rebel.” Empirical studies confirm that the single most powerful influence on a child’s values and worldview are those of his parents. Why, then, is the lie that it is futile to teach one’s children values so widely circulated? So that children are delivered to the schools and popular culture as blank slates for politically-correct brainwashing, which has never been deterred by the argument that it is futile and will only lead to rebellion.

* * *

The model White Nationalist is a person whose convictions are founded on reason and reality and who has the strength of character to stand up for the truth and work for the salvation of our race despite social and economic pressures, threats of torture and imprisonment, and even a martyr’s or a warrior’s death. This is a heroic ideal, by which we can measure ourselves and which we can strive to emulate. The great problem of our movement is to find or form men who put truth before opinion and death before dishonor—men who are hard enough to shatter this system, not weaklings who will crawl through the mud before its idols to protect their credit ratings.

________________________________________________
Comments

D. Whitman Posted July 23, 2013 at 10:44 pm
” The great problem of our movement is to find or form men who put truth before opinion and death before dishonor—men who are hard enough to shatter this system, not weaklings who will crawl through the mud before its idols to protect their credit ratings.” (Greg Johnson)

Yes, I agree. We need people who are so committed to the survival and amelioration of White humans that they’ll accept any hardship (including death) that the anti-White system will throw at them. We need people like the early Christians who celebrate being persecuted for their faith. The thing is, this kind of dedication comes from more than just “reason” or “reality.” Our folks need to feel as if they’re on a mission allotted to them by the creator of the Universe. We need artists, orators, and heroes to inspire these feelings in the folk.
I believe that the people who can best take part in open activism at this point are people without families. When I say “families” I’m talking about a spouse and kids. A supportive spouse would be nice, but once you have kids relying on you it becomes difficult and even dangerous for the kids.
Being a BUGSter I believe a message is the main tool at this point. I’d like to see some very talented, eclectic and artistic people being paid full-time to convey our message (using Art, street theater, oratory. etc).
Money would sure help a lot. A Stop White Genocide foundation would pay people who think of creative and effective ways of conveying the message. If someone has an idea, they present the idea to the foundation, and the foundation would provide grants to carry out the idea if it sounds viable.
One thing about the message. We must point out White genocide, but then we must also provide a vision for a better future. We need films that depict a future White community. It needs to show how people live, how they work, the beauty of the people and the aesthetical qualities of the community. Show this community exploring space and solving problems, free of political correctness, identity politics, white guilt, and the Talmudic filth that comes out of Hollywood.
We need people with true spirit who see fighting the anti-White system as an adventure. Those who are effective at it will be the heroes of future generations. Although I never liked the term, we need people who are “against time” (I never liked it because it sounds reactionary and fearful of change) ; unconcerned with anything except the mission of smashing the anti-White system, and implementing the conditions that will allow White-kind to reach our true potential in the Universe.

Zac Van Thustra Posted July 24, 2013 at 3:55 am
This site averages roughly 80 k unique visitors a month. I am completely broke and I have just given $100. If 1/8 of us gave $100 a year Greg would have about a million a year to work with. Even if you can’t afford it, give it anyway. It matters. He’ll do good with your money. Go without a coffee, one day a week, for the greater good.

Greg Johnson Posted July 24, 2013 at 4:27 pm
Thank you for that. It means a lot.

reiner arischer Tor Posted July 24, 2013 at 6:16 am
a man who has conquered the fear of death has conquered all lesser fears
I’m afraid that’s not entirely true. I know that there are (presumably brave) WNist soldiers or ex-soldiers who nevertheless keep their views secret. They obviously could conquer their fear of death, but not of social death and/or loss of a job and hardship for their family.
Personal death is far from being the worst fate for most people, if it is honourable. What is worse is being not honoured and being ostracised, and unfortunately the system can give you exactly that.

Greg Johnson Posted July 24, 2013 at 6:00 pm
My point is that if you conquer the fear of death, you conquer all lesser fears. I did not deny that there are greater fears, which is your point.

Jaego Posted July 24, 2013 at 6:22 pm
Yes there was a great article in the old Gnosis magazine about that once. The author, a military man and martial artist, said he knew many tough men who couldn’t speak in public. And even physical courage subdivides: he knew wilderness rescue guys of great courage who had trouble facing another man in a fight because of the psychological aspect. So perhaps it is a social fear again. Perhaps such men could be fine soldiers but just couldn’t bear the pressure of facing another man one on one.

Matt Parrott Posted July 24, 2013 at 6:48 am
“The world may be explained in sociological terms. David Riesman describes three basic social personalities in The Lonely Crowd. ‘Other-directed’ people pattern their behavior on what their peers expect of them. Suburban America’s men in gray-flannel suits are other-directed. ‘Inner-directed’ people are guided by what they have been trained to expect of themselves. [General Douglas] MacArthur was inner-directed. The third type, the ‘tradition-directed,’ has not been seen in the West since the Middle Ages. Tradition-directed people hardly think of themselves as individuals; their conduct is determined by folk rituals handed down from the past.” – American Caesar, by William Manchester, p. 537.

We inner-directed men often fail to understand other-directed men when they’re speaking. Derek’s renunciation was clearly boiler-plate because that’s all ideology ever is and can be for the other-directed man. The ideology is as arbitrary and disposable as a hat, one to be disposed of when it becomes an impediment to the lodestar of worldly status and behavioral reinforcement.
Typically, other-directed men wouldn’t have ended up in his situation in the first place. They just go along with the milieu. This one had the unfortunate biographical conundrum of beginning life in a current rolling rapidly one way, then ended up in a current rolling rapidly the other. I still don’t get how people are upset about Derek not merely “lying low”. You can’t merely lie low in that context, as the antis don’t allow for that. The loud clanging denunciation was the path of least resistance.
As Greg suggests, you absolutely ought to do everything you can to reach your kids. But you mustn’t attempt to prop them up as leaders. The best a parent can do is surround them with the tools a leader would benefit from and hope he stands on his own strength. As frustrating as it can be for an ambitious parent with big dreams for their children, the overwhelming majority of people aren’t cut out for leadership.

Greg Johnson Posted July 24, 2013 at 5:53 pm
Matt, when Riesman was taught to me, the professor neglected the third term: the tradition-directed person. I think a fourth term is reality-directed. Both tradition and reality are bigger than the self and wiser — richer, more reality- and value-laden — than the present-day “crowd” from which other-directed people take their bearings. Ideally, tradition is a way that ideas, values, and institutions that accord with reality are brought down to us. So it really boils down to being reality directed or opinion directed. I think, however, that inner-directed people have a better chance of getting in touch with reality than other-directed people in an age in which society has become corrupted, uprooted from reality, and is speeding into the abyss.

Jaego Posted July 24, 2013 at 6:26 pm
I never studied him. Would reality-directed correspond to Kohlberg’s post conventional morality?

John Morgan Posted July 24, 2013 at 8:45 am
Thanks for this, Greg, although I must admit I had never heard of Derek Black before reading this.

Peter Quint Posted July 24, 2013 at 9:50 am
My highest ideal is “the survival and ascension of the white race.” My golden rule “is this good for my people?” My mantra is:
My race is my religion! My race is my nation! My skin is my uniform!
I will never quit! Long live the white race!
These axioms are the foundation for my intellectual and philosophical outlook on life. I am also a Pantheist i.e., I believe white men and women can evolve into gods through reincarnation and continuous upward striving. This has always been my belief, long before I could articulate it. Pantheism is the natural religion of the white man, perhaps I will do an article on it someday.

Greg Johnson Posted July 24, 2013 at 5:46 pm
Well said. We all need to work on boiling things down like that.
I would be interested in your pantheism piece.

Donald E. Pauly Posted July 24, 2013 at 11:12 am
This is the closest thing that I have seen to a White Nationalist’s Catechism. It should be expanded and focused for exactly that purpose. Many good points were made about not involving your children publicly in White Nationalism. It is a good point, about its similarity to involving children in acting, modeling and beauty pageants.
We should respect those who have real jobs and cannot come out without losing those jobs. Some of us can be public because we are blessed to be self employed. The article correctly points out that kissing the Poverty Pimps ass after you have been outed merely makes matters worse.

Andrew Posted July 24, 2013 at 6:44 pm
This was a great article, and I agree with just about everything, however:

“There are two basic kinds of beliefs: those you think are true based on reality and reason vs. those you think are true based on other people’s opinions.”

When it comes to the “big subjects” such as philosophy, the meaning & purpose of life, and so forth (White Nationalism included), there is a great deal of emotion involved in formulating beliefs. In the case of the author, WN is associated with conserving his ethnicity and culture which he (and I) believe is good, beautiful and valuable. However, the perception of what is beautiful and good are value judgements, based on emotion. Many people have a very different perception about the author’s ethnicity and culture, and would celebrate their demise. Their reality is not his reality. I would hazard a guess that only a small minority of the world’s population would agree with the author on the ideals of beauty and culture or on the importance of conserving the European genepool. Their perceptions and opinions are quite different from his, and their reality is very different from his reality.
My purpose is not to question the author’s values, and I share them. But, I would like to propose a different model of how beliefs are formed and held. We have an analytical, reasoning part of our mind, part of our consciousness, and also a deeper, feeling mind, which is part of our subconscious. Our beliefs and habits are written onto that subconscious part similarly to computer programs, and we rarely question them. They run in the background just like the software on your computer. When we encounter new ideas or information, our analytical faculty compares that to what is already stored. If the new idea is compatible, we store it and it reinforces our previous beliefs. If incompatible, we reject it, and store it as an anomaly. During our early years (especially to age 8 or so), we are blank slates, and absorb our parents and teachers’ beliefs without analysis, as our analytical faculty is unformed yet. Later, as that faculty develops, we will question new ideas more, but will always be profoundly influenced by our previous teachings and learnings. If we continue to experience ideas that are incompatible with our current beliefs, we may experience a crisis, and be forced to reevaluate deeply held beliefs, although it is uncommon to experience a complete reorganization of them (the great majority rarely question their mental software programs).
Ultimately, my point is that beliefs are usually tied to a strong emotional component, and are held subconsciously. It would be mistaken to assume that logic, reason and reality are always significantly involved in formulating our belief systems.
In regard to the case of Derek Black, whether it is a case of preacher-son-rebellion or a desire for solace from being a hounded pariah at school, I don’t think the loss of an unremarkable college student really makes any difference to this movement.

Greg Johnson Posted July 24, 2013 at 7:13 pm
I don’t think that value judgments are based on emotion. I also don’t believe in the blank slate model of the mind.
I agree that most people do not form their beliefs rationally, since reason emerges rather late in our cognitive development. But mental maturity really does require a stage of re-evaluating our beliefs, which are largely held for irrational reasons, and seeing if they are based on reality.
1. Most people do “the right thing” because of rewards and punishments. Moral maturity is doing the right thing because one thinks it is right, regardless of the consequences.
2. Most people think that things are true because other people think they are true. With unimportant matters, this is fine. But with important things, we need to make sure that our beliefs are well-grounded, and if the rest of the world is wrong about the most important things, then moral and mental maturity requires that we go against the crowd.
It is hard, but it must be done.
I don’t think that Derek Black is important in himself, but he provides an occasion to discuss important issues. It should go without saying that I wish him and his family well.

Andrew Posted July 25, 2013 at 3:11 am
“I don’t think that value judgments are based on emotion.”

From my perspective, emotion is a natural and legitimate experience, it is part of normal functioning and is not weakness or negative. When I connect with my values, I get a strong emotion. When the American flag waves and the anthem is played, I feel love of country and start to tear up (even though I dont want to feel allegiance to this political entity any more). Blonde babies make me feel happy inside. When it comes to the things we cherish and hold dear, there is little or no analytical or critical thought involved for most people. From my experience, values are pretty much all feeling-based (feelings are an essential part of our makeup and survivability).

“I also don’t believe in the blank slate model of the mind.”

A blank slate is an oversimplification, and people are born with many predispositions, predilictions and so forth. But, when it comes to beliefs and values, we have a high level of malleability. If Derek Black had been born in a cannibal tribe, he would have been an enthusiastic carnivore of human flesh, and his reality would include a genuine belief in the volcano god and other mythology of his tribe. If he had been born in his ancestral Ireland (he has red hair), he would have an enthusiastic belief in Druidism and Celtic myth, and it would be normal to regularly spike his hair and go into battle in the nude. In both cases, his language, customs and belief systems would be very different from that of our modern-day Derek Black, and he would see the world through very different eyes.

“But mental maturity really does require a stage of re-evaluating our beliefs, which are largely held for irrational reasons, and seeing if they are based on reality.”

I think that it was not nature’s plan for this process to be necessary. An ideal, adaptive society bestows its people with adaptive beliefs that do not need to be questioned. And for almost all of human existence, the values, traditions and culture people have been raised with have been functional and adaptive, designed to facilitate survival. Those values and beliefs were handed down from generation to generation, without need to question them. Occaisonally there would be the eccentric Socrates, but for 99% of the population the stories, myths and values were accepted unquestioningly, and the tribe flourished accordingly (in an adaptive society, critique is not tolerated very far). I don’t think that re-evaluating our deepest beliefs is a normal process (it shouldn’t have to be), although in a horribly maladaptive society like ours this is unfortunately necessary.

Armor Posted July 25, 2013 at 5:53 pm
Andrew: “the perception of what is beautiful and good are value judgements”

The WN point of view is based on common sense, while the dominant Jewish discourse is transparent nonsense. Everyone knows that diversity, meaning having Blacks living across the street, is a calamity, not a “strength” or an “enrichment”. White people who laud “diversity” try to live in White neighborhoods. It means that they they do not have different values than White Nationalists. They are simply reciting their Jewishly correct lesson. Every goal we have in life is made more difficult by the race replacement crisis. It is true whether we want to get richer, give our children a better education, protect nature, fight street crime, restore probity in public life, improve the country’s economy, and so on. Supporting race replacement doesn’t make sense at all.

WWWM Posted July 24, 2013 at 9:23 pm
Strength and Honor,
Courage and Conviction,
Imperium!

Jef Costello Posted July 24, 2013 at 11:23 pm
Maybe Derek just couldn’t (squish squish) live with the hate anymore (squish squish)…..

Celine's Idea Posted July 25, 2013 at 4:30 am
I think that it is irresponsible to ask the few noble white folk still around to sacrifice themselves for the good of what is now a deracinated white bourgeoisie, who, as a majority, given the opportunity, would feed those of us who espouse WN ideas to the wolves. At this time, the idea of fighting for the ‘white race’ is kind of silly, seeing as how almost 90% of Congress is white, more than 80% of American professors are white and over 90% of the population who makes more than 100,000 a year are white.
Are we really victims? Or have we (or at least successful whites) been handsomely rewarded for our compliance?
Do you hear so much as a peep of rebellion from Congress, academia, or the wealthy whites who have the stature, stage, and security that the average white lacks to make his opinion heard?
To ask any noble person to publicly stand up for ‘white interests’ at this point in time, when the great majority would rather put their heads in the sand and conform, makes little sense. The people a WN thinks he is fighting for don’t even exist in America. Mr. Johnson, if you want to make a purely genetic argument about saving white genes, I would buy that, but these ‘people’, as in modern whites, are not ‘our people’ for a variety of reasons.
Going public with your WN ID isn’t noble, it’s stupid.

Greg Johnson Posted July 25, 2013 at 5:23 pm
White Nationalism is about saving our race and establishing a just social and political order that makes racial integrity and racial progress the central values. We having nothing to do with the political parties that guard the private interests of our ruling elites. We are fighting against those whites, not for them. The whites who profited handsomely from dismantling the American economy and white civilization in America will not be allowed to keep their gains. Instead, those will go to capitalize new industries within the White Republic. The miseducators will not be allowed access to people’s minds. System politicians will not be allowed to pop up and say, “I’ll lead you!” There needs to be a clean break, a thorough and just purge that sorts through people in the present leadership and determines levels of culpability and appropriate consequences. The only traces of these elites that will remain in a future White Republic are (1) the genes of some of their descendants, (2) the WN converts and secret agents in their ranks, and (3) those who were bystanders or whose guilt is minor and who can be re-educated.

Lew Posted July 26, 2013 at 12:59 am
The powerful use ALL of their power to ensure WNism doesn’t get a fair hearing. Why? Among other reasons, they know that many whites would choose it. All? No. Of course not. But many would. Many white people are with us. They just can’t express it, or they don’t know that we exist. They’re busy trying to survive.

As for your complaint about the prevalence of deracination and the bourgeois outlook, who says the situation can’t be reversed? Mass deracination has already happened. So what? It’s unfortunate, but there is no going back. It’s done. We deal with it. It can be reversed. History shows quite clearly that it is possible for whole populations to transition from living under one set of values to other completely different values.

The goal of WNism as I understand it isn’t to save white folks, then preserve the current state of affairs forever in amber. Long term, of course the goals would include making and encouraging improvements on a cultural level and in other spheres of life. Physical survival must come first. This and the next few generations of white folks have it in their power to secure survival, hold territory and transmit the lessons of our time into the future so that future generations don’t repeat the same mistakes. Potentially, it’s a major contribution to the history of our people, helping them out of this morass and spiritual crisis until future Newtons and Mozarts come forward.

Jaego Posted July 25, 2013 at 4:49 am
In certain kinds of men, both of varying type and level, the Higher Mind from which come Values, is unable to communicate directly with the conscious mind. So it will stimulate emotions, dreams, or even physical sensations. The Man must learn to analyze these and realize what they mean and from whence they come.

The ordinary or mass man gets his values from others. We must accept this. White Nationalism will not change it. But that’s not to say the average man has no nature, just that he cannot articulate it for himself or his culture. For that he depends on Higher Men – ideally of his own Race and Nation. Pierce said I believe that if we had six months of being in charge of the media, we could have our former opponents sincerely mouthing our slogans.

Simon Lote Posted July 27, 2013 at 9:40 am
The Derek Black episode merely reinforces my belief of the need for the creation of intentional white communities where pro-white views are considered the norm. This is the case especially for the children of pro-whites who feel so much pressure to reject their parents’ values in order to conform to their peer group.

_____________________________________
.
 
Old July 28th, 2013 #6
Tintin
∞ 𐌙 λ
 
Tintin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 7,497
Default

Jean,

Without reading the entire article you posed, do you really think this is the appropriate thread for it? Do you really think it will serve the purpose of introducing VNNF visitors to Fichte thinking?
__________________
Quote:
"I die in the faith of my people. May the German people be aware of its enemies!"
Paul Blobel, SS Officer, 1951, last words prior to being executed
 
Old July 28th, 2013 #7
Jean West
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 476
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tintin View Post
Jean,
Without reading the entire article you posed, do you really think this is the appropriate thread for it? Do you really think it will serve the purpose of introducing VNNF visitors to Fichte thinking?
I thought the "and more" in Alex's sticky title made room for this article.

It's not always easy to find exactly the right place to put things, at least not for me, and I always try to add what I post to what already exists, rather than starting a new thread.

I hope that Alex or a moderator will look at it and, if it's poorly placed, recommend a different location for me to post it.
.
 
Old July 28th, 2013 #8
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

In particular, everyone has to respect the anonymity of fellow White Nationalists. Anyone who “outs” fellow White Nationalists to expose them to harm from the system should suffer the social death of shunning. Similarly, any White Nationalist who through lax security measures allows personal information about White Nationalists to fall into the hands of “anti-fa” hackers, or movement kooks with track records of “outing” people, should suffer social death as well.

Greg Johnson has released lists of his own conference attendees, whether on purpose or inadvertently. By his own petard...
 
Old July 28th, 2013 #9
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jean West View Post
I thought the "and more" in Alex's sticky title made room for this article.

It's not always easy to find exactly the right place to put things, at least not for me, and I always try to add what I post to what already exists, rather than starting a new thread.

I hope that Alex or a moderator will look at it and, if it's poorly placed, recommend a different location for me to post it.
.
It's fine here. Redundancy is not a problem on the Internet. I've devised a structure, it's meant to be interlocking and reinforcing - terms, arguments, frames. Redundancy aids. Never be shy about posting the same thing in multiple places - I've done it 1,000x. There can be things that are wrongly place, but that's rare, and I'll clean it up if need be.
 
Old July 28th, 2013 #10
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

I agree with what Johnson wrote, though it's basically just stuff that's obvious.

A couple points, though. Calling yourself a white nationalist is only necessary if pressued. Calling yourself anything doesn't help much. Labels are for enemies. You want people to listen to what you're saying, not discard you up top for your label. Second, as for talking about saving the white race, that's not precisely wrong, but it's the wrong way to present our case most times. We are showing people a better alternative. Contrast what we offer with the genocide the jews have for us. Contrary to what Johnson and Duke and others have claimed, focusing on the positive and "love" rather than on the threat, danger and awfulness of the enemy is the wrong way to go. Ultimately they are two sides of the same coin, but to discard hatred of the enemy, or claim it's not as powerful a motivator as love of one's people is wrong. Go watch the show at Walmart during working hours, and then tell me how much you love white people. You don't have to love something to respect it, like it, want to defend it, see that the environment it creates is preferable to other environments.

In any case, people will only follow leaders. The pandering-democratic form of WN that seems to be the only thing the MacDonalds and other implicit conservatives understand (see A3P, or whatever it goes by now) cannot work.
 
Old July 28th, 2013 #11
Jean West
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 476
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
In particular, everyone has to respect the anonymity of fellow White Nationalists. Anyone who “outs” fellow White Nationalists to expose them to harm from the system should suffer the social death of shunning. Similarly, any White Nationalist who through lax security measures allows personal information about White Nationalists to fall into the hands of “anti-fa” hackers, or movement kooks with track records of “outing” people, should suffer social death as well.

Greg Johnson has released lists of his own conference attendees, whether on purpose or inadvertently. By his own petard...
I'm not sure what to do with this. You have inside information that others reading the article do not have. Does your inside information, even if true, render the article useless or unacceptable? If so, remove it.

I'm afraid that if the contributions of all the hypocrites in the world were to be erased, there would be little left. I don't say that to excuse or overlook, but as a simple statement of aggravating fact. And all of the victims of hypocrisy will say, yes, but this case is crucial, whereas other cases are not.

By all mean, remove it, if you like.
.
 
Old July 28th, 2013 #12
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jean West View Post
I'm not sure what to do with this. You have inside information that others reading the article do not have. Does your inside information, even if true, render the article useless or unacceptable? If so, remove it.
No, like I said, I mostly agree with what he says. His points are fine. Yes, I happen to know, from sources I won't reveal, the fact I mentioned. That doesn't mean his principle is wrong. It means he doesn't apply it to himself, just others.

Quote:
I'm afraid that if the contributions of all the hypocrites in the world were to be erased, there would be little left. I don't say that to excuse or overlook, but as a simple statement of aggravating fact. And all of the victims of hypocrisy will say, yes, but this case is crucial, whereas other cases are not.
Of course. But as we know, Johnson's not up front about his own activities, or, should we say, proclivities, so it's up to others to point them out.

One last point, which I forgot to make last post. Johnson's big on not outing WN, and letting them choose their level of comfort and involvement. Well, ok, Greggy. But this is 1) perilously close to the mentality that we can win and still be safe - that we can win without risking anything. Which is not the case. And of course it's never stated like that, because it sounds absurd. But that message is undeniably the implicit logic in Johnson's approach. He's, as always in these later years, trying to have things both ways - spend a thousand words lauding courage, then turn around and say, in effect, people should choose their level of cowardice, and never be made to feel pressured or less than good about it. You know what? The enemy can supply plenty of reasons for whites to choose cowardice. We need to be supply reasons for them to choose courage. At best, anonymity is necessary. It certainly isn't good. I mean, if our cause is as vital as he says.

The other thing is, he ignores that this street runs both ways. In practice, WN outing WN (as opposed to enemies outing us) is far less a problem than anonymous WN using their anonymity to attack the characters of other WN, anonymous or open. THAT problem, which is huge and ongoing, Johnson doesn't even mention. VNN is the only place where you are free to speak your mind BUT you are held to account for serious lies. Either you back up your claims with facts, or you are banned. Johnson can't meet that standard, as he disallows legitimate criticism from WN, and accepts only praise or niggling demurrals. Johnson is an implicit conservative, regardless what he calls himself. He's trying to be a Nazi...while demanding he not be called a Nazi...and publicly stating he and his won't fight. Yes, won't fight. Johnson, I am disappoint...to see you devolve into an ecru mealworm.

Last edited by Alex Linder; July 28th, 2013 at 12:51 PM.
 
Old July 28th, 2013 #13
Greg Johnson
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 138
Default

There was an occasion when I sent an email to the people registered for an event I had organized, and I put the email list in the CC rather than BCC line, meaning that the people who attended the gathering received the email addresses of the other people who attended the gathering.

Using the tools that the Jews taught him in journalism school, Linder twists this into the unqualified releasing the identities of conference attendees, when (1) the only recipients were fellow attendees, to whom the attendees people were exposing themselves anyway, and (2) many of the addresses bore no clear connection to the real identites of the recipients.

But I did apologize for it, because it was a clumsy mistake (literal clumsiness in using one of those laptop touch pads), and I was, in effect, forcing people outside their comfort zone, albeit in a very narrow sense. If that is too scary for any of you, by all means, shun me. No, really. I insist. There are not enough degrees of separation between me and certain segments of the movement.

Nobody who read my article with unjaundiced eyes could conclude that I am unconcered with making WNs more courageous and explicit. What I reject is forcing them, as opposed to persuading and exhorting and shaming and encouraging them.

Nobody could read my essay "Confessions of a Reluctant Hater" with unjaundiced eyes and conclude that I agree with the intellectually dishonest WNs who claim (1) that multi-racialism and multi-culturalism lead inevitably to hatred and conflict, but (2) they don't hate anyone.

That said, I do not wish to deter the continued panning of my work by genocide enthusiasts, slavery apologists, and the like.
 
Old July 28th, 2013 #14
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Johnson View Post
There was an occasion when I sent an email to the people registered for an event I had organized, and I put the email list in the CC rather than BCC line, meaning that the people who attended the gathering received the email addresses of the other people who attended the gathering.
Maybe you should be a little more careful, Doctor Johnson. People can be hurt by your inadvertent copyings. And your advertent poo-stabbings 'n' gloo-shlookins.

Quote:
Using the tools that the Jews taught him in journalism school, Linder
Li'l problem there, back-pokey: Linder didn't go to journalism school. Nor did he major in journalism. But you keep making it up as you go along there, sparky.

Journalism is a craft, McSplooge. It takes about six weeks to learn. It's not a thing that is hard to do, it's a think that is hard to do well. And hell, I'm not much of a journalist anyway, never gave a damn about 'news,' since very, very little is new. I'm an analyst. Just like you. Except, you know, I don't make up facts.



Quote:
twists this into the unqualified releasing the identities of conference attendees, when (1) the only recipients were fellow attendees, to whom the attendees people were exposing themselves anyway, and (2) many of the addresses bore no clear connection to the real identites of the recipients.

But I did apologize for it, because it was a clumsy mistake (literal clumsiness in using one of those laptop touch pads), and I was, in effect, forcing people outside their comfort zone, albeit in a very narrow sense. If that is too scary for any of you, by all means, shun me. No, really. I insist. There are not enough degrees of separation between me and certain segments of the movement.
Dumbass. For so many reasons...

Shun you? What's that country song, I can't miss you till you're gone.

Thanks for showing up for some breastbeating and facts-that-aint, doc. You're a real summer treat. Just like ice cream.

Quote:
Nobody who read my article with unjaundiced eyes could conclude that I am unconcered with making WNs more courageous and explicit. What I reject is forcing them, as opposed to persuading and exhorting and shaming and encouraging them.

Nobody could read my essay "Confessions of a Reluctant Hater" with unjaundiced eyes and conclude that I agree with the intellectually dishonest WNs who claim (1) that multi-racialism and multi-culturalism lead inevitably to hatred and conflict, but (2) they don't hate anyone.
Well, you're wrong. They do lead to conflict, every time. Whether there's hate or not, there's conflict of interests. No territory is multicultural by choice. Always it's forced on people. That doesn't mean it's always active war, but that potential is never too far below the surface. See, sparky, I did graduate and do have a degree in international relations.

Quote:
That said, I do not wish to deter the continued panning of my work by genocide enthusiasts, slavery apologists, and the like.
Oh, don't worry, your likes have nothing to do with it. Every time you write, doc, I'll be there to grade your paper with a big ol' juicy red pen. I really think you'll find my comments delicious to suck on. A big dose of vitamin AL may be just the thing to cure you of your wacky ideas and, uh, feminine rickets.

Last edited by Alex Linder; July 28th, 2013 at 03:23 PM.
 
Old July 28th, 2013 #15
Jean West
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 476
Default

Alex, I think you are aware of my thoughts about Greg and Counter-Currents; I've expressed them openly on several occasions. But that has not precluded my seeing the merit in some of his and other C-C writers' articles and thinking them worth posting here. They're obviously not welcome.

My own opinion is that the quality of this article far surpasses the quality of anything that's appeared in this week's two very popular "anti-feminist" threads: loads of thumbs up for the crudest contributors; my thumb box has been filled with red for days.

Arguments Against Feminism and Immaturity: 30-year old woman both provided opportunity for hateful, juvenile anti-female scum-talk to be vented with no limits. Tintin especially enjoyed the second of the two; he contributed a dozen foul-mouthed remarks not worth anyone's while to read.

I think that had more to do with his criticizing my posting this article here than concern that it did not contribute to visitors' understanding of Fichte. If that was his concern, then why has he only contributed one post of his own to this Fichte thread? In fact, unless I didn't look hard enough, I see at most only one other post from Tintin in the whole Politics & Philosophy forum.

I'm sorry that this ugly Linder-Johnson exchange happened. I should have ignored Tintin's disingenuous criticism. Not doing so brought more trouble than it was worth
..
 
Old July 28th, 2013 #16
George Witzgall
Senior Member
 
George Witzgall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,645
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jean West View Post
Alex, I think you are aware of my thoughts about Greg and Counter-Currents; I've expressed them openly on several occasions. But that has not precluded my seeing the merit in some of his and other C-C writers' articles and thinking them worth posting here. They're obviously not welcome.

My own opinion is that the quality of this article far surpasses the quality of anything that's appeared in this week's two very popular "anti-feminist" threads: loads of thumbs up for the crudest contributors; my thumb box has been filled with red for days.

Arguments Against Feminism and Immaturity: 30-year old woman both provided opportunity for hateful, juvenile anti-female scum-talk to be vented with no limits. Tintin especially enjoyed the second of the two; he contributed a dozen foul-mouthed remarks not worth anyone's while to read.

I think that had more to do with his criticizing my posting this article here than concern that it did not contribute to visitors' understanding of Fichte. If that was his concern, then why has he only contributed one post of his own to this Fichte thread? In fact, unless I didn't look hard enough, I see at most only one other post from Tintin in the whole Politics & Philosophy forum.

I'm sorry that this ugly Linder-Johnson exchange happened. I should have ignored Tintin's disingenuous criticism. Not doing so brought more trouble than it was worth
..
Not your fault, they kinda have a love-hate thing going on. It's good for them to release the tension every year or two.
__________________
Blood & Soul Aryan
 
Old July 28th, 2013 #17
M.N. Dalvez
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,110
Default

Quote:
My own opinion is that the quality of this article far surpasses the quality of anything that's appeared in this week's two very popular "anti-feminist" threads: loads of thumbs up for the crudest contributors; my thumb box has been filled with red for days.

Arguments Against Feminism and Immaturity: 30-year old woman both provided opportunity for hateful, juvenile anti-female scum-talk to be vented with no limits. Tintin especially enjoyed the second of the two; he contributed a dozen foul-mouthed remarks not worth anyone's while to read.
It's not a bad article ... it's full of self-contradiction, though, which means it's also not a good article.

But oh my god! People are saying mean things to each other on the Internet! And ... and ... leaving me virtual thumbs down (not me, I should point out) for my posts here!

It's all too much for me!!!

Is this really the level of emotional fragility nowadays? I've seen jellyfish with more backbone, and they're invertebrates.
 
Old July 29th, 2013 #18
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jean West View Post
Alex, I think you are aware of my thoughts about Greg and Counter-Currents; I've expressed them openly on several occasions. But that has not precluded my seeing the merit in some of his and other C-C writers' articles and thinking them worth posting here. They're obviously not welcome.

My own opinion is that the quality of this article far surpasses the quality of anything that's appeared in this week's two very popular "anti-feminist" threads: loads of thumbs up for the crudest contributors; my thumb box has been filled with red for days.

Arguments Against Feminism and Immaturity: 30-year old woman both provided opportunity for hateful, juvenile anti-female scum-talk to be vented with no limits. Tintin especially enjoyed the second of the two; he contributed a dozen foul-mouthed remarks not worth anyone's while to read.

I think that had more to do with his criticizing my posting this article here than concern that it did not contribute to visitors' understanding of Fichte. If that was his concern, then why has he only contributed one post of his own to this Fichte thread? In fact, unless I didn't look hard enough, I see at most only one other post from Tintin in the whole Politics & Philosophy forum.

I'm sorry that this ugly Linder-Johnson exchange happened. I should have ignored Tintin's disingenuous criticism. Not doing so brought more trouble than it was worth
..
Yeah, it's a great article, apart from being too long. And its valid points being obvious. And the most significant stuff being left out. Great article, indeed.
 
Old July 29th, 2013 #19
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jean West View Post
Alex, I think you are aware of my thoughts about Greg and Counter-Currents; I've expressed them openly on several occasions. But that has not precluded my seeing the merit in some of his and other C-C writers' articles and thinking them worth posting here. They're obviously not welcome.

My own opinion is that the quality of this article far surpasses the quality of anything that's appeared in this week's two very popular "anti-feminist" threads: loads of thumbs up for the crudest contributors; my thumb box has been filled with red for days.

Arguments Against Feminism and Immaturity: 30-year old woman both provided opportunity for hateful, juvenile anti-female scum-talk to be vented with no limits. Tintin especially enjoyed the second of the two; he contributed a dozen foul-mouthed remarks not worth anyone's while to read.

I think that had more to do with his criticizing my posting this article here than concern that it did not contribute to visitors' understanding of Fichte. If that was his concern, then why has he only contributed one post of his own to this Fichte thread? In fact, unless I didn't look hard enough, I see at most only one other post from Tintin in the whole Politics & Philosophy forum.

I'm sorry that this ugly Linder-Johnson exchange happened. I should have ignored Tintin's disingenuous criticism. Not doing so brought more trouble than it was worth
..
Would make more sense to compare his article with our thread on Derek Black rejecting white nationalism.
 
Old July 29th, 2013 #20
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jean West View Post
Alex, I think you are aware of my thoughts about Greg and Counter-Currents; I've expressed them openly on several occasions. But that has not precluded my seeing the merit in some of his and other C-C writers' articles and thinking them worth posting here. They're obviously not welcome.
Wrong. They are welcome. I like reading them, and then ripping them apart, if they need it.

I don't even care about Brown Johnson's faggotry, I care that he won't "own" it, as they say nowadays.

Quote:
My own opinion is that the quality of this article far surpasses the quality of anything that's appeared in this week's two very popular "anti-feminist" threads: loads of thumbs up for the crudest contributors; my thumb box has been filled with red for days.
Apples and oranges.

Quote:
Arguments Against Feminism and Immaturity: 30-year old woman both provided opportunity for hateful, juvenile anti-female scum-talk to be vented with no limits. Tintin especially enjoyed the second of the two; he contributed a dozen foul-mouthed remarks not worth anyone's while to read.
On the other hand, those posts did contain 62% of recommended daily allowance of riboflavin, so, if nothing else...

Quote:
I think that had more to do with his criticizing my posting this article here than concern that it did not contribute to visitors' understanding of Fichte. If that was his concern, then why has he only contributed one post of his own to this Fichte thread? In fact, unless I didn't look hard enough, I see at most only one other post from Tintin in the whole Politics & Philosophy forum.
You need to embrace the spirit here. Just do your thing. If people bug you, kick the snot out of them. You're capable. Stop double clutching. Jesus, worrying about whether you posted in the wrong area. Quit doubting yourself and TRUST YOURSELF. You have the brains and ability. Quit quibbling and being paranoid. VNN often resembles a bar fight in an old western. That's part of the fun of it. It's a way that works pretty well, at least for the kind of people we have here.

Quote:
I'm sorry that this ugly Linder-Johnson exchange happened.
No, you're not. You got exactly what you wanted. And I enjoyed the fuck out of it! A chance to blast Brown Johnson! Christ, why do you think I became a writer in the first place? To attack people who need it, whether they're wrong, stupid, or I just don't like the cut of their jib. Own your malevolence! Because you do have some. KEEP posting good stuff you find at CC or even OD. You're one of few doing that now, so it's a good niche. I will respond almost every time, because until Johnson comes clean, he needs to keep getting a boot up his ass.

Don't be like some little kid throwing a scorpion in with a spider and then saying, Oh gee, it's looks like they're gonna fight. This is terrible!

Quote:
I should have ignored Tintin's disingenuous criticism. Not doing so brought more trouble than it was worth
..
The best way is to fight hard, say what you have to say, and then move on. Let your opponent have the last word. Cuz he needs it.

Last edited by Alex Linder; July 29th, 2013 at 09:01 AM.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:54 AM.
Page generated in 0.60803 seconds.