The e-mails I get...

[Amanda44]

Everyone in this thread has double standards and it's so amusing.

That's because there is no such thing as black and white, every single one of us is grey.

Using Painhertz to make your point, when we all know he gets 'angry', is not helping you at all and neither is this:

Disabled Veteran

What, mentally?

If physically... then someone owes society an apology. They clearly didn't finish the job.

Pls ...........................

[painhertz]

On the off chance this is actually the greasy haired hippie that is referenced by the Email i'll run into him eventually at some Game con or other. We'll see how much shit he talks then.

[Yolan]

Modern public debate is heavily informed by a subversive and eclectic blend of Marxism and Psychoanalysis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_school), which from its academic beginnings has petered down and out into the cultural mainlines to become latter day American leftism and progressivism, which in turn dominate the political left throughout the entire extended American Empire. Publicly professing disbelief in the dogmas of this secular religion -- on issues of culture, gender, race and economy -- can easily cost you your job, your union card or simply your sacred honor. I find this ideology insufferable on account of its many internal contradictions. Observe, for example, the absurdity of liberalism endorsing all manner of ethnic nationalisms when such are being displayed by non-white peoples, while at the same time denouncing the same phenomenon as outright sinful when expressed by white peoples. I could make a list, but suffice it to say that the double standards disgust me.

My fucking hero. Couldn't of said it any better myself. I have been disgusted by these double standards for years.

Dude, if Jorb is your hero, you need new bloody heroes. You want to be disgusted at double standards, you could start with the justice system and the way it systematically penalizes you for being of color even when the crime is the same.

From Wikipedia.

"Ethnic nationalism or ethnicism is a form of nationalism wherein the "nation" is defined in terms of ethnicity."

Now, why oh why could it be that expressions of White ethnic nationalism are considered sinful in the modern world? Thinking... thinking... oh right, because it led to Europe tearing itself apart in an orgy of murder and death and despair.

Ethnic nationalisms have a tendency of leading in that direction, and not just when its white people doing it. I.E. see Japan. (http://thisjapaneselife.org/2011/07/27/ ... an-norway/)

I've been feeling uneasy and suspicious about the vibe around here for a while, but I guess this kind of puts it in the open. Jorb seems to think (correct me if I'm wrong) that modern liberal thinking, informed as it is by all that marxism and psychology, is 'subversive'. Subversive of what? He doesn't go out and say it, but perhaps he means something like the cultural strength and pride of white European nations. They are weakened by an internally contradictory ideology that raises up anything non European as worthy of adoration while playing down that which is European as not worthy of respect or attention. There is a grain of truth in this view I think, but its largely a caricature of liberalism.

The biggest problem is this. If we try and locate the true value of European culture in something like a white 'ethnicity' it misses the whole fucking point. European culture should be treasured and protected, but that culture at its heart has something like an aiming for the universal, for truth and for freedom. This transcends ethnicity. It transcends culture. If somebody gets it in their head that 'everything is relative to culture' (as some liberals do) then yes, that person is an idiot. But unless you are twenty years old your political views should be a little more refined than that.

A movie I think some of you guys should watch... American History X.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXaZENPQrsw

[naosnule]

A movie I think some of you guys should watch... American History X.

What American History X shows is there are people who are not really ideologically convinced, but choose to pretend to have certain beliefs for other reasons.

If a person states that for him a fundamental is the prosperty and homogenity of his ethnic group, then there is no way to argue against it. Because the fundamental statement is not a conclusion, it is the axiom on which he draws conclusions and axioms cannot be shown to be false.

What can be done is to brainwash people into accepting the axioms that you wish them to accept. I.e. they don't start to acquire your axioms because they used rational thought, but because their emotions drove them there; emotions which you've managed to manipulate.

[Procne]

Why isn't this on Salem forum? No giggles for us?

[Yolan]

If a person states that for him a fundamental is the prosperty and homogenity of his ethnic group, then there is no way to argue against it. Because the fundamental statement is not a conclusion, it is the axiom on which he draws conclusions and axioms cannot be shown to be false.

You are misunderstanding what an axiom is here.

The term "axiom" has been abused in many different ways, so it is important to distinguish the proper definition from the others. The other definitions amount to calling any arbitrary postulate an 'axiom'. The famous example of this is Euclidean geometry. Euclid was a Greek mathematician who applied deductive logic to a few postulates, which he called axioms. In this sense, "axiom" was used to mean a postulate which one was sure was true. Later, though, it was shown that his postulates were sometimes false, and so the conclusions he made were equally false. The "axiom" he used was basing his geometry on a two dimensional plane. When his work was applied to the surface of a sphere, though, it broke down. A triangle's three angles add up to 180 degrees on a plane; they do not add up to 180 degrees on the surface of a sphere. The point is that Euclid's "axioms" were actually postulates.

True axioms are more solid than that. They are not statements we merely believe to be true; they are statements that we cannot deny without using them in our denial. Axioms are the foundation of all knowledge. There are only a few axioms that have been identified. These are: Existence Exists, The Law of Identity, and Consciousness.

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/M ... Axiom.html

I can argue with your hypothetical ethnic nationalist because I can inquire into the reasons of their beliefs and talk about those. And they do have reasons. You might tell me that their stance is 'fundamental'. That doesn't mean it appeared out of nowhere and that it is not informed by other beliefs which can be questioned in terms of truth.

[cobaltjones]

Superb insight and contribution by Yolan here.

That Louis CK video was hilarious and spot on.

[Sardte]

On the off chance this is actually the greasy haired hippie that is referenced by the Email i'll run into him eventually at some Game con or other. We'll see how much shit he talks then.

You're just jealous he has hair

[burgingham]

Modern public debate is heavily informed by a subversive and eclectic blend of Marxism and Psychoanalysis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_school), which from its academic beginnings has petered down and out into the cultural mainlines to become latter day American leftism and progressivism, which in turn dominate the political left throughout the entire extended American Empire. Publicly professing disbelief in the dogmas of this secular religion -- on issues of culture, gender, race and economy -- can easily cost you your job, your union card or simply your sacred honor. I find this ideology insufferable on account of its many internal contradictions. Observe, for example, the absurdity of liberalism endorsing all manner of ethnic nationalisms when such are being displayed by non-white peoples, while at the same time denouncing the same phenomenon as outright sinful when expressed by white peoples. I could make a list, but suffice it to say that the double standards disgust me.

Wow, I didn't even read this before. That is a bunch of nonsense if I ever saw one.

There is so much wrong with your statement I don't even know where to begin.

Maybe at the point that the Frankfurt school sadly never influenced American leftism. It would have looked a whole lot different today if that was actually true. In fact there is no actual leftism in America that ever played any political role whatsoever.

Second, one of the very foundations of the actual Frankfurt School's beliefs is the absolute necessity of disagreement. The theory behind this school of thinking is not called "critical theory" by accident. It is the appeal to anyone to question everything, including this very way of thinking itself. How you make an ideology of this that does not allow any ideologies next to it is beyond me. It is the very opposite of that. This entire school of thinking is based only on that one appeal to question everything and then question the questioning. It is a scientific method, not an ideology.

That brings me to the nonsense about it being close to psycho-analysis. I have no idea why that is quoted in the Wikipedia, I can only imagine that there are some minor representatives of this school that followed some psycho-analysts and someone thought it would be clever to put that in the openener of the Wiki entry. Karl Popper strongly opposed Psycho-Analysis (and also Marxism, I will talk about that in a second) and yet his way of creating scientifically legitimate theories derives from the Frankfurt School's critical theory.

As for Marxism, people always forget Marxism and Marxism are really two different theories. Marx was a (very mediocre) economic as well as a (very brilliant) sociologic theorist. The foundation the Frankfurt School is using is purely his sociological analysis. Because in that field Marx still has to be considered to have given one of the most basic foundations sociology needs to be understood correctly. Critics however easily misconstrue this then (on purpose) and try to push the Frankfurt School into the political corner of Marx. While the representatives of the Frankfurt school of course have to be considered as left-wings it is just a propagandistic method to label them as political Marxists. Especially in a wild Gestus to mix up Marxism with Leninism, Stalinism and so on. Because you know that way you can just claim everyone's head that has ever used the word Marxism.

As for your last point. That is something you just pulled out of your magic hat of Frankfurt School insults I guess? As Yolan pointed out your attitude has to almost be considered outright racist as you feel attacked in your domincance as a white male, yes? Frankfurt School theories never attacked white male dominance. They attacked opression through power. In this case white males just happen to be the ones abusing power for centuries now, justifying their claims with arguments like you just did. While I am myself sceptical of forced equality through political programs, funds and the like I have to acknowledge that there is still a huge equality gap between the dominant forces of society and those opressed by the very same forces. The way to change that is not through forced programs, I agree with you there. But it has to be changed through the critical evaluation of the prevalent political and cultural discours.

In your way of shutting down the claim for equality by feeding forward some hurt false pride you supress any form of constructive dialogue to create a fair status quo. Sadly there are people like that on both sides. There are feminists that want to cut off any males' balls, there are ethnic minorities that want to kill all the white men and there are white men like you that want to surpress any legitimate claim for equality by pointing out the other side has partially radicalized and selling that as a universal truth. As long as we boil alltogether in such a filthy pot things are never going to change. That is however most preferable for the ones currently sitting on top.

P.S.: Empirical dasta easily proves the inequality claims btw. No idea how you can just straight out ignore facts? That also goes into Painhertz' direction. Of course there are white males that are poor and without any perspective for life. That does however not override the average status quo in which there are groups that need more help and support than others (Giving support and creating equality on an individual base would be best here of course). Inequality based on ethnical attributes or gender can never be morally justified. Especially liberals like you Jorb should be disgusted by that, yet they always seem to want to further them more...

P.P.S.: I acknowledge btw that there are tendencies where the government funded equality help has gone horribly wrong. In Germany that shows in the latest statistics of grades in highschools and in the immatriculation numbers at universities. There is a female dominance arising here that has nothing in common with fair chances anymore. It is however quite hard to determine wether only funding programs gone wrong are to blame here...or if you might want to adress the parents. In sociological terms it would not be surprising if males were still educated with a certain excercise of influence that lets them strive for dominance (that is btw probably also the reason that so many among you here cannot admit we need equality, they feel like they are going to lose their male pride ) while at the same time females have been educated in a much more pragmatic way which lets them use the offered education as a trampolin to grasp for power. There are studies showing that young male students are more and more showing severe lacks of attention, becoming violent etc. in class. So in this case I would just as well argue for trying to make things equal again in the opposite direction. We do not need dominance from any group, especially not by such arbitrarily chosen criteria as gender or race.

[FearTheAmish]

*snip*

well said