Race War

[xssve]

Not really, these two articles make an implication, the second is fascist in in it's implications of fascism which is causing me some confusion - I just want to hear it articulated in order to better understand where the poster stands, since to me - and believe me, I study this shit, I've been following Tarpley since the Ninties - it's really a chicken or the egg question.

The second article disturbs me particularly, the very perspective it's written from sheds a lot of light on the whole subject. i.e., justification of a fascist response to gays, because they're... fascists.

This is a pretty well defined area of social psychology, social marginalization has fairly well documented consequences in terms of social pathology, it really doesn't matter if you're talking about gays, or race, or any particular caste system, it's the caste system itself that causes the problem - it's all fascism, the rest is cosmetics.

So, quit playing games, show some spine and spit it out.

 

[EnglishMuffin]

Not really, these two articles make an implication, the second is fascist in in it's implications of fascism which is causing me some confusion - I just want to hear it articulated in order to better understand where the poster stands, since to me - and believe me, I study this shit, I've been following Tarpley since the Ninties - it's really a chicken or the egg question.

The second article disturbs me particularly, the very perspective it's written from sheds a lot of light on the whole subject. i.e., justification of a fascist response to gays, because they're... fascists.

This is a pretty well defined area of social psychology, social marginalization has fairly well documented consequences in terms of social pathology, it really doesn't matter if you're talking about gays, or race, or any particular caste system, it's the caste system itself that causes the problem - it's all fascism, the rest is cosmetics.

So, quit playing games, show some spine and spit it out.

for 2000 years, we lived as christians. you call us fascists because we say homosexuals are anti-procriation?

 

[Songcatcher]

for 2000 years, we lived as christians. you call us fascists because we say homosexuals are anti-procriation?

Bingo.

 

[Handley_Page]

dont be naive. the world is up side down.

http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/PnSx/HSx/BlshvkGyPrd.htm

Re:
"By its nature, Christianity is both a patriarchal and hierarchical religious and philosophical world view. Since it teaches that mankind is ‘fallen’ (has a sinful nature which is the source of evil) it requires as a consequence, that moral constraints (social taboos) be placed on man’s sin-nature to encourage him not to act upon sinful urges, which always eventually lead to suffering and evil. The seven great sins are: pride (self-love), envy, wrath, gluttony, lust, sloth, and greed--the source of all man-made social ills and suffering. "


Oh Boy, is she wrong (well, IMO, anyway). In addition to using a very strange version of English (OK, maybe it's American) she's wrong from the first sentence.

It's not Christianity that's the hierarchy, it's the Church. It's in adding to the constraints imposed by the ten commandments, various church leaders have pontificated upon society and it's machinations for centuries.

 

[Songcatcher]

It's not Christianity that's the hierarchy, it's the Church.

Father: Son: Holy Spirit.

The Last Supper

Where are the women, mate?

 

[xssve]

for 2000 years, we lived as christians. you call us fascists because we say homosexuals are anti-procriation?

For a self described Christian, you seem a little too much in this world yourself.

The question is: having decided "something must be done", what do you propose to do about it?

So go get get knocked up, who's stopping you?

 

[Songcatcher]

The question is: having decided "something must be done", what do you propose to do about it?

My stance is this:

If I found out my neighbour was a gay, I'd say, "Oh, really?"

If I found out my brother was a gay, I'd say, "Safe sex, bro."

If I found out my neighbour and my brother are going to gay parade, promoting anti-procreation (suicide), I'd say, "Dudes?!!"

 

[xssve]

Re:
"By its nature, Christianity is both a patriarchal and hierarchical religious and philosophical world view. Since it teaches that mankind is ‘fallen’ (has a sinful nature which is the source of evil) it requires as a consequence, that moral constraints (social taboos) be placed on man’s sin-nature to encourage him not to act upon sinful urges, which always eventually lead to suffering and evil. The seven great sins are: pride (self-love), envy, wrath, gluttony, lust, sloth, and greed--the source of all man-made social ills and suffering. "


Oh Boy, is she wrong (well, IMO, anyway). In addition to using a very strange version of English (OK, maybe it's American) she's wrong from the first sentence.

It's not Christianity that's the hierarchy, it's the Church. It's in adding to the constraints imposed by the ten commandments, various church leaders have pontificated upon society and it's machinations for centuries.

It does, however, reveal the authors worldview quite succinctly.

You are correct about the Church, of course, the Church is an institution, and institutions are inherently hierarchical - in fact, there is a pretty good argument that ecclesiastics are themselves the very heart of the "homosexual conspiracy".

Anyway, the Seven deadly sins are the Christian (Augustinian) version of Buddhist philosophy, essentially, a form of stoicism, i.e., desire leads to suffering, thus to avoid suffering, avoid desire.

Augustine, of course, wrote in the context of the Roman civilization he was embedded in: his epiphany occurred while attending the Circus, where he found himself both attracted and repelled by the unrestrained bloodlust, and essentially, he had more of a problem with violence than with lust, through to be sure, jealousy and covetousness are distinct aspects of sexuality, and often lead to violence.

Calvin seized upon it and twisted it into a more sexual form: Calvin is straight up neo-polygynist Yawehism, and is, in many respects, the polar opposite of Augustine: Calvin justifies passionate violence in way that basically brings the whole question full circle back to the Roman fascination with violent passions that culminated in orgies of unrestrained sadism - it does appear to mark cultures in decline, due to a number of possible synergistic factors: obsession with control, substance abuse, inbreeding, and a general neglect of children, which is associated with a number of antisocial personality disorders, ranging from mild Narcissism to full blown psychopathy, and in some sense, you can associate that with materialistic obsessions: status, etc.

The institutional problem with love vs. hate is that it's fairly easy to think of ways to hate, one can easily act out on hate, it requires no social cooperation: you can hate all by your lonesome, but it's easier to do in groups: to love requires some sort of more friable and less easily definitive interaction - in one sense, hate is active, love, passive, and passivity is considered a feminine attribute, thus, from an institutional viewpoint, hate has much more allure, it's "manlier" and it triggers the centripetal defensive response - the real signifier of the fascist mindset is that they have to have somebody to hate, it really doesn't matter who - when they run out of people to hate, they just start hating on each other - it's pretty much the history of Judeo-Christian religion from a strictly political perspective - overall, it's definitely a mixed bag.

 

[Songcatcher]

It does, however, reveal the authors worldview quite succinctly.

You are correct about the Church, of course, the Church is an institution, and institutions are inherently hierarchical - in fact, there is a pretty good argument that ecclesiastics are themselves the very heart of the "homosexual conspiracy".

Anyway, the Seven deadly sins are the Christian (Augustinian) version of Buddhist philosophy, essentially, a form of stoicism, i.e., desire leads to suffering, thus to avoid suffering, avoid desire.

Augustine, of course, wrote in the context of the Roman civilization he was embedded in: his epiphany occurred while attending the Circus, where he found himself both attracted and repelled by the unrestrained bloodlust, and essentially, he had more of a problem with violence than with lust, through to be sure, jealousy and covetousness are distinct aspects of sexuality, and often lead to violence.

Calvin seized upon it and twisted it into a more sexual form: Calvin is straight up neo-polygynist Yawehism, and is, in many respects, the polar opposite of Augustine: Calvin justifies passionate violence in way that basically brings the whole question full circle back to the Roman fascination with violent passions that culminated in orgies of unrestrained sadism - it does appear to mark cultures in decline, due to a number of possible synergistic factors: obsession with control, substance abuse, inbreeding, and a general neglect of children, which is associated with a number of antisocial personality disorders, ranging from mild Narcissism to full blown psychopathy, and in some sense, you can associate that with materialistic obsessions: status, etc.

The institutional problem with love vs. hate is that it's fairly easy to think of ways to hate, one can easily act out on hate, it requires no social cooperation: you can hate all by your lonesome, but it's easier to do in groups: to love requires some sort of more friable and less easily definitive interaction - in one sense, hate is active, love, passive, and passivity is considered a feminine attribute, thus, from an institutional viewpoint, hate has much more allure, it's "manlier" and it triggers the centripetal defensive response - the real signifier of the fascist mindset is that they have to have somebody to hate, it really doesn't matter who - when they run out of people to hate, they just start hating on each other - it's pretty much the history of Judeo-Christian religion from a strictly political perspective - overall, it's definitely a mixed bag.

Look, mate.

The Sheeple go "Brrr!"

 

[xssve]

Look, mate.

The Sheeple go "Brrr!"

Well you know they're name for you is "the flock".

 

[Songcatcher]

Well you know they're name for you is "the flock".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NreTPHTgzag&feature=player_embedded#!

 

[kamuikamui]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyW23i-X8bs

 

[Songcatcher]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9tIoJBhp18

 

[Boxlicker101]

Well you know they're name for you is "the flock".

Sometimes it's "My flock."

 

[Songcatcher]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHhOq85E7h8&feature=player_embedded

 

[Songcatcher]

Tarpley is talking about the Shanghai Corporation.


You know that, right?

 

[Songcatcher]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-c...ernment-propaganda-on-political-websites.html

 

[Songcatcher]

South Korea says torpedo 'likely' to have sunk naval ship

North Korea denies involvement in sinking that claimed 46 lives in March ahead of publication of full report

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/18/south-north-korea-ship-torpedo



I don't know about you, but I don't see any benefit for N. Korea by sinking a S. Korean ship at this moment in time.

 

[kamuikamui]

South Korea says torpedo 'likely' to have sunk naval ship

North Korea denies involvement in sinking that claimed 46 lives in March ahead of publication of full report

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/18/south-north-korea-ship-torpedo



I don't know about you, but I don't see any benefit for N. Korea by sinking a S. Korean ship at this moment in time.

i agree, song. it makes whole lot of sense if it had been south korean false flag operation.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Songcatcher
South Korea says torpedo 'likely' to have sunk naval ship

North Korea denies involvement in sinking that claimed 46 lives in March ahead of publication of full report

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...a-ship-torpedo

I don't know about you, but I don't see any benefit for N. Korea by sinking a S. Korean ship at this

i agree, song. it makes whole lot of sense if it had been south korean false flag operation.

I don't see any reason either, but "Beloved Leader" is a lunatic who is liable to do anything. Maybe he is trying to foment a war with the South. Or, it could have been a rogue captain of a sub who did the deed. Or it could have been a stray mine.

I think any of those possibilities is more likely than South Korea sinking their own ship and killing 46 of their sailors.

 

[Songcatcher]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Songcatcher
South Korea says torpedo 'likely' to have sunk naval ship

North Korea denies involvement in sinking that claimed 46 lives in March ahead of publication of full report

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...a-ship-torpedo

I don't know about you, but I don't see any benefit for N. Korea by sinking a S. Korean ship at this



I don't see any reason either, but "Beloved Leader" is a lunatic who is liable to do anything. Maybe he is trying to foment a war with the South. Or, it could have been a rogue captain of a sub who did the deed. Or it could have been a stray mine.

I think any of those possibilities is more likely than South Korea sinking their own ship and killing 46 of their sailors.

Friend, when we talk about North and South Korea, we are talking about China, Russia, and Anglo-America.

 

[driphoney]

Friend, when we talk about North and South Korea, we are talking about China, Russia, and Anglo-America.

Do you think Anglo-America (which is usually the current admin, right? The Obama Administration?) are behind this "false flag" operation? Or maybe . . . China and Russia are behind the scenes pressuring N. Korea? Have you considered that? Who do you think has more influence on N. Korea? China? Or Russia?

 

[kamuikamui]

Do you think Anglo-America (which is usually the current admin, right? The Obama Administration?) are behind this "false flag" operation? Or maybe . . . China and Russia are behind the scenes pressuring N. Korea? Have you considered that? Who do you think has more influence on N. Korea? China? Or Russia?

china, at the mo'.

 

[Songcatcher]

I'd say China.

 

[driphoney]

china, at the mo'.

I'd say China.

China's behind the attack, or China's has more control of N. Korea?