Twitter cuts (#122)

The 21st Century is definitely getting its act together.

March 15, 2017admin 16 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Internet

TAGGED WITH : , , ,

16 Responses to this entry

  • Vinny F Says:

    So who wrote it is the question? Or are the names hints? How does this work?

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 15th, 2017 at 4:31 pm Reply | Quote
  • G. Eiríksson Says:

    » Although I threw my TV more than twenty years ago

    I can’t avoid being told constantly about what’s happening

    because it is a permanent effect of discourse that spread on everyone.

    Here we will take a small example.

    Lacan speaks of social bond: therefore social -> socialist.

    We are apparently led by so called socialists

    and at the last Socialist Congress in Poitier

    the socialist debate was condensed on the last day

    between Pigasse and Macron:

    Pigasse is the Lazard bank

    Macron and is the Rothschild bank.

    All under the presidency of Francois Hollande

    Who, to be elected, claimed “the enemy, it’s finance”. »

    https://youtu.be/aUt9udILgPo
    [Published on Jun 16, 2015
    Vingtième séance: “les 4 discours +1 ”
    Christian Dubuis Santini et Patrick Valas]

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 15th, 2017 at 6:32 pm Reply | Quote
  • The Electric Philosopher Says:

    Following on from this recent discussion (http://www.xenosystems.net/the-sad-left/), it is interesting to see the apolitical dimension of cypher-based Exit strategies (not explicitly neocameral though) rearing its head again:

    ‘Cleanly enunciated, without hope, belief or trust (elements which must be kept at a minimum and with maximum discernity), the universal acid of cypherpolitics sees a way in and a way out. How you navigate the system is entirely up to you.’

    I’m going to resist the urge to make the lazy comment about how ideology is at work when we claim we’re not being ideological (which is often little more than a truism, ‘ideology’ simply referring to any belief or theory or set of values). I will, however, repeat my comment from before — these are all strategies a secession-orientated left could employ.

    I’m starting to think that a serious reconsideration of universalism is going to be a key task for the left in the future. Abandoning revolutionary/universalist/absolutist thinking in favour of secessionist/particularist strategy may precisely be what would allow the left to start doing some practical work again. Those are all tendencies one can argue aren’t exactly alien to leftism anyway (continental and Frankfurt suspicion of totalising theories and politics, for instance).

    Whether the left is savvy enough to do this remains to be seen.

    [Reply]

    E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Reply:

    It’s worth noting that capitalism and these forms of “exit as politics” are not right wing in any way, but like all liberal forms of politics / economy are centrist at heart and therefore have a nominal claim to being “apolitical” in the sense of being situated naturally between the polarities of tradition and revolution.

    That being said, they are relatively substanceless and although a useful tool for any intelligent regime are not regimes themselves nor creators of polity or culture. This is another way to affirm what you are saying which is that the left could easily make use of any of this, and certainly its alienating tendency fits well with aspects of universalism wherein men must be interchangeable (how could this be possible if trust relationships existed? Trust relationships are a function of topography and human limitation, which must needs generate particular topographies – even if fluid like the current of an ocean – which are implicitly inequal. Removing trust as a necessity to governance means that all men can be interchangeable and thus their brotherhood can be universal.) and indeed, the fair distribution of goods is much easier when goods are not entangled in other things; certainly the freedom of them to move without restriction allows capital to flow, but since, as I said, capital is not a will or a command, it will go its “own way” which is really just the shadow of whomever is in command. Change the command, magically change the invisible hand.

    If anyone has understood this, at least roughly (it is a complex system after all–) it’s China.

    [Reply]

    Michael Rothblatt Reply:

    Communists are the REAL reactionaries!

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 15th, 2017 at 8:45 pm Reply | Quote
  • collen ryan Says:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/us/politics/budget-epa-state-department-cuts.html?_r=0

    EPA and STATE 31% cut lol

    [Reply]

    brainwashed idiot Reply:

    Once we get the left to say “Democracy is a spoils system and needs to be canceled” we know we’re in business

    [Reply]

    collen ryan Reply:

    one good thing this budget proposal will do is further expose the cuck party. They can no longer blame not having power when they refuse to make the cuts to the leftist anti white machine.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 16th, 2017 at 3:02 am Reply | Quote
  • Goth Eiríksson Says:

    » The continent of Africa is one of the most problematic regions in terms of contemporary slavery. Slavery in Africa has a long history, within Africa since before historical records, but intensifying with the Arab slave trade and again with the trans-Atlantic slave trade; the demand for slaves created an entire series of kingdoms (such as the Ashanti Empire) which existed in a state of perpetual warfare in order to generate the prisoners of war necessary for the lucrative export of slaves. These patterns have persisted into the colonial period during the late 19th and early 20th century. Although the colonial authorities attempted to suppress slavery from about 1900, this had very limited success, and after decolonization, slavery continues in many parts of Africa even though being technically illegal. »

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_contemporary_Africa

    How the Whites get blamed for it, is an amazing Jew magic. It’s even working-class whites who get blamed for it, whose ancestors were serfs or slaves.

    A history of antiracism would be useful to analyze this discourse. Who are the historical actors in the production of the ‘white blaming’ stream of the Cathedral?

    Karl Marx (1818–1883) was a racist. By the later decades of the 19th century there’s an Annie Besant—Socialist & New Ager—who possibly was an “Anti-racist” operative by that time?

    Blavatsky (1831–1891) was very anti-Western. Possibly “Anti-racist” altho she had her own racial theory?

    » At the start of the 20th Century, the work of anthropologists trying to end the paradigms of cultural evolutionism and social Darwinism within social sciences—anthropologists like Franz Boas, Marcel Mauss, Bronisław Malinowski, Pierre Clastres and Claude Lévi-Strauss—began the initiative to the end of racism in human sciences and establish cultural relativism as the new dominant paradigm. » Are these all Jews? I just googled the first two and they are.

    The USGOV was racist still in the early decades of the last century.

    » The Immigration Act of 1924, or Johnson–Reed Act, including the National Origins Act, and Asian Exclusion Act (Pub.L. 68–139, 43 Stat. 153, enacted May 26, 1924), was a United States federal law that limited the annual number of immigrants who could be admitted from any country to 2% of the number of people from that country who were already living in the United States as of the 1890 census, down from the 3% cap set by the Emergency Quota Act of 1921, which used the Census of 1910. The law was primarily aimed at further restricting immigration of Southern Europeans and Eastern Europeans, especially Italians and Eastern European Jews. »

    » In 1911 the First Universal Races Congress met in London, at which distinguished speakers from many countries for four days discussed race problems and ways to improve interracial relations. »

    » Japan first proposed articles dedicated to the elimination of racial discrimination to be added to the rules of the League of Nations. … Japanese in Western nations suffered from racial discrimination issues. In 1919, Japan proposed a racial equality clause at the Paris Peace Conference. Their proposal received the support of a majority but was vetoed by Woodrow Wilson, in violation of the rules of the Conference on majority vote. »

    » Catherine Impey (1847–1923) was a British Quaker activist against racial discrimination. She founded Britain’s first anti-racist journal, Anti-Caste, in March 1888 and edited it until its last edition in 1895. »

    “Anti-racism” was somewhat cogenetic with Abolitionism (late 18th century), anti-Imperialism (late 19th century) and as a response to Eugenics (early 20th century)

    Heck, still in the 1880s public opinion was for imperialism, » German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck repeatedly let it be known that disliked imperialism, but German public opinion forced him to build an empire in Africa and the Pacific in the 1880s. »

    » As a self-conscious political movement, anti-imperialism originated in Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, in opposition to the growing European colonial empires and the US control of the Philippines after 1898. However, it reached its highest level of popular support in the colonies themselves, where it formed the basis for a wide variety of national liberation movements during the mid-20th century and later. These movements, and their anti-imperialist ideas, were instrumental in the decolonization process of the 1950s and 1960s »

    This is all fine and well, because actual like anti-racism to prevent lynching or the breaking of the law is one thing — a good thing — to prevent mindless prejudice or hate, is a good thing : but when and how did it move onto blaming contemporary Whites? I know it mostly started in the 60s but its interesting to look into more obscure roots.

    White-blamism is a type of racism itself. A conspiracy theory. But it has public, academic, media, governmental and corporate support by now. (((Who))) could turn things around so cleverly?

    [Reply]

    Goth Eiríksson Reply:

    Not that I’d blame all Jews for anything either.

    Anyway,

    » British anti-imperialism emerged in the 1890s, especially in the Liberal Party. For over a century, back to the days of Adam Smith, a few intellectuals had been hostile to imperialism is a violation of the principles of free trade; they never formed a popular movement, and indeed imperialism seems to have been generally popular before the 1890s. »

    » In the late 1870s, the term Imperialism was introduced to the English language by opponents of the aggressively imperial policies of British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli (1874–80). It was shortly appropriated by supporters of “imperialism” such as Joseph Chamberlain. For some, imperialism designated a policy of idealism and philanthropy; others alleged that it was characterized by political self-interest, and a growing number associated it with capitalist greed. John A. Hobson (1858–1940) and Lenin (1870–1924) added a more theoretical macroeconomic connotation to the term. »

    All of the above quotes (including the previous comment) are from Wikipedia, and voila it has a meager article on Anti-Western “sentiment”.

    » Anti-Western sentiment refers to broad opposition or hostility to the people, culture, or policies of the Western World. In many modern cases the United States and the United Kingdom are the subject of discussion or hostility, though for the most part historically it was fueled by anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism. Anti-Western sentiment occurs in many countries, even from the West itself – especially European countries. »

    The article funnily includes this » In Amsterdam’s secondary schools, about half the Moroccan students do not identify with the Netherlands: they see their identity as ‘Muslim’, and regularly express anti-Western views but, nevertheless, do not want to return to their historical homeland. » https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Western_sentiment

    The Cathedral’s own action is in ways ‘weirdly’ undocumented.

    White-blamism seems very recent. It should be eminently traceable, so far as it is not quite governmentally obscured and fabricated (such as the Holocaust mythos), i.e. worked by a Directed Historicism (Deep “State” Theater). Some ‘Antiversity’ work here.

    There could be older strains or at least discovered discernible enough proto-strains in “Revolutionary” literature around and before the French Revolution. Perhaps even in Christian sects, orders or individuals. White-blamism also totally matches the tactics proscribed in the notorious Protocols published—reportedly—first in 1903. Someone in the previous thread spoke of “forçage”: » flooding a system with massive numbers of non-constructible (read “undocumented”) objects, known as “generic sets” in order to upset its implicit properties. » I.e. ordo ab chao.

    [Reply]

    collen ryan Reply:

    I think there’s two strains of leftism one signals holiness, the other hunts witches,

    [Reply]

    collen ryan Reply:

    signaling holiness is a localized process,Hunting witches is like hunting kulaks best to bring in outsiders that wont be so squeamish maybe they even imagine they have a score to settle

    Posted on March 16th, 2017 at 3:25 am Reply | Quote
  • An Fomoire Says:

    I found something cool, Admin. Oddly reminiscent of CCRU, at least to me.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Uaj-JwiS-o

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 16th, 2017 at 12:42 pm Reply | Quote
  • Goth Eiríksson Says:

    The shift is so visible it is documented in Wikipedia and other encyclopedias.

    To restate from the previous comment » At the start of the 20th Century, the work of anthropologists trying to end the paradigms of cultural evolutionism and social Darwinism within social sciences—anthropologists like Franz Boas, Marcel Mauss, Bronisław Malinowski, Pierre Clastres and Claude Lévi-Strauss—began the initiative to the end of racism in human sciences ».

    But when exactly did it become state policy? What were the main events? What individuals made the most significant decisions?

    [Reply]

    Goth Eiríksson Reply:

    » Let our meaning be quite clear; we have no intention of blaming practical tolerance as applied to individuals, but only theoretic tolerance, which claims to be applied to ideas as well and to recognise the same rights for them all, which if taken logically can only imply a rooted scepticism. Moreover we cannot help noticing that, like all propagandists, the apostles of tolerance, truth to tell, are very often the most intolerant of men. This is what has in fact happened, and it is strangely ironical : those who wished to overthrow all dogma have created for their own use, we will not say a new dogma, but a caricature of dogma, which they have succeeded in imposing on the western world in general; in this way there have been established, under the pretext of “freedom of thought,” the most chimerical beliefs that have ever been seen at any time, under the form of these different idols, of which we have just singled out some of the more important.
    Of all the superstitions preached by those very people who profess that they never stop inveighing against “superstition,” that of “science ” and “reason”, is the only one which does not seem, at first sight, to be based on sentiment ; but there is a kind of rationalism which is nothing more than sentimentalism disguised, as is shown only too well by the passion with which its champions uphold it, and by the hatred which they evince for whatever goes against their inclinations or passes their comprehension, Besides, since rationalism, in any case, corresponds to a lessening of intellectuality, it is natural that its development should go hand in hand with that of sentimentalism… »
    [R. Guénon, ‘East and West’, 1924]

    [Reply]

    G. Eiríksson Reply:

    ▬» there is a kind of rationalism which is nothing more than sentimentalism disguised »

    Anti-Racist “science” is a type of rationalization theory. A Lysenkoism.

    There’s science that factors race or not: nonracial or not.

    Anyway,

    » Boas worked with immigrant groups, who were thought to come in different biological “stocks” that were immutable, and generally judged to be inferior than the white Anglo-Saxon form of the dominant social group at the time. By collecting rigorous longitudinal data over time on growth and development, Boas convincingly showed that the children of immigrants had significantly different head shapes than their immigrant parents. Race wasn’t fixed biological destiny, slotting people into different levels of society. Rather, biology responded to environment, and immigrant children ended up looking like all the other Americans surrounding them. » Seriously?

    I expected more from this blog. http://blogs.plos.org/neuroanthropology/2012/06/29/franz-boas-and-neuroanthropology/

    It continues, quoting an S. Reyna: » Anthropology is the investigation of human being. Franz Boas’ dream was of a big anthropology that studied the ‘whole’ of this being, which included the interconnection of the cultural and the biological in all places and all times. Sadly Boas never attained his dream because it was so necessary at the beginning of the 20th century to demonstrate that one biological-cultural connection did not exist, that between race and culture. »

    Such junk. How does a link not exist in an interrelated world? It obviously exists as the world is one relational whole. Altho it can be chosen not to be seen, apparently, from a limited or motivated perspective. Maybe he meant to say ‘Boas found the link to be weak.’ or ‘Boas found the data to poorly correlate [with what other he measured].’ “The link does not exist” is a pseudo-scientific statement.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 16th, 2017 at 4:34 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment