how to be HAPPY, dammit
I was going through a box of books separating the wheat from the chaff when I came upon how to he HAPPY, dammit - a cynic's guide to spiritual happiness. It was a gift and I never had any interest in reading it. Wincing once more at the garish cover I was about to toss it in the trash when on a whim instead I cracked it open, just to see what kind of wisdom about happiness I was about to forgo...Life Lesson #15Hmm. This is interesting. I know I've got a lifetime of guilt-tripping to un-learn. Eagerly I turned the page...
You must unlearn.
To get what you want, you must be open not only to learning - but un-learning. You must sign up for un-lessons - where you un-learn learned fear, guilt, anger, jealousy, insecurity - and that's just for starters.
In other words, before you write your to-do list of what you want, you have to write your un-do list and to-don't list. So you get a piece of paper and you write down the following six categories: money, love, sex, family, power, happiness. Next to each of these categories you write down your negative views - your fears, your guilts, your insecurities - that you must un-learn and un-feel.Hmm. Well, those aren't necessarily the categories or priorities I would pick, but let's see where this is going...
For instance, you ask yourself what negative views you have about money. Like: Do you believe all rich people are superficial jerks - hence if you become rich you too might become a superficial jerk? Do you suffer from Keeping Down with the Joneses syndrome? Do you feel guilty about surpassing your friends - and/or parents - in wealth? If so, you must un-learn and un-feel these negative ideas and negative emotions...And you find that when you trade in these negative beliefs and emotions for positive ones, you start getting more in harmony with receiving money. You start seeing money everywhere.Wait a minute...what kind of spiritualist wrote this materialist crap?
Even in the word harmony, which suddenly now looks to you like harmoney.
karen salmansohnOh.
Labels: jewish influence, karen salmansohn, literature
posted by Tanstaafl at 2/22/2009 03:16:00 PM
24 Comments:
I dont like to throw books away.
Sell them on Amazon or give them to a charity shop.
However if its a book you disagree with, well we need to help stifle those bad memes.
Lurker
Books such as this one should be inflicted on ones enemies or removed from circulation, preferably by fire.
I wonder if an antisemite/anti-jew/jew-realist/whatever can ever really recover. In your case, Tan, you've become a shell of a man. You'll dispute it, but I dare say it'd be almost impossible for a casual reader of this site to see anything but a man now delirious with jew-hatred, certainly soaking in it. Because of course by this stage jews have become guilty of no more than breathing -- and they're only breathing that way, instead of this way because, you guessed it, they're jews.
Now this Karen lady is saying nothing that a million other American old boy hucksters aren't saying, but the only reason she is saying it is because she's a jew. And it's the same way with a thousand other things: jews are only capitalists because they're jews and they hate the white man; jews are only communists because they're jews and they hate the white man; jews only celebrate black athletes because they're jews and they hate the white man; jews only critique culture because they're jews and they hate the white man; jews only study psychology because they're jews and they hate the white man; jews only ever do anything because they're jews and they hate the white man. Quite incredible what this stuff does to a man's mind.
And just what the hell is so bad about the advice dispensed here, anyway?
For instance, you ask yourself what negative views you have about money. Like: Do you believe all rich people are superficial jerks - hence if you become rich you too might become a superficial jerk? Do you suffer from Keeping Down with the Joneses syndrome? Do you feel guilty about surpassing your friends - and/or parents - in wealth? If so, you must un-learn and un-feel these negative ideas and negative emotions...And you find that when you trade in these negative beliefs and emotions for positive ones, you start getting more in harmony with receiving money. You start seeing money everywhere.
Even in the word harmony, which suddenly now looks to you like harmoney.
It seems to describe your "awakening" perfectly: you went from blanching at any mention of jews to seeing jewish puppet masters in cloud formations.
Beliefs we hold or form about the world hugely affect the way we act in that world. Sometimes there isn't any rational or obvious reason to believe/feel strongly about something one way or the other. And we don't always examine the reasons we believe/feel strongly that way. The quoted passage simply points out that our beliefs about the world often impact negatively on our aspirations, suggesting a re-examination of those beliefs and their replacement with beliefs that put us in states conducive to achieving the results we want; it's no more than American-American "success" writers were saying a hundred years earlier. Rather than burning the book, some of you would be better off studying its lessons.
Beliefs we hold or form about the world hugely affect the way we act in that world. Sometimes there isn't any rational or obvious reason to believe/feel strongly about something one way or the other.
Like how people get all teary eyed about the Shoah? Like how mentioning Jews at all in polite company without showering them with excessive praise will cause howls of weeping and wailing protest?
And we don't always examine the reasons we believe/feel strongly that way. The quoted passage simply points out that our beliefs about the world often impact negatively on our aspirations, suggesting a re-examination of those beliefs and their replacement with beliefs that put us in states conducive to achieving the results we want; it's no more than American-American "success" writers were saying a hundred years earlier.
For instance, if one wants to secure the existence of our people and a future for white children one must reexamine one's current beliefs and replace them with beliefs that are more conducive to achieving that goal.
Rather than burning the book, some of you would be better off studying its lessons.
Perhaps you are right.
Accusing someone of being a "shell of a man" from a comfortable position of anonymity is ridiculous.
If you aren't a family member of friend of his than you really have no idea or right to criticize in such a fashion.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
you went from blanching at any mention of jews to seeing jewish puppet masters in cloud formations
Actually, I went from averting my eyes to the alien thoughts and stupendous arrogance I had been indoctrinated well not to notice, to seeing jews where they are doing what they're doing. If I'm crazy then it's for discussing this in spite of the price for doing so. If I'm imagining anything, it's certainly not that price.
Speaking of alien thoughts and stupendous arrogance, the interesting thing about the tactics of people like Anonymous is how pathetic and powerless they are once they're seen for what they are.
In the past Karen Salmansohn's way of looking at the world would have repulsed me and I wouldn't have understood why. Today I understand why and consider that an improvement.
Rusty, I'm not disagreeing, I was thinking generally, not specifically.
I've been reading a two-year-old exchange between Joey Kurtzman and John Derbyshire. It starts with Is Kevin MacDonald Right?
In the second section, Wrestling with Derbyshire's Law, Derbyshire writes:
I have somewhere formulated Derbyshire’s Law, which asserts that: “ANYTHING WHATSOEVER said by a Gentile about Jews will be perceived as antisemitic by someone, somewhere.” I have experienced the truth of this many times. Further, I have the awful example of William Cash before me. Cash wrote an article titled “Kings of the Deal” for The Spectator back in 1994, pointing out, in a perfectly inoffensive way (and, of course, quite truly) that lots of Hollywood movers and shakers are Jewish. You can google the consequences.
Why is Derbyshire’s Law true? I am not sure. It seems to me that Jews have a very strong preference that their Jewishness not be noticed. They want to “pass” as much as possible.
CONCLUSION: Still, in order to effect real, effective Jew-expulsion, we need real Christianity free fm influence of Jews
I approve of this strategy, which would require the excision of every book of the Bible save Luke. Possibly it would require the whole Bible to be done away with altogether, which would also be a boon to mankind.
It should also be considered that a non-Biblical Christianity can create a new textual basis from post Biblical sources: especially the writings of the Saints. Christians who spent their time reading the Philokalia or The Cloud of Unknowing would be less likely to concern themselves with the generations of David, or Creationism, or Zionism and related forms of Jew obsession and Jew worship. You could add to this list Meister Eckhardt, The Gospel of Thomas, Dionysius the Areopagite, Theresa and St. John of the Cross, and other figures, most of whom are more wholesome, more God intoxicated and less deranged than the historical figure whom they have elevated to divine status. I think a very wholesome and good Christianity could still be created, though it must, as the poster above says, be systematically denuded of Jewish ideation, and most especially, of all links to the Old Testament.
Accusing someone of being a "shell of a man" from a comfortable position of anonymity is ridiculous.
What frightens our Jewish poster is not tan's mental or moral constitution - it is the commonest thing in the world for Jews to appeal to morality when they are about their nastiest business.
Indeed, the situation is the reverse of what our Jewish well-wisher claims: tan is one of the few men standing in the White World, which is overrun by the cowardly, the permanent adolescents, the legions of the pussy-whipped, the head in the sand brigades, Republicans, faileocons - "men" who have betrayed their women and children, their brothers and sisters, who have sold out the land from under unborn feet forever by their steadfast refusal to acknowledge what they know and have always known: that demographics are destiny.
Braggarts, drunken sports fans, TV viewers, blowhards of all stripes, the whole legion of zombiefied Kali Yuga dwelling standard issue American males - please note, not "men" - believe that masculinity is a matter of muscles and penises. This is part of the root of ritualized Negro worship on Sunday afternoons, and also Steve Sailer's disconcerting paeans to the 'explosive masculinity' of blacks, their 'masculine charisma', and so forth. This worship of chthonic masculinity is misplaced. Without solar masculinity - mental and spiritual - without the cultivation of ideals of duty, reason, and integrity, these 'males' are just women with dicks.
And you notice how close blacks are to women, in the worst sense - vain, given over to gesture and display, passive in the face of their own emotion, incapable or even resentful of deeply objective self reflection, mostly incapable, save from mimicry, of the morality that comes from seeing oneself as one actor among many, and the corollary of this, that the other fellow has moral claims, too, all of which form the basis of White systems of government and morality. Blacks and women can't - without the aid of a critical number of White men in their presence - maintain a structure like, say, free speech, which is dependent on a morality based in objectifying, abstract reason. For them, free speech is intolerable if it hurts someone's feelings.
The tendency of the male mind is to objectify itself and the world in order to understand both and to manipulate both into a harmonious order that benefits all, or as many as possible. Curiousity and system building of this type is a trait markedly more pronounced among men than women, and among Whites than Blacks.
Women with good fathers or husbands can and often do 'snap to' this way of viewing the world, just as women keep men grounded in the body and relatedness, since masculinity as I have described it here is always running the ethical danger of becoming detached from what it objectifies. The psychological complementarity of the sexes, whether expressed as the striving towards freedom vs. the striving for relatedness, or as agency vs. communion, is the dynamo of life itself.
The modern American male is the real shell, a passive agent of the interests of women, Jews, his own sexual impulses, the Federal Government, etc. He is not like his forebearers who used foresight and objectifying reason to create a world in which liberty, self reliance, community, commerce all once had a hope of flourishing in mutual support. Instead, we have isolated, passive, fearful cogs and drones, incapable of resisting the disordered political goals of other, more organized political factions, after having traded in the spiritual and mental integrity for mere chthonic masculinity, - basically the gym and sexual incontinence - never realizing that the more promiscuous sex they have, the less masculine they become. To be totally passive towards ones own emotions, drives, and impulses is virtually the definition of femininity.
I saw tan crawl up out of the hole of conservatism by himself, doing what hundreds of thousands and possibly millions of other American males either can not or will not do: grant credence to the evidence and follow the facts where they lead even even at the cost of personal discomfort.
Tan did this even though it delivered him to a world situation that is nightmarish, and even put aside his own very strong feelings about who he was as a person (everyone's most valued possession) since we have all been conditioned since birth to regard Jews as the ultimate innocents, wise, compassionate, always sinned against and never sinning, the ultimate victim and contrariwise that anyone who thought ill of them was both willfully evil and criminally insane. To overcome conditioning of this magnitude - to succeed where almost all of the 'Greatest Generation' and the Boomers failed - makes him the opposite of a 'shell of a man'. He is a man among shells.
So that I am not mistaken, let me name the most harmful shells: Thomas Fleming and Chronicles magazine, who have demonstrated that the even at the cost of the survival of their own race and civilization, that the truth about Jews will never be spoken. Rush Limbaugh. Also, William F. Buckley and the whole National Review crowd. Jim Robinson of Free Republic is both a shell and wheelchair, a truly sorry combination. Und so weiter.
All of these 'conservatives' take the energy, time, money and attention of other males seeking to be men, who feel the call to be putting together an accurate picture of the political universe in which they and their families live in order to both preserve life and create conditions for thriving, are instead filled up with wrong conceptions of the world and then hyperemotionalized about them: conservatives are anti-White genocidalists whose job it is to make sure that no man can break through the encrustation of lies in which he has been cocooned from birth, and which is reinfoced everday in the most serious possible fashion. Naturally, seated atop this pile are Jews, whose access to Captial and control of media is nearly unimaginable. Rush Limbaugh - with three Jewish wives and who now consults a Rabbi regularly - knows there will be no more junkets to Israel if he were to allow himself to ever think about what's going on in the world. Alex Jones - also targetted by an Esther - allows for no discussion of the JQ on his board - everything in his political universe is caused by Lizard People and the Illuminati. He snapped once - when the sheer size of the Jewish money and influence in the Obama administration became apparent - but soon recovered. No integrity or duty there.
I'm glad to see that the Jewish organism regards this blog as important enough to send round the occasional agent to try and jam tan's signals, to sow self doubt, to work confusion. Firstly, it reveals the nature of the Jew. Secondly, it strengthens our understanding and commitment, by removing certain doubts. We are, as Aryans, always vulnerable to the thought that we are doing someone an injustice. Hence Jews play this harp - the Jew's harp has one note, no? - constantly. "You're a shell of a man. You've lost your reason. You're paranoid". Sowing self-doubt or reinforcing what we know about Jews and Jewish behavior?
I thought Jews were supposed to be smart. Can't you at least think up new means to subvert us?
I, for one, will never forget the mass of pullulating Jews who swarmed this site when tan was 'turning'. The instinctive, hive-mind understanding that each Gentile who wakes up ("It can see us! It can see us!") is - far from the delusional and ineffectual crank you suggest - a clear and present danger to the steady movement of your group organism towards its ultimate goals.
So you say tan is a "shell of a man"? I say he's a hero. Perhaps he, or I, or anyone here, may at some later date be found wanting as people and men in comparison to those who will be coming in our wake. If that is the case, then may that day arrive soon.
[Comments by Apollonian, in below-copied text, capped, bracketed. A.]
* * * * *
"I approve of this [APOLLONIAN] strategy, which would require the excision of every book of the Bible save Luke. [PROBLEM IS U DON'T SAY WHY.]
"Possibly it would require the whole Bible to be done away with altogether, which would also be a boon to mankind. [I DISAGREE EMPHATICALLY. ESPECIALLY, GOSP. JOHN SHOULD BE RETAINED WHICH UPHOLDS TRUTH AGAINST JEW LIES.]
"It should also be considered that a non-Biblical Christianity can create a new textual basis from post Biblical sources: especially the writings of the Saints. ["NON-BIBLIC CHRISTIANITY WOULD SEEM TO BE CONTRADICTORY. AND WHAT IS IT ABOUT WHAT SAINTS THAT'S BETTER THAN GOSP. JOHN?]
"Christians who spent their time reading the Philokalia or The Cloud of Unknowing would be less likely to concern themselves with the generations of David, or Creationism, or Zionism and related forms of Jew obsession and Jew worship. [I'VE NEVER EVEN HRD OF "PHILOKALIA," ETC., SO WHAT ARE THESE ABOUT AND WHY ARE THEY BETTER?]
"You could add to this list Meister Eckhardt, [I'VE HRD OF HIM, BUT DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW HE'S BETTER THAN ORIGINAL NEW TESTAMENT. "COLIN LANEY" NEEDS TO EXPLAIN BETTER WHAT HE MEANS.]
"The Gospel of Thomas, Dionysius the Areopagite, Theresa and St. John of the Cross, and other figures, most of whom are more wholesome, more God intoxicated and less deranged than the historical figure whom they have elevated to divine status. [THIS IS ABSURD--"LANEY" NEEDS TO EXPLAIN MUCH WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT.]
"I think a very wholesome and good Christianity [U ALREADY HAVE "GOOD" CHRISTIANITY; U REALLY SEEM TO BE BABBLING.]
"...could still be created, though it must, as the poster above says, be systematically denuded of Jewish ideation, [OH RIGHT, SO WHAT'S "JEW IDEATION," ETC.?--U NEED TO SPEAK MORE INFORMATIVELY, I SUBMIT.]
"...and most especially, of all links to the Old Testament."
Colin Laney, 2/24/2009 02:14:00 PM
* * * * *
Christianity Only Needs A Little Tuning Up, Perspective To Be Made A Real "Sword"
(Apollonian, 24 Feb 09)
So "Colin Laney" first compliments my essay, but then goes off babbling pretty incoherently, I'd say.
(a) For Christianity and its theology only needs some "tuning up" to being understood as aesthetic, literary dramatization, parallel to human REASON, and perfectly compatible and consistent, commemorating lonely battle of TRUTH vs. Jew lies, which truth then necessitates Aristotelian objectivity as criterion against Jew subjectivism, mysticism, hystericism, hubris Pharisaism, narcissism, etc.
(b) "Faith," rather an unfortunate buzzword, these days, needs to be understood more clearly as virtue of LOYALTY in general, specific "faith" then merely what one is loyal to. "Faith" is NOT against human reason.
(c) Ethic of Christianity should be most forthright HONESTY over "love" of St. Paul and "good-evil" Pelagian hereticalism for children and Pharisees. Perfectly "free" human will is greatest hubristic fault.
(d) Most of all Christianity must be understood as most emphatically ANTI-SEMITIC (anti-Talmudic, as Gosp. MARK 7:1-13).
CONCLUSION: Thus everything of present New Testament could well remain if it is only understood properly according to above-noted points which I take up. "Colin Laney" really doesn't make too much sense for all his lurid assertions he gives in above-quoted material. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian
Anonymous
You see "jew-hatred" because that is what you want to see. At what point does any Tan post become watered down enough to eliminate the "anti-semite" label that is flung around like Mr., Mrs. or Miss these days? If he changed every reference from "jew" to "some jews" does it change the context enough to satisfy those protectors of Jewry or those fearful of reprisals?
The Austers of the world get a free ride because they blame "liberal jews" [usually in the same sentence with "liberal whites" to offer additional insulation]?
Rusty - no book deserves the fire.
Appol's - you can pick and choose any book in the bible you want to craft your sense of christianity, but you cant dispel the fact that christianity is tied directly to the Old Testament and Judaism. "Understood properly" according to who? Martin Luther?
@ Colin:
Glad you're back. Great post. I'm fired up!
I'm bringing a White baby into the world in around seven months! Hopefully, he is one of those who comes after us, but whose sandal strap we aren't worthy to loose :)
oops.
he or she
[Commentary by Apollonian in below text by "flippity...," capped, bracketed. A.]
* * * * *
"Appol's - you can pick and choose any book in the bible you want to craft your sense of christianity, but you cant dispel the fact that christianity is tied directly to the Old Testament and Judaism. [NO, FOOL, CHRIST EXPLICITLY DENOUNCED JEWS, JUDAISM, AND TALMUD AT GOSP. MARK 7:1-13; CK REFERENCES. NOTE JEWS ARE DEFINED AS TALMUDISTS, JEWS DIFFERENT FM "JUDEANS," MOST JUDEANS (AT TIME OF CHRIST) NOT, NOT, NOT FOLLOWERS OF PHARISEES, LEADERS OF "JEWS." GET IT STRAIGHT BEFORE U MAKE POMPOUS, BRAINLESS DECLAMATIONS.]
""Understood properly" according to who? Martin Luther?" - flippityflopitty said..., 2/25/2009 11:12:00 AM
* * * * *
Christianity Is Indubitably Understandible, Never Doubt--But One Must Make Decent Effort
(Apollonian, 25 Feb 09)
"Flippity...," u just babble platitudinously, not to mentioned un-informedly (see above notation in ur copied text). And Christ and original Christians are also "tied" by means of similar Aramaic language, idioms too, etc.
Christ then is "tied" to Judaism in most emphatic NEGATIVE manner, as I note. Judaism is precisely WHAT CHRISTIANITY IS NOT, NOT, NOT ABOUT, rather what it is absolutely AGAINST. Jews are liars (Gosp. JOHN 8:44), etc.
Indeed Christ came to clarify things, denouncing Talmud at Gosp. MARK 7:1-13, and then definitively affirming otherwise, in accord with INDUCTION, logic, and reason, as at MARK 12:30-1, and MATT 22:37-9.
Understanding?--ACCORDING TO CHRIST, obviously--who/what else?--what do u want? Then u have Gosp. JOHN, 14:6 and 18:37. Note again: "TRUTH" requires Aristotelian objectivity. Christianity is defense of reason, hence defended by human reason; just do ur human best.
What I meant however, to be absolutely clearest, is Christianity, "understood properly," is actually quite ANTI-MYSTIC, as it is indubitably anti-semitic (again, anti-Talmud, as MARK 7:1-13).
CONCLUSION: Martin Luther was indeed magnificent saint, but ultimately u need to think for and rely upon ur own reason and ability, comrade. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian
I consider myself far too ignorant to participate in these discussions of religious history, but as I understand from reading Max Dimont's Jews, God and History Talmudism began in fifth century Persia, some five hundred years after Jesus and his apostles.
The strange format and language of Apollonian makes it hard to understand his message but I'd like to take a small stab at it.
The Pharisees and Sadducees at the time of Jesus had already added all kinds of 'laws' to the Book and had 'law' books (early forms of the Mishna and the Midrash) of their own in addition to the writings of the Law and the Prophets.
The system was already "Talmudic" to a certain extent when Jesus drove the money changers out of the Temple with a whip of cords.
In one sense, Jesus was a revolutionary since the Jews had hope for a material savior who would help them rule the Earth when Christ was concerned only with the spiritual.
Christianity: Actually A Mighty Weapon If Understood, Used Properly
(Apollonian, 27 Feb 09)
Well, comrade Tanstaafl, consider the obvious, patent, glaring WEAK-POINT for Jew rulers of present ZOG-Mammon empire, the "Judeo-Christian" (JC--see Whtt.org and TruthTellers.org for expo/ref.)hereticalists, poor, pathetic victims thereof, who are not outright traitors, most of them, rather merely dupes and suckers.
These JCs would surely be surprised to know Christ was NOT "Jew," Jew actually defined as Talmudist, that there's tremendous difference btwn "Jew" and Judean, etc.
And JCs would surely be interested in knowing what Talmud says about Christ--a bastard of a whore and Roman centurion who was rightfully, according to Jews, executed for blasphemy and heresy, etc. See RevisionistHistory, TruthTellers.org, and Come-and-hear.com for best Talmudic expo.
Pastor Carlson of Whtt.org does some most excellent, heroic work, which needs be multiplied by more of us Christian patriots.
Note Christianity in general is presently so horribly mis-represented, mis-understood, and actually subverted: Christ was anti-semite (anti-Talmud, as Gosp. MARK 7:1-13, again), truly and seriously, and more people should and must understand this.
Christ stood for truth, esp. according to that magnificent Gosp. JOHN (esp. 14:6 and 18:37)--which is very short, and easily read and understood--u ought to try it.
Thus JOHN's entire, basic theologic theme, never forget, is Christian TRUTH vs. Jew lies, Jews masters of the lie (JOHN 8:44). Implications then are nothing less than tremendous.
For Christianity thus upholds the OBJECTIVE, Aristotelian view of reality--against the Jew subjectivistic, hence Platonic, Kantian, etc., objectivity necessary criterion of truth, obviously.
Theology then, of Gosp. JOHN is absolutely definitive, and dear St. Paul is actually quite consistent therewith, even with all the otherwise unfortunate emphasis on "faith" which has become such terrible buzzword which so many fools imagine is license for brainless, idiotic, and actually un-Christian mysticism.
CONCLUSION: Do not doubt Christianity is most excellent theologic resort and actually, genuine "secret-weapon" patriots can well use against Judeo-conspirators. AND JCs ARE MOST VULNERABLE targets, as I say, JCs the genuine, most juicy target, and WEAK-POINT for ZOG-Mammon. See more Apollonian expo at NewNation.org, under "commentary" heading. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian
That's a great response by Colin.
Here's what's most amusing about the anonymous post:
Now this Karen lady is saying nothing that a million other American old boy hucksters aren't saying, but the only reason she is saying it is because she's a jew....
And just what the hell is so bad about the advice dispensed here, anyway?
The problem with the advice is not that it's "bad"; it's that it's unnecessary. The feelings Ms. Salamansohn is trying to unlearn are feelings that are alien to gentiles. The fact that "anonymous" can identify with those feelings unmistakably reveals his jewishness.
"...as I understand from reading Max Dimont's Jews, God and History Talmudism began in fifth century Persia, some five hundred years after Jesus and his apostles." -Tanstaafl said..., 2/26/2009 08:17:00 PM
* * * * *
Pharisaics Instituted Well Before Christ
(Apollonian, 27 Feb 09)
Sorry I didn't speak precisely to the pt, noted above. The date of 500 A.D. for publication of Babylonian Talmud is date of final, finished product--which was begun and well under way even before time of Christ, which Talmudic "midrash" was known then as "Traditions of the Elders," I understand.
Pharisees, the later writers/producers of Talmud, hence Judaism, formally understood, were instituted about a couple hundred yrs B.C. Again, ck my ref.s given above. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian
I'd forgotten about this post. I'm the anon who called Tan a 'shell of a man.'
danielj,
Beliefs we hold or form about the world hugely affect the way we act in that world. Sometimes there isn't any rational or obvious reason to believe/feel strongly about something one way or the other.
Like how people get all teary eyed about the Shoah? Like how mentioning Jews at all in polite company without showering them with excessive praise will cause howls of weeping and wailing protest?
Not quite. A better example would be your belief that I am a jew prompting you to reply with references about the holocaust and the JQ.
If that seems silly, bear in mind that the point I was establishing is that what we believe about the world affects the way we act. If you hadn't thought I was a jew, you wouldn't have been looking to "hit back." Of course, you were just trying to be smart, so let's drop this.
And we don't always examine the reasons we believe/feel strongly that way. The quoted passage simply points out that our beliefs about the world often impact negatively on our aspirations, suggesting a re-examination of those beliefs and their replacement with beliefs that put us in states conducive to achieving the results we want; it's no more than American-American "success" writers were saying a hundred years earlier.
For instance, if one wants to secure the existence of our people and a future for white children one must reexamine one's current beliefs and replace them with beliefs that are more conducive to achieving that goal.
Yes, very much so. That's why I said, "Rather than burning the book, some of you would be better off studying its lessons."
bongoparty,
You're saying that Jews are not motivated by their Jewishness.
I didn't say that at all. That is a conclusion you have rushed into all on your own with only the scantest of evidence to support reaching it, and one which demonstrates quite powerfully the effect of our beliefs on our actions that I and the book under discussion referred to. Quite obviously, your commitment to pointing the finger at JEWS! at every opportunity overrides your interest in truth.
Tan,
In the past Karen Salmansohn's way of looking at the world would have repulsed me and I wouldn't have understood why. Today I understand why and consider that an improvement.
Well, that's the problem: you don't understand half as much as you think you do. My point was you're essentially accusing jews of doing no more than breathing. If a jew can't be capitalist, can't be a communist, can't be a conservative, can't be a liberal, can't be a lawyer, can't be a teacher, can't be a self-help author dispensing perhaps questionable but certainly plausible advice without doing it only because he or she is a jew than there's absolutely nothing a jew a can do without only doing it because he is a jew, so would the fucking kike please just off himself already and save everyone the hassle. Lo and behold, you've got found yourself a follower in appollonian claiming precisely that.
Colin Laney,
Believe it or not, I happen to agree with practically everything you wrote. But being objective about your enemy isn't the same as hating your enemy, and marinading in that hatred to the point it distorts your perception of reality isn't as heroic as you make it out to be. In fact, it's one of the easiest traps in the world to fall into, and I believe I can be justifiably proud of having overcome the tendency to fall into it.
I saw tan crawl up out of the hole of conservatism by himself, doing what hundreds of thousands and possibly millions of other American males either can not or will not do: grant credence to the evidence and follow the facts where they lead even even at the cost of personal discomfort.
Not to toot my own horn, but I think I've got him beat there.
My name: silver.
Not quite. A better example would be your belief that I am a jew prompting you to reply with references about the holocaust and the JQ.
If that seems silly, bear in mind that the point I was establishing is that what we believe about the world affects the way we act. If you hadn't thought I was a jew, you wouldn't have been looking to "hit back." Of course, you were just trying to be smart, so let's drop this.
It doesn't matter whether or not you were/are a Jew and how I came to that conclusion, if I did come to that conclusion. I may or may not have came to that conclusion after examining my beliefs but this post is old and I don't remember.
I have Jewish friends. I'm not psychotic or socially maladroit. People like me. In fact, my Jewish friends are well aware I'm a raging "anti-semite" and still like me. I'm not a barbarian and I don't have any problem resolving the Jewish problem on a personal level. I've consistently argued my position which is restrictions on their career prospects. No Jewish doctors, lawyers, professors, etc and I think I'm a moderate on the issue since I really believe that to be best for all the involved parties.
My point in my post was that unquestioning adoration and deference to an alien race fit your bill for unexamined beliefs.
Who the hell do you think you are running around like a wannabe Socrates? I don't need my conscience prodded with Silver's iron anyway.
You are an arrogant dick sometimes and that is your only problem. I like you - your posts that is - when you can refrain from attacking others on a personal level. It reveals your deep insecurity about your intelligence and yourself. Myself, I'm passed caring about how smart I am. I work for every bit of everything I know and every dollar I earn and that enables me to sleep well at night. Maybe I'm not that smart, but I'm not an asshole and that goes along way. I won't die alone.
Yes, very much so. That's why I said, "Rather than burning the book, some of you would be better off studying its lessons."
What I know to be true is you are defending a book we both know is full of trite, banal, platitudinal bull shit. What I don't know is why you insist on doing that.
What do you want from us Silver? Attention? Conversion? Respect? Or are you satisfied in hurling erudite insults and articulate verbal abuses?
Myself, I'm passed caring about how smart I am.
past
Sorry all.
you don't understand half as much as you think you do
I understand what I want and why. I understand that for every Colin, DanielJ, Scrooby, or JWH there's a shit-stirring discourse poisoning pretender like yourself. I do believe I can muddle through life without your help.
Post a Comment
<< Home