new blogs

ck; also,

Thursday, March 31, 2016

JR demonstrates, once again, the hopeless nature of patriot struggle against satanism, CYCLIC nature/course of hist....

Below-copied essay by ap first published at comments,

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

WTF?--"Patriots" Must Overcome Pyschosis, Face Reality--But It's Hopeless Struggle
(Apollonian, 31 Mar 16)

"Otherwise some of the so-called good guys with money can support newspaper editors in startups to counter the propaganda - and of course make money from the ads.

"This **** isn't that hard - but one wonders who is paying for all of the information we are digesting." -JR, Mar 29, 2016, 10:05:00 PM

WTF? What is wrong w. u, buddy?--u say u now understand something about "central-banking"?--didn't u say that?--or write it? U understand what central-banking is?--money-printing, and nowadays, -digitalizing--LEGALIZED COUNTERFEITING, literally.

Trump is perfect example--one of the "good-guys," to extent that phrase has any meaning. Do u observe how Trump is now being inundated by monied powers (of central-bank)?--led by George Soros the kike?

Soros the kike is reputed to having 24 billion buckaroos, his Jew buddies, like Sheldon Adelson and Chaim Saban, have umpteen more billions--AND THERE'S MORE WHERE THAT CAME FM WHICH CAN JUST BE PRINTED-UP.

U're like a child who can't figure-out reality. AND WHO LIES, pretending and saying he grasps central-banking, but then only shows most moronic ignorance.

U tell us: "We need to apply shame to the newspapers that the public will see clearly...." BUT U'RE PART OF THE "PUBLIC," and u only demonstrate how utterly, hopelessly STUPID the "public" is, dumbass.

No facts have any effect upon ur moronic, monumental stupidity which always remains like the most obsessive, addicted goon who was programmed when u were young, and now is set in stone for ur program.

For there are only small minorities who "see clearly," as u put it--the (a) satanists and (b) the Christian leaders, the rest of the people of a mature civilization always being in "the middle," not capable of clearly grasping ANYTHING, ever, this "middle" always only going the way the "wind blows," as we see demonstrated so well by u, JR.

JR: u need to face the fact u're a hopeless, moronic idiot. "Public" and broad masses NEVER "see clearly" ANYTHING, ever--u're proof.

That's why hist. takes such a CYCLIC course as I've described for u several DOZEN times now in these comments pages, but u NEVER LEARNING.

Broad "public" (like u) can only die-out now, being expended in wars, dying of starvation, etc. U're just tooooooooo goddam stupid for anything else.

And u can't blame us Christian heroes: Lord knows how hard we work and try, but ur utter, complete, absolute stupidity KNOWS NO BOUNDS

And don't doubt: U DESERVE DEATH too, saying u understand central-banking, then talking ur idiot, stupid crap, as u do, above-noted.

Call it "faith," psychosis (which is what it really is), or what u will, but ur stupidity is never-ending, impervious to all facts, reality, truth, reasoning, etc.--it only demonstrates the necessary nature of the CYCLIC course of things, how and why it works that way.

Wednesday, March 23, 2016

Anti-nazism: just the Jew-friendly, Jew-oriented religion/mentality of the age....

Below-copied essay by ap first published at comments,

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

JR Can't Resist Jew-Friendly Kool-Aid
(Apollonian, 23 Mar 16)

"- [A]nd I hate Nazis anyway." -JR

U hate the German heroes who fought Jew bolshevik filth and anti-Christ scum? So of course, u hate reality, truth, reason, justice, and humanity too, obviously.

And anti-Nazism--what's that, but just the typical, Jew-friendly, politically-correct religion of the age? Of course u hate Nazis--u're just the same sort of Jew-friendly metro-sexual filth which u complain about, right?

"A reform plan for this country..."?--I suspect it's LONG past time for that; rather, what can only happen now is absolute anti-semitic revolution--inconceivable for a mind like urs, JR, suffused as it is w. the Jewwy, Jew-friendly Jewism which so thoroughly permeates ur brain-cells, eh?

U can't even begin to imagine a time when Jewwy Jewism wasn't ur (effective) religion, can u?

But as long as the West hated and "oppressed" those filthy kikes it generally prospered and thrived, and only now, since French Rev., when Jews (criminals, following their filthy satanic Talmud) were legitimized and progressively allowed to dominate the society has the West and its people suffered evermore horrifically under ever-greater, evermore encompassing one-world gov. founded upon the central-banking money scam.

Fools like u, JR, don't want to grasp such criminal enterprise as central-banking; thus u suffer, as u deserve. But now, I'm afraid, there's tremendous, horrific, genocidal cataclysm being readied, the people already horribly poisoned and afflicted in various ways (GMOs, toxic vaccines, Big Jew Pharma drugging people, "chem-trails," etc.), the rates of cancer and other diseases having already sky-rocketed.

So u console urself w. the same old belly-aching about "fatasses with 27 bathrooms," refusing to analyze and examining for the basic premises to the cultural problematics.

And yes, people have always complained about Jews, but don't doubt there's good reason for such complaining even if so many people don't entirely analyze why and how--as for the Jew subjectivism, fraud, and lying--and especially, that monument to Judaism, subjectivism, lying, and total corruption--central-banking.

Sunday, March 13, 2016

Doubt not: we're fighting now the VERY SAME war, same issues, for same reasons as heroic South in 1860s--they never lost, but for the battle....

Book Review: "Northern Opposition To Mr. Lincoln's War"
(Apollonian, 13 Mar 16)

How did the South manage to lose the war of the 1860s?--one must scratch one's head. For truly, the fact is we're fighting precisely the very same war against the satanistic oligarchs today as the south was fighting back then in the 1860s--against the consolidated large, tyrannic and centralized empire, but which is now collapsing before our very eyes for the utterly corrupt and failing currency and hence economy. Thus it took, as we now see, a century and a half for the horrendous consequences to manifest so definitively.

Prices in USA are going to double very soon now, probably within the year, and that will be disaster, bringing food-shortages and civil un-rest in many parts of the country. ZOG (Zionist occupation gov.) is and will un-doubtedly rely upon the United Nations (UN) to provide enforcement, and then entire USA will suffer like the southerners of old, the UN being the natural and logical following to the consolidated Jew S A which emerged in the 1860s.

But regardless, it's most interesting and notable to pt. out a new book (published 2014), "Northern Opposition to Mr. Lincoln's War," edited by D. Jonathan White, Abbeville Institute Press; Waynesboro, Va.; 295 pgs, containing nine generally excellent essays, w. a short Intro by the editor, White. The book covers activities of the northern opposition to Lincoln's and Republican's amazing, horrific revolution of consolidation and utter destruction of the Constitutional republic which thereupon conquered w. great slaughter, the eleven southern states which had seceded.

The opposition consisted essentially of the Democratic party which remained loyal to the principles of Jefferson and which had largely opposed and resisted the consolidationist efforts for most of the seventy-two yrs preceding the 1860 election, especially the paper-money schemes, even if not as successfully other increasing inroads of the central gov. For note the rest of the states, even in the south, did not support South Carolina in the great Nullification Crisis of 1832-3, precursor to the decisive conflict. Even the cowardly and aging former President, James Madison, much repudiated his own theory given in the Virginia Resolutions of 1798-9.

Thus Lincoln illegally and un-Constitutionally removed Habeas Corpus, among other measures, and waged a nearly genocidal war against the southern people which killed up to a million white people in the south, including strictly battle casualties (according to Lochlainn Seabrook), out of the original 5.5 million, and perhaps up to another million of the black folk, out of 3.5 million, who were utterly dependent thereupon--and amazingly loyal to the Southern cause, as Seabrook documents, no less than 300,000 blacks serving in military and other capacities (see Seabrook's, "EVERYTHING You Were Taught About The Civil War Is Wrong: Ask a Southerner!: Correcting the Errors of Yankee "History").

One of the most interesting chapters of the book, by John Chodes, covers the amazing Governor of State of Indiana, Oliver P. Morton, who, mirroring Lincoln, declared he was "the state," in fashion of French Emperor Louis XIV, and who dismissed the state legislature and courts, and received funds directly fm Wash. DC for the state expenditures, not wanting to entertain the pesky demands of the legislators. After all, there was a war to be fought. Of course, the legislators and Democrats reacted vigorously, but Morton, backed by the US Army, was able to ignore and even to suppressing them. But thereupon ensued serious conspiratorial activity, and Morton responded w. arrests, spies, and sentencing to deathly concentration camp, esp. the notorious Camp Morton near Indianapolis where the death-rate was as bad as Andersonville in the south.

Another good and useful chapter is the first one, by Marshall DeRosa, on the excellent, even heroic, under the circumstances, 14th President, Franklin Pierce, who suffers for reputation for the simple fact he was even-handed in his treatment of the southern states, and most scrupulously respected the rights and interests of the states, including the South. It was under Pierce that Jefferson Davis, the future Confederate President, served as Sec. of the War Department, since re-named, Defense. And of course, Pierce bitterly opposed the war begun by Lincoln and Republicans.

For the sad fact must be faced that the general success of the USA had achieved run-away proportions, the two sections had grown apart, the north dominated by industry and manufacturing, the south by agrarianism based upon the slave labor. Thus the north emphasized interests of free labor of the white working class in contempt of the slave-labor of the south, and there were serious problems w. the fugitive slave provisions of law and Constitution which, ironically, saw the "interposition" of the northern states in opposition to federal enforcement.

Illustration of the divergence of the two sectional interests, north and south, is best given in amazing fact that even though the erstwhile extremely productive and wealthy south had been horrifically destroyed and gutted during the war, yet the overall economic production of USA was hardly affected as the population simply moved west as the tremendous industrialization continued to thrive and even increase--the south was essentially forgotten and ignored by the northern powers and interests which dominated the nation, the GDP (gross domestic product) tripling by WWI, the south not recovering 1860 levels until the 1880s (see Higgs' "Transformation of the American Economy, 1865-1914").

Yet the South was a tremendous nation in its own right at the outset of 1861; how could it have lost to the utterly corrupt and ponderous incompetents and criminals of the Northern leadership? For our book, "Northern Opposition...," well-demonstrates there was serious potential and active opposition to Lincoln's and Republicans' psychotic, tyrannic, and genocidal policies. My own conclusion is the southerners took far too passive a military stance, merely reacting in defensive fashion--their only chance, especially as we look-back in hind-sight, was to strike vigorously w. more active defensive sallies in the north just as heroic Stonewall Jackson recommended. Thus the hardships of warfare would have been brought more poignantly to people of the north who would have been even more motivated to removing and rectifying the criminal leadership.

"Northern Opposition..." is excellent work of scholarship and info, though the editing could and should have been much better for the rather numerous typos and other problems. Chodes' chapter on Morton, for example, was extremely interesting for the facts, as I tried to note, but is rather poorly written, hardly proof-read for the often clumsy phrasing. But don't hesitate to get and read the book, so necessary in face of the mass of northern-friendly lies and prop.

Wednesday, March 2, 2016

Logic, metaphysics, reasoning must begin w. assumption: Aristotle's is best, no one ever having improved....

Below-copied by ap first published at comments,
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Aristotelian Objectivity: Necessary Basis Of Truth, Logic, Virtue
(Apollonian, 2 Mar 16)

The great virtue of Aristotle, I consider, is his metaphysics is straight-forward and simple to understanding--in great contrast to Plato and others who fail to observe necessity of objectivity (or immanence). And to say, as u do above: "Number one, this means that I do deny that logic (or mathematics) can be reduced to, or derived from, "sense experience,"" is QUESTION-BEGGING, which I've always thought is assertion without substantiation, a conclusion without a premise.

One can assert all one pleases, as about logic (or math), but proving is quite another thing, which then is supplied by reality which is objective, which is necessary assumption. All babbling and asserting about logic, without that necessary objectivity, is itself mere assumption. Objectivity renders integrity.

Further, to say, "He [Plato] believed in a really existing, eternal, unchanging realm (of the "Forms") and he believed that realm made knowledge possible," is mere instance of Plato's question-begging.

U couldn't have logic, and u wouldn't even be able to imagine logic without the objective reality which backs it up, gives grounds for it, and to pretend and insist u do is simply question-begging--empty assertion--and this is Kant's problem too, by the way (as I understand things), same w. all the "rationalists," Spinoza, Descartes, and Leibnitz, et al. (fallacy of primacy of consciousness).

Note the chain of reasoning we use needs a starting pt., upon pain of circular-reasoning and infinite regress, so Aristotle (again, as I understand) begins w. necessary assumption of objective reality--this is the beginning ("first philosophy") for all/any further/other reasoning--that there is an objective reality, and the necessary COROLLARY then is consciousness, the sense-perception by which we know about it, reality, the senses necessary part to the reasoning intellect, giving the bridge/link to this objective reality.

And all logic then arises fm the consciousness, perception, and analysis of this objective reality, giving it (logic and math) verification and integrity, and it's impossible to deny this without suffering fallacy of question-begging (empty assertion).

And it's comically absurd to consider Aristotle to be mere "empiricism" as u describe--as if there's only sense-perception without reason/intellect which integrates the evidence of the senses. Sense-perception would be useless and incomplete without the reason/intellect to integrate the info, and vice-versa; reason without sense-perception to supply the content of any reasoning is absurd.

Regarding Christianity, Christ is truth, PERIOD--we don't need this about "love" or "charity" as truth is the primary necessity, love/charity only secondary, and there's no proper basis for any "love" or ANYTHING without FIRST truth (= Christ) and honesty, honesty being essential part to Holy Spirit which consists of reason by which we apprehend such truth, but also requiring honesty, which honesty excludes then those satanic liars (like Pharisees) who prostitute reason in service of lies.

"Love" is mere emotional attraction and repulsion mechanism, emotion being necessary component of humanity, a political expedient, for one thing at least. And of course we express charity--it's necessary political expedient--but truth requires honesty first and most, never forget.

INTEGRITY then is yet another component of Holy Spirit which makes that reason and honesty pervasive throughout the spirit, both conscious (intellect) and sub-conscious (sentiment or emotion).

And Christ absolutely is Aristotelian, but as u surely know, Christ never pretended to lecture the people he taught, many if not most of whom were probably illiterate, in way of college professor. Most people have greatest difficulty w. straight, strict logic and intellect. For otherwise Christ wouldn't be truth, dependent then only upon the God-given, hence objective reality.

Christ made use of the idiom given by Torah which the people knew, respected, and revered by "heart" (memory). The Aristotelian "un-moved mover" is irrelevant; what's essential is truth the product of reality which must be objective; otherwise truth (= Christ) being meaningless. Thus Easter is greatest Christian Holy Day as truth (= Christ) RESURRECTS, as U CANNOT KILL TRUTH, truth being God, no matter how u try--as did the Pharisees, the joke being upon them.

Thus the philosophic anti-thesis to Aristotelian objectivity could only be subjectivism or mere crass mysticism (Plato and Pyrrho). The pt. to subjectivism is the excuse/pretext/basis for "good-evil" Pelagian heresy which actually is the pretext to subjectivism and Pharisaic lies and lying.

In other words, "good-evil" (Pelagian heresy) is pretext for subjectivism and lies as the children and people are programmed by thought-controllers--they aren't first taught reality is subjective; rather like dogs they're trained to be "good" (OBEDIENT and conforming to commands), subjectivity then being smuggled in and insinuated, "truth" then being understood as merely what some authority prescribes.

And what are lies, but a subjective, non-existent proposition which pretends to being the only reality? Thus Christ repudiated the Pharisees for their subjective "midrash" (interpretation) of Torah by means of their "Oral law tradition" (Gosp. MARK ch. 7).

So u see, non-Aristotelianism IS treason once one understands metaphysics and first philosophy. There's no logic without objective reality as premise for it, serving as criterion--and any denial is useless and idle. Q.E.D.

---------------------------above by ap in response to below-copied--------------

Liberty Bell said...
My kids are both sick and I'm feverish now myself, but let me try briefly to say a few things about some of your worries.

Firstly, insofar as you are concerned that my use of the word "skepticism" implies my eschewal of the five senses, it should hopefully lay your concerns to rest to discover that I am wielding the s-word as a term of art rather than a terminus technicus. I don't see that any of my text commits me to Pyrrhonism, for example. My writing aim was simply to take "Scientism" down a peg.

Secondly, I am not a thoroughgoing empiricist.

Number one, this means that I do deny that logic (or mathematics) can be reduced to, or derived from, "sense experience." It's not at all clear to me, however, that this is a liability. I do not see that the contrary position is plausible. What is supposed to be the sense experiential basis be for modus ponens, for instance? What "sense experience" grounds the inference "therefore q," from the premises "if p then q" and "p"? Keep in mind that a material condition is true if it has a conditional with a false antecedent (p = false) - regardless of the truth value of its consequent (q = false or true). E.g., "If the moon is made of cheese, then pigs fly" is a true conditional even though both the antecedent and the consequent are false. What "sense experience" validates this inference? (I submit that none does.)

Number two, I think that at least some formulations of strong empiricism are self-referentially incoherent. Consider the proposition "all knowledge comes from (or is based upon) sense experience." Can this proposition be known? What "sense experience" establishes that "all knowledge comes from sense experience"? I cannot think of any "sense experience" that could even possibly establish this universal claim to be true.
March 1, 2016 at 8:08 PM

Liberty Bell said...
Thirdly, I am not a thoroughgoing Platonist. But, agree with his analysis of reality or not, Plato was neither a "skeptic" nor a "subjectivist." He believed in a really exisiting, eternal, unchanging realm (of the "Forms") and he believed that realm made knowledge possible.

Now, when I previously registered these points by writing that Plato "simply believed that the transient appearances that we are accustomed to calling 'reality' were only shadows of an underlying (or, if you like, overarching) objective realm populated with entities that he termed the 'Forms'," you (thrice) wrote about "...QUESTION-BEGGING[,] ...MORE QUESTION-BEGGING, [and] CRASS QUESTION-BEGGING," labeled Plato's view "ASSERTION" and asked: "BUT HOW WOULD HE KNOW THIS [<-- admits="" are="" aren="" br="" first="" forms="" he="" if="" in="" is="" place="" presumably="" that="" the="" there="" thing="" this="">
Admittedly, I am not entirely sure that I understand your complaints. But let me try to address what I take your main objection to be. (I am assuming that you are not accusing *me* of "question-begging." As I'm sure you know, "begging the question" [petitio principii] is an informal logical fallacy where an arguer smuggles one or more conclusion into her premises. Descriptions don't "beg the questions," but [bad] arguments can. Since *I* was merely *describing* Plato's views at a very general level, I didn't give any *argument* at all. It follows, then, that I didn't beg any questions, logically. So I am going to assume that your beef is with Plato.)

Principally, it looks to me like you think that Plato simply assumed his doctrine of the Forms, rather than arguing for it. If this is indeed your thought, it is a misapprehension.

But before I give one or two of Plato's arguments, let me say something as a preface. I appreciate your readership! I am happy - time permitting - to address concerns that you direct towards me. But I say not one one about Plato in any of what I wrote. I have written about Plato and Platonic themes elsewhere. But not in this article. Hence, I personally do not view any of your concerns about Plato as germane to the article that I wrote.

To be sure, you seem saddle Plato with what you perceive as the excesses or (dare I say) sins of later Skeptics (you single out Pyrrho for special disapprobation). But I think that you're barking up the wrong tree and nothing that you have typed so far alters that judgment. For one thing, Plato was a stalwart defender of moral objectivism - see, e.g., Socrates's attack on the moral relativism of Thrasymachus (Republic 338c ff). For Christians, that sort of commitment should be appealing. Indeed, St. Augustine put many of Plato's concepts to good use in Christian theology. The later reinterpretation of Plato by those gnostics who have come to be called "neo-Platonists" is, I think, another matter. Plato is not a champion of democracy, that's for sure! But his political beliefs are an outgrowth of his view that statecraft is an area of knowledge - and only those who possess that knowledge ought to govern. Enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke were more agreeable to democracy in part because they emphasized that politics was largely a matter of opinion - not knowledge - and, thus, could be opened up to anyone (no expertise required).

In any case, let me state two of the arguments that Plato gave in favor of the existence of the Forms. If you wish to press the objection that these arguments are question-begging, then tell me, please, which of the following premises is merely a restatement of their respective conclusions.
March 1, 2016 at 8:09 PM