A strong WARNING about the disinformation coming from John Alan Martinson Jr, Prothink & some others

[Yo Mama]

Yes not all 3rd world countries are war torn, but the misery is still there. That was more the point I was making. Had you or I had the misfortune to be born there we too would also seek to get out. These other countries that are not war torn still live in misery primarily because of the Jew. The Jew curropts their governments to join the IMF, then rapes their countries of all their worth, leaving the people poor and without a clue as to how to take their countries back. As for immigration policies we both know the Jew is behind them and their very liberal approach, there is no question there. However imagine if we let all these 3rd world countries dissolve themselves of foreign debt, let them control their own destinies without Jewish involvement, and educate them about how to maintain a stable monetary system independent of the world bank. I think then you'd see a lot less immigration into western countries. So again the solution is not to blame the people immigrating to find a better life, but to blame those responsible for making their lives so incredibly dissolute back in their home countries.  I know for one I'd be wanting to get out if I was born in a poor 3rd world country, I'm pretty sure you'd want to too -especially if you had a family to raise in these countries. We can't expect them to rise up against their Jewish oppressors either as most don't have any knowledge of them, or how it is their countries got into the state they are in -in the first place. Hell even remedial education is a pipe dream for most of these people let alone knowledge of the complex world banking scheme that has rendered their homelands unliveable. You cannot blame these people for wanting a better life but you can blame the Jew for taking that opportunity away from them ('away from them' in their home countries that is  -which does make them want to leave which in turn plays into the Jew's hands in his pursuit of the destruction of the White race -it all works together and it's all sourced from the same disease).

You are incorrect.  Third world non-White nations are not hell holes because of the IMF and World Bank.  Third world nations are hell holes because, well, you know the reason, but you are afraid to think it, much less say it, because the explanation is taboo in Western societies.

If the world Jewish banking system were the reason for third world poverty, then Western nations should be in much worse condition economically than third world nations, because Western nations are the CENTER of the world Jewish banking system.  The Jewish banking system originated in the West and is at its most developed state in Western countries, especially the United States.  If your argument were true, then we would expect that Western nations would be much poorer and destitute than third world nations.  But that is not what we see.  In fact, we see just the opposite, by your own admission.  Therefore, your argument does not hold up to scrutiny and is invalid.

The reason that you hold such erroneous ideas about the origin of poverty among non-Whites is because you are arguing from a classical Marxist position.  Classical Marxist theory holds that all human problems can be explained in terms of economics/finance.  So while you think that you are helping the "poor and oppressed," you are actually just promoting old and discredited traditional Jewish Marxist views about human society.

[GordZilla]

Well at least you addressed something directly, that's more like it, but I disagree   . The Western nations hold two things for the Jew; comfort and a people who resemble themselves, making it easy to disappear into its population. Third world countries, for the most part, do not supply this cover or comfort. Yes the Whites do know how to build great civilizations, I'm not arguing that, I'm saying if the Jew was out of the picture we could help others build great civilizations for themselves. Teach a man to fish, as it were. The Jew always stifles this process or impedes it completely. They try to turn us on these people and them against us. Without the Jew the world really could be a great place, segregated but with mutual respect. In this world these third world countries could very well cease to exist.  Again they might not, there may be populations that are just not 'up for it', so to speak, in regards to becoming first world - but again if we left them well enough alone they could only hurt themselves. I agree with you that some populations may not ever aspire to greatness, but again that'd be their problem, not ours, and there'd be no need for us to get involved. We could at least give them sovereignty if nothing else.  That is more the point I'm driving at, we must rid ourselves of the Jew first before we can see just how great we can truly be, how great everyone can truly be.  Which is why I maintain going after people who are 'Jew wise' but not White does not help anyone's situation but the Jew's.  Whites have many great qualities about them, but we're not the only race that could claim this. I really do wonder, though, how the world would be today if the Jew never existed in the first place. I think 'the good' would finally outweigh 'the bad' and we could have built a paradise on earth for everybody. Money is the root of all Jew, and Jew is the root of all evil. I say keep it focused on the real enemy -especially within our ranks. We have low numbers there's no sense, at all, in trying to lower them even further.

BTW as soon as Israel is totally self defended against any threat they will lose the White nations too, '3rd world' is coming our way. They still need us, but not for much longer I suspect.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Gord, I predict that once Yo Mama/MonkeySeeMonkeyDo realizes he has no more friends here and no more ears to listen to his bullshit, he will high tail it back to stormfront and be welcomed by all his skin head faggots in crime.

I'm not MSMD, you fool.  The Jews laugh their asses off at useful idiots like you.  Self-hating Whites who promote the multicultural agenda are the Jews' favorite willing dupes.  Nothing is more pathetic than a White person who sells out to the Jews for free.   :roll:

If you are not MSMD, then I find it strange that you talk, walk, act, and believe EXACTLY as he does.

[Yo Mama]

If you are not MSMD, then I find it strange that you talk, walk, act, and believe EXACTLY as he does.

No, I don't.  That's just your uninformed opinion.

[pas]

Gordzilla, thanks for defending the ''non-White'' anti-judeics (sp?).Even though i'm half White, i felt really supported by your posts.
Not to say i need anyone's approval or something similar, it just feels good and was very well worded.(much better i ever could)
You're a true Gentleman  

Back to the original topic:

[youtube:ne485k57]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv8W9fwTRrM[/youtube]ne485k57]

They got to him.

I think it's a shame, i've learned a lot from him and i'm sure i'm not the only one.

This is a classic:
(Warning! strong language)
[youtube:ne485k57]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiW72iOmwEI[/youtube]ne485k57]

[Helphand]

I think the best definition I've heard was from Alex Linder - it's a shell-game and they are whatever best suits them at the time for the given purpose: whether it's

a race;
an ethnicity;
a religion; or
something else.

One "something else" that Linder suggested was "an international criminal network".

Works for me.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Agreed, Helphand.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Although Freud is often viewed as a "biologist of the mind" (Sulloway 1979a), and although he was clearly influenced by Darwin and proposed a universal human nature, psychoanalysis is highly compatible with environmental influences and the cultural relativism championed by the Boasian school. Freud viewed mental disorder as the result of environmental influences, particularly the repression of sexuality so apparent in the Western culture of his day. For Freud, the biological was universal, whereas individual differences were the result of environmental influences. Gay (1988, 122-124) notes that until Freud, psychiatry was dominated by a biological model in which mental disorder had direct physical (e.g., genetic) causes.

MacDonald, CofC

It will be apparent in Chapter 2 that the cultural determinism of the Boasian school of anthropology functioned to combat anti-Semitism by combating racialist thinking and eugenic programs advocated mainly by gentiles. Psychoanalysis (Ch. 4) and the Frankfurt School (Ch. 5) have also been instrumental in developing and propagating theories of anti-Semitism which attribute anti-Semitism to irrational projections of gentiles. In the case of the Frankfurt School, the theory also functioned to pathologize gentile group allegiances as a symptom of a psychiatric disorder while ignoring Jewish group cohesion.
Second, Jewish involvement in social criticism may be influenced by social identity processes independent of any practical goal such as ending anti- Semitism. Research in social identity processes finds a tendency for displacement of ingroup views away from outgroup norms (Hogg & Abrams 1988). In the case of Jewish-gentile contact, these outgroup norms would paradigmatically represent the consensus views of the gentile society. Moreover, individuals who identify themselves as Jews would be expected to develop negative attributions regarding the outgroup, and for Jews the most salient outgroup is the gentile power structure and indeed the gentile-dominated social structure generally.
Jewish ingroup status vis-à-vis the gentile world as an outgroup would be expected to lead to a generalized negative conceptualization of the gentile outgroup and a tendency to overemphasize the negative aspects of gentile society and social structure. From the social identity perspective, the Jewish tendency to subvert the social order is thus expected to extend beyond developing ideologies and social programs that satisfy specific Jewish economic and social interests and extend to a general devaluation and critique of gentile culture—"the sheer destructive power of Jewish rationalism once it escaped the restraints of the traditional community" (Johnson 1988, 291-292).

Boasian influence is prevalent at TIU. I believed it once, too.

Nevertheless, it is probable that the decline in evolutionary and biological theories of race and ethnicity facilitated the sea change in immigration policy brought about by the 1965 law. As Higham (1984) notes, by the time of the final victory in 1965, which removed national origins and racial ancestry from immigration policy and opened up immigration to all human groups, the Boasian perspective of cultural determinism and anti-biologism had become standard academic wisdom. The result was that "it became intellectually fashionable to discount the very existence of persistent ethnic differences. The whole reaction deprived popular race feelings of a powerful ideological weapon" (Higham 1984, 58-59).

Cultural determinism is the belief that the culture in which we are raised determines who we are at emotional and behavioral levels. This supports the theory that environmental influences dominate who we are instead of biologically inherited traits.

Biological determinism (also biologism) is the interpretation of humans and human life from a strictly biological point of view, and it is closely related to genetic determinism. Another definition is that biological determinism is the hypothesis that biological factors such as an organism's individual genes (as opposed to social or environmental factors) completely determine how a system behaves or changes over time.

While the realistic ratio may be 70 per cent biological to 30 per cent cultural, it is clear why Jews would want to skew this and put cultural on the heavy end of the scale. It provides a convenient cover for their racial dominance.

[Michael K.]

Good to hear from you, Talmud Tim.

Freud viewed mental disorder as the result of environmental influences, particularly the repression of sexuality so apparent in the Western culture of his day. For Freud, the biological was universal, whereas individual differences were the result of environmental influences. Gay (1988, 122-124) notes that until Freud, psychiatry was dominated by a biological model in which mental disorder had direct physical (e.g., genetic) causes.

RE:  One must be careful when deconstructing Freud that we don't lose the positive elements of his legacy.  Archbishop Fulton Sheen was a degree psychologist, himself and could explore Freud's theories in his lectures from a Catholic moral position.  The repression evident in Freud's reference above is the result, I believe, of the over-logical Western Rationalist mindset, its rigid determinism and moralism.  Love is a lot simpler concept, but requires even more care than thinking alone.

Freud neither found a universal love or a universal morality, but he managed to lift the cultural regard for those biological necessities of outward life, and how they mutate the psyche of those in need, creating neurotic dysfunction as a blind survival response to necessity.  Freud was an observer of the first order, and he helped people have a proper regard for human biological weakness and plasticity.  

As a Christian, I see this as man's inherent state, "clay, ashes, dust," and believe that one must seek to create one's own psychological form after the human fashion of The Blessed Virgin, the true and humble servant of God, with all the weaknesses of the flesh but who through love and faith remained pure of the sins of the carnal side of life, because of the birth of God-consciousness within her.  And that is only regarding psychology, for the true transcendence of God must remain unknowable and un-named.

The paradox posed by Catholic Morality in the nineteenth century was one of rational compulsion towards a very dysfunctional sexual morality; one was only supposed to enjoy sex to procreate, and even the slightest deviation was proclaimed a mortal sin.  Yet there was a climate of hidden sin everywhere, because biologically speaking, a human is by nature seeking to have several thousand orgasms in a lifetime, but only have the need for seven children, at the most.  This had the unfortunate tendency to erode morality by making it seem the stuff of fanatics and eunuchs only, when in fact it is a precious way of life.

I recently saw Elder Pavlos, the Abbot of St. Catherine's monastery in Sinai, Egypt.  It houses the "Burning Bush," an incredibly ancient lone willow-looking thing, within its red fortified walls.  He was visiting my state, so I went to see him with friends from Church.  Somebody posed the question of "kids today," and the popular lack of morality, and he said that we ought to have a look at our own sins and see that we make a good example, first.  Then he said that he thinks it is less evil today than when men demanded dowries of women's families just to marry, like when he was a boy.  Last, he said that it is easy today for those married to avoid having children, and that for a faithful Christian who seeks not the world, that to stand close to seven human beings is a glorious martyrdom.  Or in other words, it is a path even higher than the monastic calling to have and love seven children.

Contrast that noble point of view with the harsh, over-logical Catholic summary view of sexual morality and sin.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Well, the prevalence of pedophilia and sexual perversion in the RCC is ample proof that the Catholic model is a massive failure. I do not know if I would go as far as saying there are positive things in Freud's legacy. Is there some truth that humans have some repressed sexual feelings? Yes, but Freud took it to a whole other level.

Christians don't need to do too much in order to align their sexuality with the way God intended it to be. A little more romance, spice, chivalry, and affection is all that is required. In contrast, Freud—and more specifically, Kinsey—offered sexual perversion as the cure to America's slightly sexually repressed WASP.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

The theory of the Oedipal complex, childhood sexuality, and the sexual etiology of the neuroses—the three central doctrines that underlie Freud's radical critique of gentile culture—play absolutely no role in contemporary mainstream developmental psychology. From the standpoint of evolutionary theory, the idea that children would have a specifically sexual attraction to their opposite sex parent is highly implausible, since such an incestuous relationship would result in inbreeding depression and be more likely to result in disorders caused by recessive genes (see MacDonald 1986). The proposal that boys desire to kill their fathers conflicts with the general importance of paternal provisioning of resources in understanding the evolution of the family (MacDonald 1988a; 1992): Boys who had succeeded in killing their fathers and having sex with their mothers would not only be left with genetically inferior offspring, but also be deprived of paternal support and protection. Modern developmental studies indicate that many fathers and sons have very close, reciprocated affectional relationships beginning in infancy, and the normative pattern is for mothers and sons to have very intimate and affectionate, but decidedly nonsexual, relationships.

Freud's legacy?

. In Eros and Civilization Marcuse accepts Freud's theory that Western culture is pathogenic as a result of the repression of sexual urges, paying homage to Freud, who "recognized the work of repression in the highest values of Western civilization—which presuppose and perpetuate unfreedom and suffering" (p. 240). Marcuse cites Wilhelm Reich's early work approvingly as an exemplar of the "leftist" wing of Freud's legacy. Reich "emphasized the extent to which sexual repression is enforced by the interests of domination and exploitation, and the extent to which these interests are in turn reinforced and reproduced by sexual repression" (p. 239). Like Freud, Marcuse points the way to a nonexploitative utopian civilization that would result from the complete end of sexual repression, but Marcuse goes beyond Freud's ideas in Civilization and Its Discontents only in his even greater optimism regarding the beneficial effects of ending sexual repression.

—MacDonald, CofC

[Michael K.]

Dear Timothy Fitzpatrick,

I don't support Freud and don't recommend him, but I give credit to his psychoanalytic method, the technique of searching for an unnatural restriction on the libido (understood as natural, morally pure libido) as a likely source of neurotic perversity in the character.  In general, it makes sense.  But one doesn't have to use Freud's weird Jewish value system as a measuring stick for what one discovers in the psyche through this type of inquisitive observation.  

Freud doesn't have the answers to life's persistent questions, but to his credit he look for deformities in the invisible realm of the psyche as a possible cause for mental illness and depression, rather than straight deformities of the body's tissues, genes or so forth.  It's probably right to give him some credit for his pioneering in this field, even if he was rather perverted and blind in his reliance on logic derived from, as you pointed out, flawed axioms.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Dear Timothy Fitzpatrick,

Freud doesn't have the answers to life's persistent questions, but to his credit he look for deformities in the invisible realm of the psyche as a possible cause for mental illness and depression, rather than straight deformities of the body's tissues, genes or so forth.  It's probably right to give him some credit for his pioneering in this field, even if he was rather perverted and blind in his reliance on logic derived from, as you pointed out, flawed axioms.

I see what you saying. I wonder if, like many other Jews of high esteem, Freud plagiarized any of his work.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

[youtube:up8smdzq]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYNMusziNL0[/youtube]up8smdzq]

This Norse Wolf guy and JAM and Delaney need to get together and produce videos. Very fine work.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Michael K, what are your thoughts on sociobiology? Does one have to be an atheist to belong to this school of thought?

[Michael K.]

Dear Timothy Fitzpatrick,

Although I am not versed in the works on sociobiology, let me answer with my view on what the Encyclopedia Britannica summarizes as "Sociobiology":

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/551863/sociobiology

sociobiology, the systematic study of the biological basis of social behaviour. The term sociobiology was popularized by the American biologist Edward O. Wilson in his book Sociobiology: The New Synthesis (1975). Sociobiology attempts to understand and explain animal (and human) social behaviour in the light of natural selection and other biological processes. One of its central tenets is that genes (and their transmission through successful reproduction) are the central motivators in animals' struggle for survival, and that animals will behave in ways that maximize their chances of transmitting copies of their genes to succeeding generations. Since behaviour patterns are to some extent inherited, the evolutionary process of natural selection can be said to foster those behavioural (as well as physical) traits that increase an individual's chances of reproducing.

Sociobiology has contributed several insights to the understanding of animal social behaviour. It explains apparently altruistic behaviour in some animal species as actually being genetically selfish, since such behaviours usually benefit closely related individuals whose genes resemble those of the altruistic individual. This insight helps explain why soldier ants sacrifice their lives in order to defend their colony, or why worker honeybees in a hive forego reproduction in order to help their queen reproduce. Sociobiology can in some cases explain the differences between male and female behaviour in certain animal species as resulting from the different strategies the sexes must resort to in order to transmit their genes to posterity.

Sociobiology is more controversial, however, when it attempts to explain various human social behaviours in terms of their adaptive value for reproduction. Many of these behaviours, according to one objection, are more plausibly viewed as cultural constructs or as evolutionary by-products, without any direct adaptive purpose of their own. Some sociobiologists—Wilson in particular—have been accused of attributing adaptive value to various widespread but morally objectionable behaviours (such as sexism and racism), thereby justifying them as natural or inevitable. Defenders of sociobiology reply that at least some aspects of human behaviour must be biologically influenced (because competition with other species would select for this trait); that evolutionary explanations of human behaviour are not defective in principle but should be evaluated in the same way as other scientific hypotheses; and that sociobiology does not imply strict biological determinism.

I do not think that one must be an atheist to validate sociobiology itself, at least in terms of behavior in animals.  Since the act of passing on life is the central function on which the rest of life is predicated, it is natural to explain the adaptations of living creatures as primarily to further success in this area.  There are thousands of examples, but bird behaviors, songs and plumage come to mind.

As far as the application of sociobiology to human affairs, I can see significant adaptation in humans as driven by the genetic forces spoken of in sociobiology, most especially around reproductive strategies to deal with a given habitat and climate.  However, it is neither good science or good philosophy to make too much excuse for poor treatment of others using the genetics argument in any way.  Being invested heavily in such beliefs would tend to skew good scientific research by such an individual.  Likewise, cultural factors, like free will itself, are not determined by one's genetic makeup although genes are a primary environmental factor which will always have a certain direct influence on the individual's thoughts and feelings.