If you think so, you’re a racist:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-considine/muslims-are-not-a-race_b_8591660.html
You wish, Christian.
Yes, Christians exist too.
First factual thing I’ve see you say in a long time.
Sandy has offered you already a solution - miscegenation.
No more Whites, no more anti-white sentiment.
They should call it race-mixing against hate.
Your emotional appeal aside, Yes, it’s true anti-white sentiment is very wide spread - fact.
And many of them don’t see this as a bad thing or a shameful thing because Whitey deserves to die because he so evil.
Come on, if you don’t think some group is evil then you couldn’t reconcile it with your wish to destroy them. Of course they have to think of Whites as being evil.
Bottomline,
Anti-White is real.
What shall we do about it?
I have an idea!
We are super nice to them, that will convince them that we are not evil. It has worked so well in the past.
No wait, we gonna advocate for universal rights for humanity. We gonna advocate for the wretched all over the world. …
No, wait, we play the Wyld/Fixxed card, we declare Whites are not real - Problem solved. No more racism, please…
Hmmm, somehow it’s like you give an inch and they take an inch…
What’s going on here? 
You’re one of us–“whites”, if you will–insofar as you affirm the will to power.
You’re one of the communists, or whatever you want to call it, insofar as you deny the will to power.
http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2577337#p2577337
“Unlike most thinkers of this century, [Heidegger] was clear that neither his country, nor her universities existed or have any right to exist apart from the resolve to have them. Consequently he despised any allegiance which assumed that its object exists independently of the will that it be. Self-assertion, the willing of its self, is the only existence moral or communal things can have. Heidegger, therefore, rejected Hitler’s claim that Aryan superiority over Jews exists by nature apart from will or self-assertion. He traced Hitler’s error to ‘fishing in the murky waters of values and universals,’ that is, to what Spinoza called superstition. For Hitler wanted his biologists to prove his racial theories scientifically.
Heidegger despised Hitler for this ‘Platonic’ enslavement to the common sense need for independently existing moral standards. The lesson of 1933 was responsible for Heidegger’s liberal contempt for politics. It taught him that Hitler’s enslavement to superstition was no exception, but the necessary hallmark of political or moral life.” (Harry Neumann, Liberalism (1991), “Illiberalism or Liberalism?”)
No, I’m just in possession of clear headedness in denying will to power, same as I deny Dragons and the Fountain of Youth.
A State, likewise Institutions, are not “products” of Being and Becoming, but exterior to thatness. We see this in hierarchical contradictions of myriad types of things, at root there us Operand and Operator, not Self nor Thing. We don’t will ourselves or others, we do not create our own values, values in and of themselves are formed by unconscious parameter of logic, networked well before realization takes place.
Example. I presume State, but neither How or Why needs be asked when I merely think of state in it’s most abstract, or think of “My State”.
An calculation in every state is administration and borders, the interior and exterior, and the exterior mapping of states in relation all abide by The Four Colors Theorem, that the most efficient pattering that the most complex map of national borders using solid colors is four, no matter the pattern, four colors are the maximum colors used.
This coincidentally is the Cardinal Directory of Friendship and Emnity
Friend is to Enemy
Enemy if my Enemy is my Friend
If North is Myself, and Sauwelios is my Enemy South, I can choose East or West as enemy too if I cared to, and most likely would get the opposite as a Ally, and Sauwelios would get what’s left over, or vice versa if Sauwelios acted first. Choice and volition is much less a consideration, some things act unconsciously in a hidden logic of mental networks, and it isn’t built into out sense of self, which is a consciousness in part at best.
A state can develop institutions out of necessity, and these institutions in playing to necessity will seek out axiomatic awareness of these kinds of ideas over time.
What is NOT reputable nor controllable is “stateness” or “institutional I am”, what is controllable is the color scheme on the map, the maintence of institutions, or willingness to play along. It is how a state rises and falls in part, you do have a say in shitting on it, but that doesn’t refute our neurology, the logic it products, and the schemes man in civilization after civilization resurrect, because we know of no other way to think, it is inately built into us. The awareness of things is only a aspect of consciousness, not to be mistaken for the totality of existence, or even how we necessarily interact with it in actuality. Sleep paralysis is a great case of where it all implodes. There is a reason why this philosophy died off in antiquity.
Clear-headedness. Plato’s pure mind.
The Christian denies dragons and the fountain of youth, but not virgin birth and creation out of nothing. How ironic.
The Catholic especially, pretends to be all angelic and halo-like when he sports a picture of an old man and a young boy with every post he makes…
That’s what you get when you deny Eros, the “dark” (blinding!) aspect of Eros (as Devil, Antichrist, Unholy Spirit (impure mind)).
“The best description of modernity is unlimited freedom, a freedom akin to that of the Christian god who, according to tradition, creates everything out of nothing. However that god does not create himself, while modernity’s liberalism creates both its self and its world. If atheism means rejection of any objectively existing moral standards which rightfully limit freedom, modernity is radically atheist.
Christian rejection of a self-creating god is a remnant of what Spinoza despises as Platonic lunacy. For it means that at least one thing–the most important thing–has a being eternally independent of any human or divine creativity. To be sure, the Christian finds this independent existence not in the common sense world, but in another realm revealed through his religious faith. In this lower world he is far more open than the ancients to modernity’s horror especially when his faith weakens or dies. Then he too confronts a liberal reality in which nothing, including his own self, has any integrity apart from his interpretation of it.” (ibid.)
So you’ve abandoned the debate Sauwelios via tangential feint? Not even Issydorf gave up, but your folding already.
Looks like this Catholic won. You need to go get a mod to change your name to “Bitch Boy”.
Never could hold your own in a debate under pressure.
Poor Turd, always reading stuff into other people’s behaviour. The “pressure” is all in your mind–if not in your ass.
What did the part I did not quote of your previous post have to do with anything? Nice Mondriaan-like arrangement of colours, though.
and then this…George’s follow up statement,
Men/boys like him wade in dangerous water oblivious to what lies underneath and they are completely unequipped to handled whatever the consequences of such flippancy may eventuate.
They cast anyone who raises concerns about something like this into the ‘white supremacist’ bin, and then claim that nobody really believes it (the concept). It’s somehow imaginary just because they say so. Nevermind this group of people over here…
Also, even if it IS imaginary, he is still calling for it. I am not sure how ‘there isn’t any white genocide happening right now’ is a defense to his statements or means that it’s somehow impossible to call for it. Isn’t that the point of calling for something?
Also, he immediately clarified his original post by saying “To clarify: when the whites were massacred during the Haitian Revolution, that was a good thing indeed.” This without a doubt dispels any claim that this was satirical, and clarifies his beliefs about the existence of white genocide even if he won’t admit it. To defend this, people are saying that he meant killing the slave owners was a good thing. Not sure if that case could be legitimately argued, however, this professor did not say “when the slave owners were massacred” he said “when the whites were massacred” which simultaneously lumps all of the whites together, and also implies that he is OK with what happened to the women and children as well.
He also deleted the posts right afterwards, and also then privatized his account. There is a history of posts like this with him (apparently these most recent ones aren’t even the worst), and also he is ‘well-known’ in the Venezuela mess of things.
There is no defending this. This was true colour coming out, nothing short of it. Those here that are claiming some sort of aloofness to this type of discussion seem to think they exist in a vacuum.
No one is claiming aloofness, just extreme indifference at this point. I can’t imagine anything less impressive that the opinion of a professor these days. The US election showed we’ve become increasingly immune to their political slants, they’ve cried wolf too many times on bullshit topics like it was the end of the world.
Your gonna see a lot of universities like this fade away over the next few generations. It’s not worth gettingbangry over, you just wave goodbye to them. It’s not the 1950s anymore, they aren’t your only source of knowledge, and many degrees they offer aren’t mandated. Nobody needs a sociology, history, philosophy, liberal arts degree to do said things. Medical schools have a bright future, most others do not. We live in the ironic age of university expansion of campuses with a rising virtual internet. One is gonna break the other eventually. Knowing this, why should I expend one iota of emotion on this piece of shit, knowing he is hardly the first? They’ve numbed us to the point of disregarding them all together. That’s what matters, not getting angry. Should we get angry, protest and demand a new professor? No, we should just let nature take it’s course. They would go away, and will eventually be as isolated as Sauwelios is in trying to convince others, lacking authority, title, and bully pulpit. It is a miserable, unaspiring twilight existence.
Well I hope you’re right, and I agree about the internet etc. I suppose I am not as optimistic that ‘nature’s course’ won’t lead us to much worse before it gets much better. On one hand the more people like this “professor” reveal themselves the more strength it lends to opposition and attracts more scrutiny, however, it also works in the other direction as well. But what is ‘nature’s course’ ?
These last two posts I can agree with–except of course for the remark about myself, which Turd had to make because he’s been obsessed with me since before he followed me here from The Nietzsche Forum (now defunct). The philosophy of the will to power has always been rightly perceived as a threat by him.
EDIT: I wrote this before Mimisbrunnr’s post from :52.
Mimisbrunnr wrote:
Integrity means being consistent and truthful, all I see is an outright abuse of power or privilege which probably extends to his classroom.
I agree, which is why I don’t think leaving it up to ‘nature’s course’ is the best course of action (non-action). Seeing how ‘radical’ (corrupted) this “professor” is, I don’t think it is unfair to make the assumption that he grades based on how well the student is being indoctrinated. I can’t imagine how he treats students that disagree with him. He probably doesn’t get that very often. Personally, I think this should be fought without mercy.
Ashkenazi afterall.
A coincidence, one of many.
That would be interesting. Can you back it up?
If white people keep on not fucking concerning rapidly declining fertility rates he might get what he wants. All joking aside this guy is a Marxist asshole.