“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” doesn’t require a Masters, PhD or intimate knowledge of social science. Quantum science or Calculus didn’t need to be developed in order for Christs words to make sense. The people he preached to at the time had the faculties to be able to put that into practice.
The complexity in the argument “what is happiness”, is not based on the inherit complexity of the question, but the difficulty in keeping the answer SIMPLE.
Keeping things simple is HARD.
Arguing with ever increasing levels of complexity is EASY.
I’ve argued such questions with philosopher types and gotten into ever increasingly complex arguments, bringing in all manner of philosophers, theories, science etc.
It certaintly looks difficult, and impressive. But its EASY and LAZY.
Try doing that, and just keeping it simple, being able to nail the basic point and sticking to it. That’s HARD.
That requires a mental clarity and discipline that we aren’t taught at school.
ME:
“Keeping things simple is HARD.”
BRILLIANT!
AND an excellent example of doing just that!
#1 by richard on 07/17/2007 - 9:19 am
Keeping things simple is hard, but as I used to tell my girlfriend, keeping things hard is simple.
#2 by Prometheus on 07/17/2007 - 6:51 pm
I think the schooling system trains people to have to justify everything they believe, ESPECIALLY if it is contrary to ‘established’ beliefs. This also includes justifying opinions and rationalising group self preservation.
The survival of whites as a race is NOT up for debate and does NOT have to be rationalised.
So what do many on Stormfront do? They argue as if the antis/liberals are the ones who have to ‘approve’ of our opinions. One does not have to justify their individial right to survive. Why should a race have to do the same?
The opinions of SHWP who want our race to assimilate should be as irrelevant as the opinion of our next door neighbour who wants us to die so they can take over our property.
Treating the opinions of SHWP as such, and never wavering from that isn’t easy.
#3 by Lord Nelson on 07/17/2007 - 8:00 pm
I think this is getting to the real point of why we are in this fight.
With respect to other leaders in this cause, it appears that only in this blog serious progress is being made.
#4 by AFKAN on 07/18/2007 - 1:00 am
Dealing with the truth about RACE is almost like a small-scale religious conversion; the Truth becomes easier to accept, and you see it more often, more directly, as you can accept it.
Arguing with our RACIAL Enemies, and their supporters, is the height of folly, as you are being rational with the irrational; they enjoy seeing you trying to get them to “wake up,” and – like Children – love watching you get mad…
Arguing with them is (1) falling for the fallacy of Wordism, while (2) their EMOTIONAL reality, which, like the Child, is dominant in their Minds, feels vindicated by their EMOTIONAL superiority. They KNOW they are “right,” and your Mind just gets in the way of grasping their Morally Superior Insight.
I am to the point that I believe Metzger is an optimist.
I’ve constructively written off about 90% of the people I know, with a handful of simple tests: “Watches Oprah, Y/N?” gets rid of most of the women right there.
I am also much more forthright about discussions of the RACIAL issue, when I can be.
As much as I admire the Mantra, it actually seems to require too much damn thought for most of our people.
My new slogans are simple: “Diversity Is Perversity.” “It’s OK for THEM to hate US; why isn’t it OK for US to return the favor?”
THAT gets me the landing I need to begin to lay the foundations of discussing the Mantra.
Getting to the Mantra is like getting to Calculus; you have to do a LOT of foundation work, and mine deals with overcoming the emotional barriers to accepting us.
Higher-level reasoning will come in time, or they will suffer the consequences of the Eloi among the Morlocks.
#5 by Prometheus on 07/18/2007 - 6:41 am
Lord Nelson, were in a war.
Words are our weapons. They are to be used against the words of others.
You don’t win a war by building more impressive and awesome machines, you win be destroying the machines your enemy uses against you.
Replace the word ‘machine’ with ‘words/arguments’ and you’ll see what I consider to be the difference between this seminar and other WN forums.
#6 by Simmons on 07/18/2007 - 10:56 am
Tautology a peculiar Jewish trait passed on to the more primitive of Earth’s inhabitants. No decent white man takes it up, and if he/she is in particular somewhat literate they reject tautology and the bastard children such as Freudian techniques of “debate.” The East Asians never seem to belabor failed nostrums and White men of any intelligence quickly apply Occam’s law to anything worthwhile or they take up PC wordism and then fade from sight (seen Jack Kemp lately?). We are deprogramming a cult here with its emotive appeal and reward system. It takes asking the right questions, providing the right amount of scepticism to the wordist answers and then providing the correct line of reasoning, or we belabor till death with little to show for it like the people at Amren providing for the millioneth time some statistic about some non-white perfidy.