Another bottle of wine for our guest

 

From: holderlin66
Date: Wed Feb 25, 2004 8:06 pm
Subject: Another bottle of wine for our guest

Bradford comments;

Let me see if this wine taste bitter, errr better!!

"The Marxians have resorted to polylogism because they could not refute by logical methods the theories developed by "bourgeois" economics, or the inferences drawn from these theories demonstrating the impracticability of socialism. As they could not rationally demonstrate the soundness of their own ideas or the unsoundness of their adversaries' ideas, they have denounced the accepted logical methods. The success of this Marxian stratagem was unprecedented. It has rendered proof against any reasonable criticism all the absurdities of Marxian would-be economics and would-be sociology. Only by the logical tricks of polylogism could etatism gain a hold on the modern mind."

What the Nazis Borrowed from Marx

"The Nazis did not invent polylogism. They only developed their own brand.

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1457

"Until the middle of the nineteenth century no one ventured to dispute the fact that the logical structure of mind is unchangeable and common to all human beings. All human interrelations are based on this assumption of a uniform logical structure. We can speak to each other only because we can appeal to something common to all of us, namely, the logical structure of reason. Some men can think deeper and more refined thoughts than others. There are men who unfortunately cannot grasp a process of inference in long chains of deductive reasoning. But as far as a man is able to think and to follow a process of discursive thought, he always clings to the same ultimate principles of reasoning that are applied by all other men. There are people who cannot count further than three; but their counting, as far as it goes, does not differ from that of Gauss or Laplace. No historian or traveler has ever brought us any knowledge of people for whom a and non-a were identical, or who could not grasp the difference between affirmation and negation. Daily, it is true, people violate logical principles in reasoning. But whoever examines their inferences competently can uncover their errors.

Because everyone takes these facts to be unquestionable, men enter into discussions; they speak to each other; they write letters and books; they try to prove or to disprove. Social and intellectual coöperation between men would be impossible if this were not so. Our minds cannot even consistently imagine a world peopled by men of different logical structures or a logical structure different from our own.

Yet, in the course of the nineteenth century this undeniable fact has been contested. Marx and the Marxians, foremost among them the "proletarian philosopher" Dietzgen, taught that thought is determined by the thinker's class position. What thinking produces is not truth but "ideologies." This word means, in the context of Marxian philosophy, a disguise of the selfish interest of the social class to which the thinking individual is attached. It is therefore useless to discuss anything with people of another social class. Ideologies do not need to be refuted by discursive reasoning; they must be unmasked by denouncing the class position, the social background, of their authors. Thus Marxians do not discuss the merits of physical theories; they merely uncover the "bourgeois" origin of the physicists."

Bradford concludes;

I did not know that Marxist thinking was so like, so like, what is the example I am looking for?

...................................................................................................................................

From: holderlin66
Date: Wed Feb 25, 2004 8:19 pm
Subject: Another bottle of wine for our guest/smell the cork

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, holderlin66 wrote:

Now here is some good whine...no I meant wine, vat is da mattter mit me?

"The German nationalists had to face precisely the same problem as the Marxians. They also could neither demonstrate the correctness of their own statements nor disprove the theories of economics and praxeology. Thus they took shelter under the roof of polylogism, prepared for them by the Marxians. Of course, they concocted their own brand of polylogism. The logical structure of mind, they say, is different with different nations and races. Every race or nation has its own logic and therefore its own economics, mathematics, physics, and so on.

But, no less inconsistently than Professor Mannheim, Professor Tirala, his counterpart as champion of Aryan epistemology, declares that the only true, correct, and perennial logic and science are those of the Aryans.[xiii] In the eyes of the Marxians Ricardo, Freud, Bergson, and Einstein are wrong because they are bourgeois; in the eyes of the Nazis they are wrong because they are Jews. One of the foremost goals of the Nazis is to free the Aryan soul from the pollution of the Western philosophies of Descartes, Hume, and John Stuart Mill. They are insearch of arteigen[xiv]German science, that is, of a science adequate to the racial character of the Germans.

We may reasonably assume as hypothesis that man's mental abilities are the outcome of his bodily features. Of course, we cannot demonstrate the correctness of this hypothesis, but neither is it possible to demonstrate the correctness of the opposite view as expressed in the theological hypothesis. We are forced to recognize that we do not know how out of physiological processes thoughts result.

We have some vague notions of the detrimental effects produced by traumatic or other damage inflicted on certain bodily organs; we know that such damage may restrict or completely destroy the mental abilities and functions of men. But that is all. It would be no less than insolent humbug to assert that the natural sciences provide us with any information concerning the alleged diversity of the logical structure of mind. Polylogism cannot be derived from physiology or anatomy or any other of the natural sciences.

Neither Marxian nor Nazi polylogism ever went further than to declare that the logical structure of mind is different with various classes or races. They never ventured to demonstrate precisely in what the logic of the proletarians differs from the logic of the bourgeois, or in what the logic of the Aryans differs from the logic of the Jews or the British.

It is not enough to reject wholesale the Ricardian theory of comparative cost or the Einstein theory of relativity by unmasking the alleged racial background of their authors. What is wanted is first to develop a system of Aryan logic different from non-Aryan logic. Then it would be necessary to examine point by point these two contested theories and to show where in their reasoning inferences are made which — although correct from the viewpoint of non-Aryan logic — are invalid from the viewpoint of Aryan logic. And, finally, it should be explained what kind of conclusions the replacement of the non-Aryan inferences by the correct Aryan inferences must lead to.

But all this never has been and never can be ventured by anybody. The garrulous champion of racism and Aryan polylogism, Professor Tirala, does not say a word about the difference between Aryan and non-Aryan logic. Polylogism, whether Marxian or Aryan, or whatever, has never entered into details."

Bradford concludes;

I guess they never met Peter.

...................................................................................................................................

From: holderlin66
Date: Thu Feb 26, 2004 8:51 am
Subject: Re: Another bottle of wine for our guest

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, holderlin66

What thinking produces is not truth but "ideologies." This word means, in the context of Marxian philosophy, a disguise of the selfish interest of the social class to which the thinking individual is attached. It is therefore useless to discuss anything with people of another social class. Ideologies do not need to be refuted by discursive reasoning; they must be unmasked by denouncing the class position, the social background, of their authors.

Bradford attempts to illuminate;

You see, we have ideologies. We are members of the Michael School club, we have got the letters, the baseball caps (which incidentally, I want to get a start up company that really produces neat baseball caps that have STEINER boldly on them for distribution and mail order) plus many here play in the Steiner Rock Band and School orchestra. There is the Eurythmy glee club, those rollicking cheerleaders with their sexy outfits...And those sour Rabbinical Waldorf Teachers all dressed in the latest Steiner Smock.

If someone were to argue with us, well for them, Ideologies are as good as races, relgions, country clubs and gated communities. In fact think of Gated Communites. We have them all over America. Hopefully those Gated Communities will contain demographically like minded, like incomed souls with the same values. The same watered down and bullshit American values, but that is what we pay for in living in a Gated Community. You can go to any dinner party and really just hear the same ole stuff because of the social class that you have chosen to hide in.

If you are a member of the Michael club... you might get responses like, "I prefer to discuss it this particular way, because what would be the point in saying, the people in my low rent, Ahrimanic mind set community, my materialistic community, really don't care for your stinking Steiner ideologies". For the world is now in a place where pockets of fragmented belief systems collect themselves, and incestually talk amongst themselves.

If suddenly a different race or religion were to suddenly move in or rent a house in this already distinct community, well, people would take notice, they would respond. Prejudice would fly. OOOps there goes the neighborhood. The housing values go down, people leave the schools.. a real Love Canal.. of ecological or soico-ecological poison is released.

How can I better put this? The thinking mind, the skull, the very substance of our souls, and Christine is right to point to idiots in science trying to prove humanity has a soul or that humans have astral out of the body experience, but they didn't ask us. The article she presented was right to declare that such thinking is beyond the scope of most thinkers and it would entail crossing the line to another "Ideology".

These Ideologies, for some of us who have failed to catch up, have nothing to do with great bogus humanitarian brotherhood and global cosmopolitan hand holding and tree hugging, no. Rather they have to do, with how the intellect, the materialistic intellect has defined, not sweeping spiritual issues, but rather, pockets of isolated, protected, enfranchised and specific communities of ideologies. Gated communites, members only clubs and members only lists.

You see how even a list becomes a Gated Village and a visitor would stay clear of treating the content or substance as anything but a highly protected klan of Ideologies, which each differnt brain and soul gathers around itself? For them, this has nothing to do with the objectivity of the world but rather appears as the highest level of the subjectivity of the world.

...................................................................................................................................

From: holderlin66
Date: Thu Feb 26, 2004 9:33 am
Subject: Re: Another bottle of wine for our guest/smell the cork

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, holderlin66

We may reasonably assume as hypothesis that man's mental abilities are the outcome of his bodily features. Of course, we cannot demonstrate the correctness of this hypothesis, but neither is it possible to demonstrate the correctness of the opposite view as expressed in the theological hypothesis. We are forced to recognize that we do not know how out of physiological processes thoughts result.

Bradford asks;

Mental abilities = bodily features. Think of the implications of this statement. Care to examine this hypothesis? Let see now. You look Chinese so you must be able to speak Chinese and as Steiner has indicated in the Egyptian Iblis research, Speech brings forth Thought, so you must be thinking as Chinese think. Therefore your relation to "The Great Wall of China"..(I'm sounding like the character in Princess Bride when he discusses Australians) your relation to the Great Wall of China, puts you out of touch with western civilization and subject to the ant mentality of the ancient pre-egohood of Atlanteans.

Why? Because not only can we see the Great Wall of China from the Moon but it was a deliberate occult attempt to make the thinking of the Chinese and all those souls who need to dip back into Chinese incarnations, as a refresher course of Atlantean will forces and iron bound family ties.

You also, must be gifted in the Art of Kung Fu because you have slanted eyes and make screechy noises when you punch things. Your bodily features tell me that you are catlike, tricky and not to be trusted. I know this because I've seen a Bruce Lee movie. Anyone who promotes Bruce Lee and Kung Fu movies obviously have Racial motivations and their intentions are racist. For them it is "nichts weniger als" all those western devils. Therefore Bruce Lee and the cult of the Crow, Bruce Lee and "Kung Pow! Enter the Fist" are promoting racial doctrines.

Then we trace back the different pictographic reading from top to bottom and how alien it is to those who read from left to right or from right to left, we begin to see the entire conspiracy of the brain. It is all full of brain imbedded and body type realities. As those various races developed with their reading and writing counter to all Aryan traditions look what happened to the brains of the Hebrews? You see Aryan traditions and the changing of brain patterns from ancient pictograph and hieroglyphics to writing must be considered. For those tricky Chinese still use the vertical pictographic method of reading and writing. Just think of the implications of such crap if it is still taught in their schools.

But by all means, avoid in your discussion the idea that Picture Consciousness was denied, no images were allowed the Hebrew People. Why, well it was either antisemitic or anti-aryan. Once they lost all those wild pagan images and were forced to retrain their imaginations, the Hebrews became coin counters and bookies...

Whoever it was that shifted the Hebrew People out of Imaginations, Memories-Dreams and Reflections- obviously made way for Freud. The height of reducing the brain waves of the Hebrew People to the dry counting of math had intentional fruit of producing not only Einstein but the Rothchilds and there you have it.. Moses with his silly Egyptian experience messed up the entire universe and that is why we have the atomic bomb today.

You see the atomic bomb is math to the math of Oppenheimer and Einstein and instead of the Messiah, they got Einstein's flowering of the Messiah in the math of the bomb, all because of reshaping the brain to fit racial characteristics.Whose fault was it? Moses.

Bradford

 Rudolf Hess

Hess, English occultism and the Flight in UK 

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
 

February/March 2004

The Uncle Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files

Anthroposophy & Anarchism

Anthroposophy & Scientology

Anthroposophical Morsels

Anthroposophy, Critics, and Controversy

Search this site powered by FreeFind