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