Every political revolution in history is preceded and in fact made possible by a philosophical revolution and the enlightenment period was built on what we now call modernism. This school of thought covered everything including how we come to know things, whether or not we can truly acquire knowledge, human nature, a diagnosis of society, a prescription based on that diagnosis, whether truth really exists or not, the individual versus the collective and the fundamental reasons behind that and so much more.

The first philosopher that we could really say was a postmodern was Hegel. He was also one of the first existential philosophers. He came right after Immanuel Kant and laid the groundwork for the real postmoderns that work to come, and other existentialists for that matter like Nietzsche and Sartre.

In my view, one cannot have what could be considered insightful and uncommon understanding of the current political landscape without knowledge of the philosophical systems that make it possible ie postmodernism and how it is a reaction to modernism, which is what the enlightenment was based on.

I see two basic ways of increasing knowledge and they need balance. They can be thought of as vertical and horizontal. Horizontal knowledge is when one is at a certain level and continues to acquire information at that level. They get to know what they already know a little bit better. The other way, vertical knowledge, is when we actually acquire new understandings and achieve new depths of knowledge that bring us to a different level. Once we do that we need to consolidate and re-engage in building horizontal knowledge at that new level.

What I see 99% of the time his people engaging, and satisfied to be engaging, in mere horizontal knowledge building. It takes work to achieve uncommon depth of understanding and add to one's vertical knowledge.

https://www.facebook.com/BostonAnti...

The tactic is to dehumanize the enemy, who happen to be white people who carry American flags, but calling them a dehumanizing name. Then, in order to insulate themselves from a moral judgment, they call themselves names like "Anti-Racists" and "Anti-Fascists", as they throw acid in people's faces (Baked Alaska), beat up women with American flags (BOSTON) and stab white guys that "look like a Nazi" (BOSTON - see video above).

These people are in MY COUNTRY, burning MY FLAG and telling me they are DOING GOOD?

From the wikipedia page on The Daily Stormer, this paragraph details the reactions of well known white nationalists to the Daily Stormer, the neo-nazi website.

<Reaction from white nationalists Photographic portrait of a smiling man outside
Jared Taylor criticized the tone of The Daily Stormer.

White nationalist websites such as Stormfront and Counter-Currents have taken issue with what they see as lowbrow coverage on The Daily Stormer, as well as Anglin's defense of Christianity and denunciation of the white supremacist group Christian Identity.[8] Kyle Rogers of the Council of Conservative Citizens has also criticized the website for reprinting its material.[8] Anglin has also been criticized for his relationships with non-white women in the Philippines, and for his insults towards white women on his website.[7]

Colin Liddell of AlternativeRight.com has criticized Anglin's beliefs and tone. Liddell, who believes that stopping migration and encouraging higher birthrates is more important for preserving the white race, condemned Anglin for writing that it was impossible for the race to survive without adopting his views on Jews, Hitler and the Holocaust.[5] Liddell considered that Anglin was attracting poor whites with his provocative online persona in the same manner as monster trucks and professional wrestling, writing that "it is hard not to conclude that Anglin is a paid shill and agent provocateur, whose purpose is simply to infest and discredit White nationalism".[2] Jared Taylor of American Renaissance criticized The Daily Stormer's "extremely harsh, dismissive and insulting tone toward blacks", which he called unhelpful.[2]

Others, such as the Traditionalist Youth Network, have praised The Daily Stormer for its reach and influence.[8] Anglin's extreme tone has led some white nationalists to suspect that he is an undercover Jew, an accusation he finds analogous to believing that Jewish LGBT activist Allen Ginsberg was an undercover Nazi.[22]>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_D...

As I've been studying the Alt Right since last October, I would say that the opinions of the majority of Alt Righters fall in line with the statements above, like Jared Taylor's.

What can we conclude from this?

We can conclude that there is a sharp difference between neo-nazis and the Alt Right, which includes elements of white nationalism and white supremacy, but mostly white nationalism and white advocacy.

Does this mean that the liberals will stop blurring the lines? No. Their agenda is to label every single person on the right, no matter what their positions, a Nazi so that they can punch them, beat them, throw acid on them, tear down their statues, burn their flag, keep their speakers from speaking on campus, burn their cities, break their windows, loot their businesses and throw urine in their faces.

Yes, they do all this and then they do it some more. They do it all over the country, but it's okay because they call themselves anti-racists, a label which absolves them from every evil act they commit. You see, racism is now the greatest evil (doesn't exist, never did), so the ends justify the means.

The first one is hard to watch, as interviewer Jorge Ramos constantly interrupts him and won't allow him to finish his sentences. Taylor clearly makes his point about the double standard where Hispanics can define their unique cultural identity while expecting equal representation ("only 3 Senators"), except he is also right that this approach constitutes racial profiling by definition which should be against modern American values. The part about Latin America and those countries protecting their borders and their identities leaves out how virtually nobody wants to immigrate there, while virtually everybody wants to immigrate here, taking unfair advantage of our largesse. I suspect other countries limit immigration (particularly Muslims) partly out of protecting their own nationalism, but mostly due to cost.

The second interview goes much better, as at least she listens to his full answers and then asks thoughtful follow-up questions. He is right that Americans tend to form "enclaves" within our own socioeconomic categories, but I believe that is far more related to class than race. You knew she would bring up slavery, and she was clearly surprised to learn that it was not a successful economic model. She says Whites have an advantage in college and society; he blasts "White Privilege" and academia's attempt to shame Whites based on events from long long ago. She brings up hate crimes; he brings up BLM and hoaxes. She mentions Native Americans; he counters that they fought war against other tribes all the time.

Jared Taylor is longing for his version of America which is based on historical remnants; our founding fathers were primarily White Christians with slavery as an established institution in the background. The musical "1776" clearly shows how the Declaration of Independence had to edit out the key paragraph about abolishing slavery or else the Deep South would have never gone along, preventing unanimity. I will agree with his position that present-day America suffers through forced integration by law and special treatment based on race, yet I don't agree with "his people" meaning Whites only. But overall, if our country allows BET without question, then we should allow WET without question, or else they're both wrong.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...

He attacked women pushing strollers.

There's only one thing to do now: bring more Muzzies to Finland and keep the borders open.

What else is there to do?

Where are the Finish men?
Where are the German men?
Where are the men of Europe?

They are out cucking, while women run the show.

But political correctness brought a mud on all of this. Now a country is not allowed to proper filter that nuances, because is uncool to individually (proper) check someone for his education, culture background, physiologic history and so forth.

When the sexual assaults in Finland skyrocketed. I remember some government people (and ONGS) defending the immigrants (the attackers) "pondering" that they were from very poor countries, with high stress environment, war zone like, very male-dominant society, and other crap like that. So what? keep bringing them all (put all on the same basket) and risk the population?

No, this is the first I've ever heard of that, to my recollection.

What I have heard is this, from my sister, who is as much of a socialist as anyone else I know:

She said Karl Marx. in terms of how he looked at history, was the first to look at it as a class struggle, instead of just the record of achievements by individuals and nations.

Or words to that effect - our discussion was so long ago that I don't recall all the details.

I wouldn't start with Hegel. You would need to have Hegel put in context by understanding what it was that he was reacting to, so you would need to read Kant first, but then you would need to know why Kant was reacting the way he did to the enlightenment and scientism.

So, instead of reading those guys I would recommend a lecture or series of lectures on postmodernism.

Explaining Postmodernism by Stephen Hicks is a great book. I found it in podcast form on youtube!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcS...

That is part one. It's broken up into parts which is probably the best way to go through it. There is also a link, I see, to the whole book in one podcast that is over 6 hours long.

This is the kind of thing where you should only listen to 15 minutes or 30 minutes at most and save the next one in the series for tomorrow. One needs proper time to reflect.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world...

Tell me, how do you like this forced, unnatural diversity and multiculturalism?

<Marseille terror: ISIS supporters CELEBRATE after woman dies as van rams bus shelters SICK Islamic State (ISIS) supporters are celebrating after a woman died when a van ploughed into two bus shelters in Marseille this morning. >

Yes, ISIS celebrates all the easy victories. Now that Europe is run by women (they're just the same as men!!!), the real men on the *other side* know it's an easy target.

No one fears women.

The policies obviously bear the mark of femininity in their naivety. Such delusion ideas of egalitarian utopia are based on feelings and emotions. So while all you little do-gooder liberals were celebrating "progress" as women move forward in society, taking the place of men, now you must lay in the bed that you've made.

There is a *natural* order to life. Breaking that natural order is *not* progress. Think on this. Without the influence of women in positions of power, whether its in the university or gov't, we wouldn't have these suicidal, delusional egalitarian policies that reflect the softness, the weakness, the vulnerability of women. Instead, we would have strong, manly policies based on strength, practicality, logic, rationale and reason.

Right now the enemy says, "look, the men are weak! The women tell them what to do. Let's rape, murder and steal!"

And weak, pathetic men of Europe just let the brown Muzzies come in a RAPE their wives! They let them RAPE their daughters! They let them blow them up! They let them stab them in the backs when they push their STROLLERS down the street!

Then, they say, "We're not being weak, we're being modern!"

Okay fine, be modern. Let the brown Muzzies throw your women to the ground like garbage, tear their clothes and VIOLATE THEM while you watch and do nothing you weaklings!

And yet, here in America we have Antifa weaklings, the libs, the Democrats, the snowflakes, the progressives, who want us to be more like Europe and less like Trump, who wants to BAN all Muslims and keep them the hell out of our country!

It's only common sense but no, common sense is now racist. We must let the brown hordes in with turbans on their heads and long dirty beards down to their belly buttons, so they can throw YOUR sister down and defile her too.

http://www.wnd.com/2017/08/america-...

<To all the white people in the U.S. who worry that anti-white racism is at a fever pitch in today’s post-Charlottesville America, black radio host and author Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson has a simple message: You’re 100 percent correct.

“I’ve been telling white people for the last 27 years that you’d better start speaking up,” Peterson told Stefan Molyneux recently on the Freedomain Radio podcast. “You’ve got to speak up, because if you don’t speak up, eventually you’re going to become angry. And then when you become angry, you’re going to come out fighting in the wrong way. And then they’re going to accuse you.

“They’re going to pass laws. They’re going to say, ‘Look, I told you the white man was racist.’ They’re going to blame you even more so.”>

https://www.amren.com/news/2017/08/...

<All they wanted was to grab some lunch on their visit to Howard University. But a couple of young girls on a sightseeing trip to Washington got a lot more than they bargained for when their presence in the cafeteria set off a hysterical reaction.

Did I mention they were wearing Trump gear?>

In America, you can't support your president in public without suffering threats and intimidation.

What kind of country is this? We are suffering under militant left wing liberal tyranny.

A black girl had this to say about the white girls:

<Brit @britnianise

Right here in Annex white people gettin real bold we don't stand w trump>

White people getting real bold! So black people are running the country now?

Ask yourself what life for white people will be like in America when they are the minority. You want that for your kids and grand kids?

<Needless to say, that attitude was shared by many who felt “threatened” by the little girls.>

Another black twitter girl:

<This isn't the 1st time I've seen these maggots applying, touring, and being accepted to HBCUs with the intent to cause strife and discourse>

Libs have nothing to say. It's diversity. It's multiculturalism.

The black twitter girl continued:

<Annex cafe security should have stopped them at the door and forcibly removed them from the premises. Campus security should have>

And the campus AGREED with them!

<HUDining @HUdining

We will take any action necessary to ensure that HU students feel safe& comfortable in our dining spaces. This group is no longer on campus.>

What this really shows is that blacks want their own space.

We live in a country where a random black girl can run the whole show, just by saying, "that white person makes me uncomfortable" and that's it. There's no debate, no nothing. The white people are shut down, OR ELSE!

<Are the snowflakes self-aware enough to realize what they are advocating? If no white person will be allowed on campus, and if the sight of a white face is going to send these people over the edge, how are they going to survive when they’re forced to enter the big, wide world out there, where two thirds of the people they will be dealing with are white?

The answer is “safe spaces” for black people. And those safe spaces, by definition, would have to be all black – meaning a separate civil entity populated entirely by black people. It’s either that or send all whites to the gas chambers. How else are you going to get rid of them?

Yes, there is an element of humor in this hysterical reaction to a Trump supporter. But there are also hints of fascism and authoritarianism that, unless checked, will lead to unthinkable consequences.

We laugh at them at our peril.>

Blacks are not happy with forced integration at all. They probably want to kill all the white libs who thought this was such a good idea.

When you think back on colored only water fountains, what makes you think that blacks *wanted* to drink from whie water fountains?

You can see here that black people hate white people. Not all black people, but most. They want to be surrounded by other blacks, people like themselves. They hate whitey, they hate the white president, they hate the statues of white people, they hate the history of this white country, they hate the white founding fathers - they hate every iota of a cracker.

Solution:

Calexit. Make California a safe space for black people. They get a huge state, beautiful land, a "non-racist" state, plenty of coast, the tech industry, Hollywood - what could be better than that? Plus, let it secede from the union and kick all the white people OUT.

Give unhappy black people what they want. Segregation!

They have black only plays, black only graduation ceremonies at Harvard, black-only day in a Washington university, calling for black only safe spaces in colleges across America.

Get the point?

In all his time on earth, has man done more good or more evil?

Along with that, for clarity's sake, so some good or evil acts count more than others? For instance, if you murder someone in cold blood, but you've also helped an old lady cross the road at some point, would you say those two events cancel each other out, or, would you say that the evil act is worth 10,000 good acts?

<Along with that, for clarity's sake...> Indeed, in order to answer the question one must establish a measure of good and evil. I think we can agree that "good" and "evil" are <moral> concepts and as such subject to differing interpretations.

Sidenote: The stance can be taken that moral concepts are human constructions and the main question in effect becomes theoretical. E.g.: Without humans on earth, there would be no "good" and "evil" anyway.

Still, there are certain morals that a vast majority of us subscribe to, and it might be possible to set up a measure as suggested. I see a problem though, that moral values have changed through history; what is "good" in a certain age may be "evil" in another. Animal rights case in point, stupid as one may choose to regard it. Hence, our answer to the main question will be rooted in our specific age and culture (this does not disqualify the answer per se, but in one hundred years the answer may be different). As for passing judgment on historical events, there is the ever-present danger of anachronism - this can IMO only be met with a knowledge and understanding of the historical age in question, something that takes time to build.

<Measure>. Most democratic countries have roughly similar criminal legislation, and here we may find an accepted measure for "evil". Much more difficult is to pinpoint measures for "good"; OECD has some targets for "the good life" that we can look at, but to break this down to personal behaviour is not so easy.

As for the "cancelling out", I believe most people will say that a murder is not cancelled out by helping an old lady as in your example; no court would do so either btw. However, a Christian might say that this was up to God to judge, indeed Christianity teaches forgiveness to everyone.

Glad you reflected thoughtfully!

I am a pessimist and have to answer that man has done far more evil than good.

<Along with that, for clarity's sake, so some good or evil acts count more than others? >

Definitely yes.

<For instance, if you murder someone in cold blood, but you've also helped an old lady cross the road at some point, would you say those two events cancel each other out, or, would you say that the evil act is worth 10,000 good acts?>

The evil act is worth far more than 10,000 good acts.

Beyond the obvious, I think of much in the world of art as "good acts". Whether music or literature or sculpture or painting or poetry or dance, or what have you, creating a thing of beauty for others to enjoy is a gift to the world that surely counts as a good act.

The bad acts are obvious. Those done in the pursuit of political power strike me as especially ugly. Millions of people have been wantonly murdered in doomed to fail political agendas. Likewise religious agendas. "Reject your God or we will kill your family"?! Really, now, what kind of animal subscribes to that?

While I have been lucky to live in the US with its relative wealth/freedom/liberty, it is rare. Most of mankind has lived under some type of tyranny, poverty.

I don't think it's a coincidence the murder/crime capitals of the US are the areas where government runs people lives.

While you may say that's just a few bad apples. Millions elect these individuals, or sit-out elections, and share responsibility.

Also man's "peace" and "good" are typically coerced through militaries and police.

If we take the history of mankind, usually based on domination and wars and (or) control of one group above other(s) definitely we might find way more bad acts than good. But definitely there's more good acts and good people around than bad people..

<The evil act is worth far more than 10,000 good acts.>

10 As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; 11 there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. 12 All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.” (Romans 3)

Yes. <Heart of Darkness> and <Lord of the Flies> made the same point; civilization is just a thin furnish upon modern man. In a way this leads me back to the main question:

<what is *your* opinion on this>

As may be discerned from my initial post, I do not think I am capable of a thorough answer - but I do believe the building of modern civilization represents a major *good* act, as it is inhibiting the *evil* acts. However, I cannot really weigh it up against all historical evil acts, the more so as many of these happened under differing moral standards.

Okay, so you claim ignorance on this? Is that because you think that the evil man has done and the good man has done is *so close* that it would require knowing for certain all the gray area?

I guess you could say that you think it's about the same, since you can't tell one way or the other.

Would that be fair to say?

Now, in regards to different moral standards at different times, you don't need to know that in order to have an opinion. Take for instance the KKK. They thought, back in their time, that they were doing GOOD when they lynched blacks in an effort to put them back in their place.

Or look at the Nazis. They had their own moral standard too. They thought that killing millions of Jews in the ovens was, overall, a good thing to do.

So, what you are saying, is that when you look back at these kinds of scenarios, you can't tell if it was good or bad, because the moral standard was different, therefore you can't really tell if man has done more evil or good in the world.

That should settle it.>

How can this make any sense at all? What must one do, behind the scenes, with the word "good", in order to make this make sense?

Let's reason it.

Is repentance good?

Do you repent, <Technical Draw>?

If not repentance = not good, then repentance = good.

If a man can repent then he is doing what the Lord commands. Doing what the Lord commands is good.

Do you love anyone, <Technical Draw>? If hate is not good, then love is good. God is love and God is good, so to love is to do good.

Is Romans telling us that man can't love?

How about Job. The Lord was pleased with Job and even bragged about him to Satan. Can the Lord be pleased with someone who *is* no good and does *no good at all*?

If the Lord can be pleased with a man who is no good at all, and this same man does no good at all, then we do not need to be good to please the Lord.

This doesn't make sense to me.

I say, if the Lord tells you to repent and you repent, you've done good, not bad.

I say, if you *love* your neighbor instead of *hate* your neighbor, then you do good instead of evil, as the Lord commands.

If one wants to hold on to that verse in Romans, one must be able to say, "The Lord told me to REPENT and I did repent, and it was not a good thing to do, and I did not do good when I repented".

That is absurd, so there is a problem somewhere. It seems to me that the verse in Romans doesn't make sense and isn't true.

Either that or we have to say that when we repent we do a not-good thing. When we love, we do a not-good thing.

Really?

What if the main reason most works of art are created is to selfishly and gluttonously satisfy the ego and to foolishly seek one's own glory? (Of course, all the while affecting a false modesty...)