The Death of Michael Hastings

  On 7/27/2013 at 2:19 AM, chunky said:

Jewish influence over America must never be criticised? It must be pretended that it doesn't exist when it clearly does, backed up by facts. Jews rule America, the government and media are saturated with their influence. It's a fact. They have power but we're not even allowed to point it out. That's fraud on a massive scale. It's absolutely shameful to support lies. Why do you deny this truth? You should be ashamed of your ignorance. Obama's policy is to assassinate opponents of his agenda. He's said it in his speeches. And his agenda is practically the same agenda as Tel Aviv's, though they put fake arguments in the media to distract people. It's not that the influence isn't there, it's just a major taboo to point out who is in charge, because when people understand the truth, they lose their influence and power. The best fact is that most adults know all about this. It's just kids like on this site who are in denial because of censored school books and TV. Pointing out the current extent of Jewish influence doesn't equal the ideology of the Nazi criminal third reich. There is a difference between the second and third reich, a major difference. For the current generation the most pressing matter is to find ways to co-operate with and support jews. The jewish state is a fact, and it looks like over the next 50 years the jewish state will grow in size tremendously. It's practically impossible to halt this development in world affairs. The fuss over a few palestinian camps is a media trick. Egypt, Syria, and Iraq are all part of Israel and will become Israel over the next years. So please forget the backwards notions that pointing out these facts is the same ideology as Nazism, a really old and outdated racial ideology. Nazism is dead. What exists now is not an ideological conflict between Nazism and Communism. The modern issue for today is a religious conflict among Christianity, Islam, and Judaism over the whole land in the middle east. Michael Hastings is murdered because he is a threat to Israel's influence in the world. It is only the beginning of mass assassinations by USA and other western countries. The reasoning is that it's better to assasinate political opponents (i.e. people who speak plain truth, thus reducing influence of the powerful). People on this site don't know what it means to support Israel or oppose it because they are so blind to real life and real things. I would have no problem supporting Israel and even fighting in a war on the side of Israel, in exchange for some minor cultural revisions in my country such as restoring marriage and family life in Britain and getting rid of the gay marriage/polymorphous perversity stuff. And that's just in Britain. If jews want America to be a giant gay orgy I don't really care about it, I just care what happens in my home country. So I would definitely work with jews and even help them take Egypt, Syria, and Iraq, and whatever else they want to do in the middle east. When they pull some scam like a suitcase nuke in california or some bullshit like that, I will know who did it, not Iran for certain! Kol Nidre haha! oath to a goyim is worthless. i.e. new york times = pure lies

Lol you are a tool. Can we ban this kid already?

Don't ban Chunky: we need a stone age perspective to keep our modern, civilized, rational ideas in check.

  On 7/27/2013 at 8:11 AM, LimpyLoo said:

Don't ban Chunky: we need a stone age perspective to keep our modern, civilized, rational ideas in check.

as if modernity had intrinsic value.

also, i don't see what's "uncivilized" about chunky's post.

  On 7/27/2013 at 9:10 AM, Brian Tregaskin said:

 

  On 7/27/2013 at 8:11 AM, LimpyLoo said:

Don't ban Chunky: we need a stone age perspective to keep our modern, civilized, rational ideas in check.

 

as if modernity had intrinsic value.

also, i don't see what's "uncivilized" about chunky's post.

 

i meant 'modern' as in 'modern medicine'

like, updated without all the silly beliefs of the past

p.s. it's not Chunky's post, it's Chunky's posts that are the issue

  On 7/27/2013 at 9:10 AM, Brian Tregaskin said:

 

  On 7/27/2013 at 8:11 AM, LimpyLoo said:

Don't ban Chunky: we need a stone age perspective to keep our modern, civilized, rational ideas in check.

 

as if modernity had intrinsic value.

also, i don't see what's "uncivilized" about chunky's post.

 

He said he would kill people in the name of the state so that gays can't get married. I can only imagine what he would do to a gay person in the name of the state. He is a radical and a bigot. His views are based on religious and heteronormative nonsense.

Being "modern" has value in that most of the time it is an evolution of traditional views. Traditional views being outdated and shitty in most cases. Usually, they are based off religious texts. Most of the time they are irrelevant. A lot of the times they are veiled intolerance and hate.

When I think of Chunky, I think of:

  On 7/27/2013 at 8:11 AM, LimpyLoo said:

Don't ban Chunky: we need a stone age perspective to keep our modern, civilized, rational ideas in check.

the voice of reason. Out of all the people I might consider banning for their beliefs, he'd be the one, but I think having his perspective probably keeps us from excessive circlejerking

he is nuts tho

jewsdidwtc7.com

  On 7/27/2013 at 9:10 AM, Brian Tregaskin said:

 

  On 7/27/2013 at 8:11 AM, LimpyLoo said:

Don't ban Chunky: we need a stone age perspective to keep our modern, civilized, rational ideas in check.

 

as if modernity had intrinsic value.

also, i don't see what's "uncivilized" about chunky's post.

 

Modernity is a historical name for something that does have the intrinsic value of developing certain moments in history where new possibilities in all fields of life appeared. To turn away from these possibilities is either to give up or to pretend you're year zero (even with the postmodern alibi that everyday is year zero), which is a pretty longcockist approach to life.

Isn't chunky just taking the piss in a particularly shitposting way, though? I'm too new to know about him but he can't possibly be serious.

http://www.gnaa.eu/

what's that link, i'm not clicking without some sort of heads up j.

chunky = rdj?

  On 7/27/2013 at 9:21 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 7/27/2013 at 9:10 AM, Brian Tregaskin said:

 

  On 7/27/2013 at 8:11 AM, LimpyLoo said:

Don't ban Chunky: we need a stone age perspective to keep our modern, civilized, rational ideas in check.

 

as if modernity had intrinsic value.

also, i don't see what's "uncivilized" about chunky's post.

 

 

 

i meant 'modern' as in 'modern medicine'

 

like, updated without all the silly beliefs of the past

 

 

p.s. it's not Chunky's post, it's Chunky's posts that are the issue

 

so you think that chunky has silly beliefs of the past? what are they? enlighten me

  On 7/27/2013 at 10:07 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 7/27/2013 at 9:10 AM, Brian Tregaskin said:

 

  On 7/27/2013 at 8:11 AM, LimpyLoo said:

Don't ban Chunky: we need a stone age perspective to keep our modern, civilized, rational ideas in check.

 

as if modernity had intrinsic value.

also, i don't see what's "uncivilized" about chunky's post.

 

 

 

He said he would kill people in the name of the state so that gays can't get married. I can only imagine what he would do to a gay person in the name of the state. He is a radical and a bigot. His views are based on religious and heteronormative nonsense.

 

Being "modern" has value in that most of the time it is an evolution of traditional views. Traditional views being outdated and shitty in most cases. Usually, they are based off religious texts. Most of the time they are irrelevant. A lot of the times they are veiled intolerance and hate.

 

what traditional views? why are they outdated? why are religious texts irrelevant?

  On 7/27/2013 at 12:23 PM, lumpenprol said:

 

  On 7/27/2013 at 8:11 AM, LimpyLoo said:

Don't ban Chunky: we need a stone age perspective to keep our modern, civilized, rational ideas in check.

the voice of reason. Out of all the people I might consider banning for their beliefs, he'd be the one, but I think having his perspective probably keeps us from excessive circlejerking

 

he is nuts tho

 

so someone should be banned for his beliefs? wtf!?? why haven't i been banned then?

  On 7/27/2013 at 1:34 PM, poblequadrat said:

 

  On 7/27/2013 at 9:10 AM, Brian Tregaskin said:

 

  On 7/27/2013 at 8:11 AM, LimpyLoo said:

Don't ban Chunky: we need a stone age perspective to keep our modern, civilized, rational ideas in check.

 

as if modernity had intrinsic value.

also, i don't see what's "uncivilized" about chunky's post.

 

 

Modernity is a historical name for something that does have the intrinsic value of developing certain moments in history where new possibilities in all fields of life appeared. To turn away from these possibilities is either to give up or to pretend you're year zero (even with the postmodern alibi that everyday is year zero), which is a pretty longcockist approach to life.

 

Isn't chunky just taking the piss in a particularly shitposting way, though? I'm too new to know about him but he can't possibly be serious.

 

your definition makes it look like modernity is a must, and change is intrinsically good. tell me how those "new possibilities in all fields of life" changed the face of earth for good.

because dude. scientists gave us the bomb.

thanks to modern progress, we can blow up the entire planet!

isn't that a plus?

  On 7/27/2013 at 9:51 PM, Brian Tregaskin said:

 

  On 7/27/2013 at 9:21 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 7/27/2013 at 9:10 AM, Brian Tregaskin said:

 

  On 7/27/2013 at 8:11 AM, LimpyLoo said:

Don't ban Chunky: we need a stone age perspective to keep our modern, civilized, rational ideas in check.

 

as if modernity had intrinsic value.

also, i don't see what's "uncivilized" about chunky's post.

 

 

 

i meant 'modern' as in 'modern medicine'

 

like, updated without all the silly beliefs of the past

 

 

p.s. it's not Chunky's post, it's Chunky's posts that are the issue

 

 

so you think that chunky has silly beliefs of the past? what are they? enlighten me

 

 

  On 7/27/2013 at 10:07 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

  On 7/27/2013 at 9:10 AM, Brian Tregaskin said:

 

  On 7/27/2013 at 8:11 AM, LimpyLoo said:

Don't ban Chunky: we need a stone age perspective to keep our modern, civilized, rational ideas in check.

 

as if modernity had intrinsic value.

also, i don't see what's "uncivilized" about chunky's post.

 

 

 

He said he would kill people in the name of the state so that gays can't get married. I can only imagine what he would do to a gay person in the name of the state. He is a radical and a bigot. His views are based on religious and heteronormative nonsense.

 

Being "modern" has value in that most of the time it is an evolution of traditional views. Traditional views being outdated and shitty in most cases. Usually, they are based off religious texts. Most of the time they are irrelevant. A lot of the times they are veiled intolerance and hate.

 

 

what traditional views? why are they outdated? why are religious texts irrelevant?

 

 

  On 7/27/2013 at 12:23 PM, lumpenprol said:

 

  On 7/27/2013 at 8:11 AM, LimpyLoo said:

Don't ban Chunky: we need a stone age perspective to keep our modern, civilized, rational ideas in check.

the voice of reason. Out of all the people I might consider banning for their beliefs, he'd be the one, but I think having his perspective probably keeps us from excessive circlejerking

 

he is nuts tho

 

 

so someone should be banned for his beliefs? wtf!?? why haven't i been banned then?

 

 

  On 7/27/2013 at 1:34 PM, poblequadrat said:

 

  On 7/27/2013 at 9:10 AM, Brian Tregaskin said:

 

  On 7/27/2013 at 8:11 AM, LimpyLoo said:

Don't ban Chunky: we need a stone age perspective to keep our modern, civilized, rational ideas in check.

 

as if modernity had intrinsic value.

also, i don't see what's "uncivilized" about chunky's post.

 

 

Modernity is a historical name for something that does have the intrinsic value of developing certain moments in history where new possibilities in all fields of life appeared. To turn away from these possibilities is either to give up or to pretend you're year zero (even with the postmodern alibi that everyday is year zero), which is a pretty longcockist approach to life.

 

Isn't chunky just taking the piss in a particularly shitposting way, though? I'm too new to know about him but he can't possibly be serious.

 

 

your definition makes it look like modernity is a must, and change is intrinsically good. tell me how those "new possibilities in all fields of life" changed the face of earth for good.

 

Change is a word I didn't use. Change doesn't necessarily create new possibilities, and often it just develops the course of things as they are (meaning degenerating). The possibility to listen to atonal music, to cure the flu or for a people's politics to exist, let alone prevail, is definitely something that has an intrinsic value - the value of implicating subjects into steering the direction of a situation towards a set of new things that 1) is not the set of new things that the situation supposedly allowed for and 2) lives not through automatism but through subjectivity and engagement. It also has the intrinsic value of dealing in a creative way with what was repressed in a given situation. Rather than "good", I'd say this is "alive", as opposed to the slow suicide of letting everyday change flow. Do new possibilities allow for horrors? Yes, but so what? Everything is up for struggle, and defeats are to be taken note of, not despaired at.

I personally believe that jews are thieving subhuman Bilderbergers that control the world economy from a control room in the center of the Earth

I believe that the Earth was created 4 years ago by the giant Rapist Cannibal that lives in the clouds

who grants goals to footballers who grovel properly

and I believe this because my parents belong to a cult that believes this

BTW, respect my beliefs they are as valid as everyone else's

so you don't respect any religious beliefs limpy? or only certain ones?

  On 7/27/2013 at 10:22 PM, MisterE said:

so you don't respect any religious beliefs limpy? or only certain ones?

People can believe whatever they like as far as I'm concerned. I'm simply saying that all beliefs are not equally valid.

And your point about science and the bomb is essentially an argument that man should have never discovered fire.

except it's not.

  On 7/27/2013 at 10:05 PM, poblequadrat said:

Change is a word I didn't use. Change doesn't necessarily create new possibilities, and often it just develops the course of things as they are (meaning degenerating). The possibility to listen to atonal music, to cure the flu or for a people's politics to exist, let alone prevail, is definitely something that has an intrinsic value - the value of implicating subjects into steering the direction of a situation towards a set of new things that 1) is not the set of new things that the situation supposedly allowed for and 2) lives not through automatism but through subjectivity and engagement. It also has the intrinsic value of dealing in a creative way with what was repressed in a given situation. Rather than "good", I'd say this is "alive", as opposed to the slow suicide of letting everyday change flow. Do new possibilities allow for horrors? Yes, but so what? Everything is up for struggle, and defeats are to be taken note of, not despaired at.

again, you make it look like we escaped from the darkness of obscurantism. and modernity deals in a creative way with what was repressed in the past? how?

  On 7/27/2013 at 10:06 PM, LimpyLoo said:

I personally believe that jews are thieving subhuman Bilderbergers that control the world economy from a control room in the center of the Earth

 

I believe that the Earth was created 4 years ago by the giant Rapist Cannibal that lives in the clouds

 

who grants goals to footballers who grovel properly

 

and I believe this because my parents belong to a cult that believes this

 

BTW, respect my beliefs they are as valid as everyone else's

so modern, civilized and rational of you

  On 7/27/2013 at 10:33 PM, MisterE said:

except it's not.

Science is morally neutral. It brought us antibiotics and the atomic bomb. You simply can't have one without the other. All we can do is try to keep things in check. That's literally all we can ever do. It's not like there's some great arbiter in the sky who can eliminate evil from the earth (which of course would be the moral duty of a being with any such capabilities).

  On 7/27/2013 at 10:34 PM, Brian Tregaskin said:

 

  On 7/27/2013 at 10:05 PM, poblequadrat said:

Change is a word I didn't use. Change doesn't necessarily create new possibilities, and often it just develops the course of things as they are (meaning degenerating). The possibility to listen to atonal music, to cure the flu or for a people's politics to exist, let alone prevail, is definitely something that has an intrinsic value - the value of implicating subjects into steering the direction of a situation towards a set of new things that 1) is not the set of new things that the situation supposedly allowed for and 2) lives not through automatism but through subjectivity and engagement. It also has the intrinsic value of dealing in a creative way with what was repressed in a given situation. Rather than "good", I'd say this is "alive", as opposed to the slow suicide of letting everyday change flow. Do new possibilities allow for horrors? Yes, but so what? Everything is up for struggle, and defeats are to be taken note of, not despaired at.

 

again, you make it look like we escaped from the darkness of obscurantism. and modernity deals in a creative way with what was repressed in the past? how?

 

Because a situation, in order to be that situation and not another situation, needs to keep things still to some degree. Change is possible within the situation, letting it live, as long as there is something that is still repressed - i.e. music should be tonal, workers can't rule a country, etc.

About creativity and "escaping the darkness of obscurantism", I believe I'm not explaining too well my point about when new things happen. There isn't any sort of linear progression - there is struggle. People glimpse a new possibility and then fight for its development, and that's something that calls for creativity, for internal opposition between versions of what that possibility should bring, for lots of steps back and forwards. If not, someone will come up with ways of deactivating that possibility, which is a way of changing the situation but not a substantial one (but it might be a big one, if for example you compare capitalism before 1960 and capitalism after 1980; or academic art in the same time brackets), or the development of that possibility might turn into a disaster in the wrong hands. Or simply all memory of that possibility will be effaced.

My point is there is a reason to be militant, not in the pseudoterrorist sense, but in the sense that certain events should always guide one's creativity. You know, like, the opposite of liberals/social-democrats/Labour's opinion on what being left-wing is.

This last page is straight out of the CIA misdirection playbook

http://pastebin.com/irj4Fyd5

Legitimate discussion about a journalist who was probably murdered by the government -> this

  On 7/28/2013 at 7:00 AM, cult fiction said:

This last page is straight out of the CIA misdirection playbook

 

http://pastebin.com/irj4Fyd5

 

Legitimate discussion about a journalist who was probably murdered by the government -> this

CIA misdirection?

This is a bloody IDM forum.

  On 7/28/2013 at 7:12 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 7/28/2013 at 7:00 AM, cult fiction said:

This last page is straight out of the CIA misdirection playbook

 

http://pastebin.com/irj4Fyd5

 

Legitimate discussion about a journalist who was probably murdered by the government -> this

 

 

CIA misdirection?

 

This is a bloody IDM forum.

 

CIA has a google alert set up for Michael Hastings