tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34169839.post5454950678703660039..comments2023-09-25T12:52:19.355+03:00Comments on Uusi Viesti: Ritva Viljanen jatkaa monikulttuurisuususkontonsa julistamistaMikko Ellilähttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17136063886292303634noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34169839.post-20940422125926261282008-10-11T14:36:00.000+03:002008-10-11T14:36:00.000+03:00http://www.freebok.net/books/scripta/view.html Nim...http://www.freebok.net/books/scripta/view.html<BR/> <BR/><I><BR/><BR/>Nimi : TH <BR/> <BR/>Viesti : Salaliittoteoria: Tuosta Ritva Viljasesta tuli mieleen kun se on aina niin innoissaan näitten monikulttuurisuushommien kanssa, että olikohan siinä Tavjan torpedoimassa yrityksessä kammeta Viljanen ulos sisäministeriöstä takana jokin piilotettu anti-mokutus-tarkoitus. Se tilalle aiottu EU:n rajavalvontaa johtanut kenraali olisi tuskin lähtenyt mukaan Thorsin hullutuksiin samalla tavalla. Selvää on, että monet päättävässä asemassa olevat eivät usko moku-ideologiaan, vaikka työnsä puolesta sen liturgiaa toistelisivatkin. <BR/> <BR/>10. lokakuuta 2008 11:26:29 <BR/><BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Tätähän minä olen koko ajan sanonut, että hallituksen syy antaa kenkää Ritva Viljaselle ja Tarja Halosen syy nimittää hänet takaisin virkaansa oli nimenomaan hänen fanaattinen monikulttuurisuusideologiansa.<BR/><BR/>Syynä ei siis ollut esim. se, että Ritva Viljanen sattuu olemaan nainen. Syynä ei myöskään ollut se, että kyseessä oli jonkinlainen presidentin ja valtioneuvoston välinen symbolinen arvovaltataistelu. Nämähän ovat ne ainoat kaksi syytä, jotka valtamediassa on esitetty. Todellinen syy oli kuitenkin Ritva Viljasen uskonnollinen suhtautuminen maahanmuuttoon ja monikulttuurisuuteen.Mikko Ellilähttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17136063886292303634noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34169839.post-67882841699109959342008-10-09T00:33:00.000+03:002008-10-09T00:33:00.000+03:00Lisäsit näköjään ihan hyvää juttua siitä, miten de...Lisäsit näköjään ihan hyvää juttua siitä, miten demokratia ei toimi, kun kansalle ei annetta riittäviä tietoja tosiasioista. Kyseessä on kuitenkin edustuksellinen demokratia, jossa kansanedustajat (ihanteellisesti KANSAN EDUSTAJAT) tekevät päätöksiä pääasiassa "asiantuntija"-luentojen pohjalta. Kukaan ei odota näiden edustajien edes kuvittelevan, että kansa voisi koskaan ymmärtää omaa parastaan. Tästä seuraa hypoteettisesti, että jos jokin ideologinen virus on saanut otteen akatemiasta, tutkijoista ja "ajattelijoista", niin tämä virus leviää automaattisesti ilman minkäänlaista tarkastusvaihetta poliitikkoihin ja mediaan, ja lopulta konkreettiseen poliittiseen toimintaan lehdistön tukemana. <BR/><BR/>On toki niin, että monessa tapauksessa -- ehkä jopa pääasiassa -- lehdistö ja poliitikot ymmärtävät jollakin tietoisuuden tasolla, että he pitävät kansaa pimennossa tiettyjen tosiasioiden valolta. He kuitenkin pitävät tällaista pimeyttä hyvänä, koska he elävät aivan omassa moraalimaailmassaan. Jos tunnet naisia, tiedät, mistä puhun. He myös kuvittelevat, että "siitä mistä ei puhuta, ei voi seurata mitään pahaa". Tällainen maaginen ajattelu ja täysin oman moraalimaailman luominen ovat esimerkkejä siitä, mistä olen ennenkin puhunut: kulttuurimme ei enää ole eurooppalainen objektiivisuutta ja rationaalisuutta ihannoiva, vaan syvästi juutalainen, vastakohta kaikille ihanteillemme.<BR/><BR/>Professori R.P. Oliver kirjoitti kaksikymmentä vuotta sitten:<BR/><BR/>I do not profess to understand the Jewish mentality, but it may be that one aspect of it was revealed by Professor Eric Goldman of Princeton University, if he was correctly quoted as contending that history is a "weapon" ... Professor Goldman even made the frightening claim that his equation of history with propaganda was the view of "most historians" ('Harry Elmer Barnes', Colorado Springs, Myles, 1968, p. 241) ... It is quite possible that to the Jewish mentality what actually happened appears completely irrelevant, and our interest in ascertaining historical truth may seem to be just another odd manifestation of our mental inferiority. The only thing that matters is what you can make your subjects believe, including, perhaps, the mass of your own race. To us, that seems reprehensible deception, but it is quite possible that to the Jewish mentality "truth" is whatever is good for God's People. That may be why Jewish forgeries and hoaxes seem to us so amazingly careless, and we wonder why their contrivers disdained the relatively small amount of work that would have been required to make their fabrication consistent and plausible: to them it seemed apodictic that people ought to believe what is good for the Jewish people without thinking about it. The tales in the "Old Testament," for example, are attempts to simulate an historical record, but it seems never to have occurred to the rabbis to make them internally consistent and less absurd.* And the nonchalance appears today. When Professor Butz's masterly exposure** of the Jews' Holy Hoax about the Germans was first published, Jews residing in the United States and holding professorships in American universities, who must surely have learned from observation of their goy colleagues what we consider to be the academic standards of integrity, began at once to denounce as "an infamous lie" a book of which they had never even seen a copy, and did so without even taking the trouble to ascertain its title, which they gave as "The Fabrication of a Hoax" or "The Holocaust Never Happened," and urging that such disgrace to the academic profession be "rooted out" and presumably exterminated. The venomous hatred is, of course, only natural, but what is significant is that the learned professors did not take the two minutes of time for a phone call by which they could have learned the title of the book they were denouncing so hysterically. To us simple-minded Aryans, that seems amazing. <BR/><BR/>*It is true that when the "Old Testament" tales, in the form that they had around the beginning of the first century B.C., were translated from Hebrew and Aramaic into the koine dialect of Greek, thus forming the Septuagint, the translators did make some superficial efforts to clean up some absurdities in addition to converting the stories to monotheism. For example, the author of the myth about Esther gave the stupid Persian king the name of Assueras or Ahasuerus or something like that, a purely fictional and non-Persian name. The translators make him Artaxerxes, which was safe enough, since there were three Persian monarchs of that name, who ruled between 484 and 337 B.C., and that sounded plausible to persons who had no real knowledge of Persian history. In the story of God's unsuccessful attempt to murder Moses (Exod. 4.24), the translators reflected that it was undignified for the creator of Heaven and Earth to be lurking about a desert inn, and they accordingly made the terrorist "an agent of the Lord," which is certainly less grotesque. The Hebrew text underwent some censorship after the Septuagint was made; for example, in the tale of Esther there were several deletions, including the passage in which Esther explains to Yahweh how repugnant to a Jewess is coitus with an uncircumcized man, although, of course, she remains faithful to her duty to manipulate in the interests of her race the goy whom she has attracted sexually.<BR/><BR/>**"The Hoax of the Twentieth Century" (http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/thottc/)<BR/><BR/>http://www.revilo-oliver.com/rpo/Enemy_6.htmlV. Aishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18419896377130115918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34169839.post-31159884366105032342008-10-07T01:02:00.000+03:002008-10-07T01:02:00.000+03:00Kuten Ritvan ja Tarjan kaltaiset tuntosarvilla tod...Kuten Ritvan ja Tarjan kaltaiset tuntosarvilla todellisuutta koskettelevat "yksilöt" esimerkillään todistavat, on ongelma osaksi koko yhteiskuntajärjestelmässä. <BR/><BR/>“According to Nietzsche, nature produces the weak and the strong, the advantaged and disadvantaged. There is no benevolent providence and no equitable distribution of chances to get ahead in life. Before this backdrop, morality can be defined as an attempt to even out the ‘injustice’ of nature and create counterbalances. The power of natural destinies needs to be broken. In Nietzsche’s view, Christianity represented an absolutely brilliant attempt to accomplish this aim … Nietzsche greatly admired the power of Christianity to set values, but he was not grateful to it, because its consideration for the weak and the morality of evening things out impeded the progress and development of a higher stage of mankind.<BR/><BR/>“Nietzsche could envision this higher stage of mankind only as a culmination of culture in its ‘peaks of rapture,’ which is to say in successful individuals and achievements. The will to power unleashes the dynamics of culmination, but it is also the will to power that forms a moral alliance on the side of the weak. This alliance works at cross-purposes with the goal of culmination and ultimately, in Nietzsche’s view, leads to widespread equalization and degeneration. As a modern version of the ‘Christian theory of morality,’ this alliance forms the backbone of democracy and socialism. Nietzsche adamantly opposed all such movements. For him, the meaning of world history was not happiness and prosperity of the greatest possible number but individual manifestations of success in life. The culture of political and social democracy was a concern of the ‘last people,’ whom he disparaged. He threw overboard the state-sponsored ethics of the common welfare because he regarded such ethics as an impediment to the self-configuration of great individuals. If, however, the great personalities were to vanish, the only remaining significance of history would be lost in the process. By defending the residual significance of history, Nietzsche assailed democracy and declared what mattered was ‘delaying the complete appeasement of the democratic herd-animal’(11,587; WP 125) … Nietzsche opted against democratic life organized according to the principle of welfare. For him, a world of that sort would signal the triumph of the human herd animal…<BR/><BR/>“If we are content to regard this highly personal philosophy and these maneuvers of self-configuration with fascination and perhaps even admiration, but are not willing to abandon the idea of democracy and justice, it is likely that Nietzsche would have accused us of feeble compromise, indecisiveness, and epitomizing the ominous ‘blinking’ of the ‘last men.’” Safranski, Rudiger (trans. Shelley Frisch), Nietzsche: A Philosophical Biography, Norton, 2002, pp. 296-298.<BR/><BR/>Todellisuudessa Nietzsche oli ainut todella universaali filosofi. Hän oli ensimmäinen ja viimeinen suuri filosofi, joka rakensi filosofiansa ihmistieteiden tärkeimmän löydön pohjalta (John Richardson, "Nietzsche's New Darwinism"): ihmiset eivät ole luomakunnan kruunu, vaan evoluution tulosta ja potentiaalinen silta johonkin vieläkin korkeampaan. Yhteiskunnat, jotka suhtautuvat hierarkiaan ja eugeniikkaan vihamielisesti, suhtautavat vihamielisesti elämän tähtiensuuntaiseen liikkeeseen. Näin puhui Zarathustra:<BR/><BR/>I teach you the over-mankind! Mankind is something to be overcome. What have you done to overcome mankind?<BR/><BR/>All beings so far have created something beyond themselves. Do you want to be the ebb of that great tide, and revert back to the beast rather than overcome mankind?<BR/><BR/>Man is a rope stretched between the animal and the over-mankind -- a rope over an abyss.<BR/><BR/>A dangerous crossing, a dangerous wayfaring, a dangerous looking-back, a dangerous trembling and halting.<BR/><BR/>What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not a goal: what is lovable in man is that he is an over-going and a down-going.<BR/><BR/>I love those that know not how to live except as down-goers, for they are the over-goers.<BR/><BR/>I love the great despisers, because they are the great adorers, and arrows of longing for the other shore.<BR/><BR/>I love those who do not first seek a reason beyond the stars for going down and being sacrifices, but sacrifice themselves to the earth, that the earth may become the over-mankind's.<BR/><BR/>I love him who lives in order to know, and seeks to know in order that the over-mankind may hereafter live. Thus he seeks his own down-going.<BR/><BR/>I love him who labors and invents, that he may build the house for the over-mankind, and prepare for him earth, animal, and plant: for thus he seeks his own down-going.<BR/><BR/>I love all who are like heavy drops falling one by one out of the dark cloud that lowers over mankind: they herald the coming of the lightning, and perish as heralds.<BR/><BR/>Lo, I am a herald of the lightning, and a heavy drop out of the cloud: the lightning, however, is the over-mankind!V. Aishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18419896377130115918noreply@blogger.com