Reason vs Emotion

[George Dumas]

1. The liberal mindset goes by the 'emotion before reason' principle.
I listen to my emotions to decide what is right and then if things don't work out as planned I will try to reason why.

2. Our approach is: let's decide based on science, common sense and observations what is best for our family, people and country and then we can live life to the fullest with our emotions.

The first approach is how animals react to problems: with their emotions.
We are humans because we have a brain and we can use it to make our world a better place for all of us.
Following the liberal mindset would go against the whole concept of being a human.
We just might as well go back and live like animals if we refuse to use our brains.

[Tintin]

Originally Posted by George Dumas

1. The liberal mindset goes by the 'emotion before reason' principle.
I listen to my emotions to decide what is right and then if things don't work out as planned I will try to reason why.

2. Our approach is: let's decide based on science, common sense and observations what is best for our family, people and country and then we can live life to the fullest with our emotions.

The first approach is how animals react to problems: with their emotions.
We are humans because we have a brain and we can use it to make our world a better place for all of us.
Following the liberal mindset would go against the whole concept of being a human.
We just might as well go back and live like animals if we refuse to use our brains.

First off, great suggestion below. As much as possible the first time visiter's needs to be taken into consideration. What will allow First time visitor to follow the issue from a WN perspective ...

# Please don't paste miles long articles in my threads. Nobody's gonna read it and it will only clutter up the thread. Just post the link. #

The label "liberals" has nothing do with being 'liberal'. They should be called neo-liberals, or preferably Utopians, because they are in fact members of a type religious cult that worshits Equality. The Utopians are being granted a great advantage be allowing them to claim the label of "liberal" because it allows them to implicitly claim to being children of the Enlightenment, the scientific revolution, scientific method and most absurdly the The Theory of Evolution, which they reject.

Another perspective of viewing the what your describing is:

Utopians react in accordance with their dogma of Equality. Utopians have for the most part been trained by Utopian Theology to ignore their instincts. For example, hate of nigger and disgust of homosexual-pedophile.

The WN approach is truly emotional, maybe the word instinctive is better. WN have refused to reject their Human Nature. Over past the few decades WN have come to defend their Human Nature, beyond reasonable doubt, in terms of the Theory of Evolution, statical analysis, genetics, history, archeology, common sense, logic, Laws of Natures, comparative analysis of non-humans creatures, Laws of Nature, and the Scientific Method.

WN have emotions, instincts, and the whole Scientific Revolution supporting their world view.

Utopians only have a bizarre claim to so unspecified spirit that posits Humans were all created 'equal' by said spirit and since that Creation have achieved some sort of escape velocity which has allowed Human DNA to exist out of the reach of the forces of Evolution.

[George Dumas]

Originally Posted by Tintin

First off, great suggestion below. As much as possible the first time visiter's needs to be taken into consideration. What will allow First time visitor to follow the issue from a WN perspective ..

Yes, First time visitor's needs should be taken in consideration even though for better readability it would be preferable to only paste the part of the article that grabs the readers attention.

(Same goes when citing somebody, I find it kinda annoying when I have to scroll down a kilometer just to read one short comment at the end.)
But if I'm the only one I'll shut up.

[Jean West]

In the spirit of keeping things concise (less even than a cite):

[Bardamu]

There is a time for reason and a time for emotion, as there is a time for science and a time for poetry. A reductionist material point of view misses a great deal of value. For instance, the Evolution of Species may speak to the rational mind but the Iliad speaks to our soul.

[Rick Ronsavelle]

[I was done with this "reason v. emotion' matter more than four decades ago]

From whence cums emotion? Is it just there?

Consider the following scenario: Husband and wife (gasp!) enter their home with their own White baby (gasp!). What is that attache case doing on the coffee table? It seems to be making a ticking noise, like a clock. . .

Maybe it'z a bomb! Panic! Adrenaline! Feets don't fail me now!

EMOTIONS. LOTS OF EMOTION. And the source of the emotion is?

VALUE JUDGEMENTS (INTERPRETATIONS) of an highly intellectual nature.

Only the parents have said emotion, as the baby cannot properly interpret the ticking noise when combined with the attache case. The baby's equanimity is "wrong" even though the baby can't help it.

Value judgments produce emotion, and these judgments involve cognition. It is the intellectual/rational interpretation of writings like the Iliad that lead to the feelings.

Magda B. Arnold

Psychologist

Magda B. Arnold was an American psychologist; first contemporary theorist to develop appraisal theory of emotions, which moved the direction of emotion theory away from "feeling" theories and "behaviorist" ...





[It takes a White to develop the right theory!!]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magda_B._Arnold

[Rick Ronsavelle]

1. The liberal mindset goes by the 'emotion before reason' principle.
I listen to my emotions to decide what is right and then if things don't work out as planned I will try to reason why.

This still implies that emotion is "just there."

The real war is not reason vs. emotion- it is out of focus, lazy evasive cognition vs. Clear Cognition.

Reason vs. emotion implies one must pick one or the other.

A better way to explain the war is REASON VS. FANTASY.

Or: REASON VS. RATIONALIZATION.

Or: REASON VS. MAGICAL THINKING.

The war is: MIND IN FOCUS VS. MIND OUT OF FOCUS

A LIBERAL IS ONE WHO THINKS THAT RATIONALIZATION IS THE SAME AS REASON.

Reason and emotion are not at war- reason and rationalization are at war.

[Jean West]

I intend reading the Magda Arnold (Jewish?) material, but meanwhile, these are three other interesting treatments of the subject:

Of the Reason of Animals taken from David Hume's An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. 1748

Expression of emotion in humans and animals by Charles Darwin 1890.

What Is The Cognitive Rift Between Humans And Other Animals?, Science Daily 2008.

[George Dumas]

Originally Posted by Tintin

The label "liberals" has nothing do with being 'liberal'. They should be called neo-liberals, or preferably Utopians, because they are in fact members of a type religious cult that worshits Equality. The Utopians are being granted a great advantage be allowing them to claim the label of "liberal" because it allows them to implicitly claim to being children of the Enlightenment, the scientific revolution, scientific method and most absurdly the The Theory of Evolution, which they reject.

Yes, you give a definition more precise. But I'm pretty sure they would all refuse to be called an Utopian as they think that what they believe in is not a Utopia.

Lot of them even refuse to be called a liberal. I guess they couldn't refuse to be called an Egalitarian since that's what they argue for.

Egalitarianism is nothing but another form of Communism which we know now is a Utopia.

[George Dumas]

Originally Posted by Jean West

In the spirit of keeping things concise (less even than a cite):

I meant when somebody cites a miles long article of a poster before him. Especially when it's cited just after the post which he responds to.
I personally find it unnecessary.
But that's was just a suggestion.

[Jean West]

Most of my posts have been of the longer style. Because of the comments above about this issue, I posted only URLs in my next comment. It's no fun doing it that way.

[Serbian]

Originally Posted by Tintin

The WN approach is truly emotional, maybe the word instinctive is better.

As emotion is a more feminine (less stable) trait, with reason being the opposite masculine one, the upper echelon of serious future WN organization, the head/leadership, will only deal in reason, and reason alone.

Emotion on the other hand will be a necessary tool which will be used by the future WN elites, when physical media control is established, to push the buttons of the White population and incite the masses, who we know are feminine (easily swayed) by nature, towards the correct necessary course of action.

If serious leadership of a future WN force gets too caught up in emotion problems could potentially develop in the ideological doctrinal area, which could then also even affect the practical execution phase, which involves putting concrete plans into action.

I have witnessed first hand where negative irrational emotions have completely clouded reason, resulting in the most devastaing consequences, which unfortunately were not only confined to the immediate vicinity.

[Jean West]

Originally Posted by Serbian

As emotion is a more feminine (less stable) trait, with reason being the opposite masculine one, the upper echelon of serious future WN organization, the head/leadership, will only deal in reason, and reason alone.
Emotion on the other hand will be a necessary tool which will be used by the future WN elites, when physical media control is established, to push the buttons of the White population and incite the masses, who we know are feminine (easily swayed) by nature, towards the correct necessary course of action.
If serious leadership of a future WN force gets too caught up in emotion problems could potentially develop in the ideological doctrinal area, which could then also even affect the practical execution phase, which involves putting concrete plans into action.
I have witnessed first hand where negative irrational emotions have completely clouded reason, resulting in the most devastaing consequences, which unfortunately were not only confined to the immediate vicinity.

There was no way that the subject of emotion and reason was not going to invite an asshole response like the one above. I'm only surprised that it didn't appear earlier in the thread.

[Serbian]

Originally Posted by Jean West

There was no way that the subject of emotion and reason was not going to invite an asshole response like the one above. I'm only surprised that it didn't appear earlier in the thread.

Think what you want. I stated the truth.

[Tintin]

Originally Posted by Serbian

As emotion is a more feminine (less stable) trait, with reason being the opposite masculine one, the upper echelon of serious future WN organization, the head/leadership, will only deal in reason, and reason alone.

Emotion on the other hand will be a necessary tool which will be used by the future WN elites, when physical media control is established, to push the buttons of the White population and incite the masses, who we know are feminine (easily swayed) by nature, towards the correct necessary course of action.

If serious leadership of a future WN force gets too caught up in emotion problems could potentially develop in the ideological doctrinal area, which could then also even affect the practical execution phase, which involves putting concrete plans into action.

I have witnessed first hand where negative irrational emotions have completely clouded reason, resulting in the most devastaing consequences, which unfortunately were not only confined to the immediate vicinity.

Correct.

The OP made use of "emotion" in comparison with "science". Seeing the "feminine" implications of "emotion" I indicated that "instinct" was preferable to "emotions". From there I said WN have both on their side because "science" confirms the "instincts" which are definition a product by Evolution which are vital to survival. "emotions" are also a product of evolution, but not vital to survival, and seem to be non-primary, and are easily manipulated.

Yes, "reason" is important to "leadership" but maybe "instinct" more.

My OP was saying that "instinct" is all WN need to know what is right. We don't need to wait for "science" to inform us, but having "science" on our side, should be enough to prove to the "trained" and "emotional" "liberals" that their beliefs are false.

[ELF]

Originally Posted by George Dumas

1. The liberal mindset goes by the 'emotion before reason' principle.
I listen to my emotions to decide what is right and then if things don't work out as planned I will try to reason why.

2. Our approach is: let's decide based on science, common sense and observations what is best for our family, people and country and then we can live life to the fullest with our emotions.

The first approach is how animals react to problems: with their emotions.
We are humans because we have a brain and we can use it to make our world a better place for all of us.
Following the liberal mindset would go against the whole concept of being a human.
We just might as well go back and live like animals if we refuse to use our brains.

Well said and very true and if you compaire our race to niggers it would prove your point quite well given that the niggers are basicly over emotional, child like animals in compairson to us whites.

[Gibson]

This demonising of emotion is maybe going a bit far. Whether you like it or not, having emotions is part of being human. In fact, life would literally not be worth living without emotions.

How about, instead of blanket condemnation of emotions, try defining exactly which emotions are a problem, and in what situation and in what way they are a problem? And remember, it's not me you have to convince, it's the rest of our race.

[Gibson]

Originally Posted by Tintin

The OP made use of "emotion" in comparison with "science". Seeing the "feminine" implications of "emotion" I indicated that "instinct" was preferable to "emotions". From there I said WN have both on their side because "science" confirms the "instincts" which are definition a product by Evolution which are vital to survival. "emotions" are also a product of evolution, but not vital to survival, and seem to be non-primary, and are easily manipulated.

Yes, "reason" is important to "leadership" but maybe "instinct" more.

My OP was saying that "instinct" is all WN need to know what is right. We don't need to wait for "science" to inform us, but having "science" on our side, should be enough to prove to the "trained" and "emotional" "liberals" that their beliefs are false.

Your instincts will not always serve you well.

Using the seat belt in your car can save your life, but it's not instinct that makes you use it. Washing your hands after taking a crap can save your life, but it's not instinct that makes you wash. Your instincts tell you food might become scarce, so you should eat all the fat and sugar you can get, which could well kill you.

Instincts have evolved over millions of years, and during that time, conditions were very different from the way they are now. For example, it's only the last couple of decades that Whites have had to live near blacks and other muds. Your intuition (not necessarily your instinct) might tell you to stay away from them, but clearly not everyone has the same intuitive response to them. The Swedish woman who was raped by a dozen muds was probably following her instincts, or intuition, when she was trying to help them.

[George Dumas]

Originally Posted by ELF

Well said and very true and if you compaire our race to niggers it would prove your point quite well given that the niggers are basicly over emotional, child like animals in compairson to us whites.

Yes, I agree, you can even apply this observation in general to any human: the more he is intelligent the better he can control his emotions.

[George Dumas]

Originally Posted by Gibson

This demonising of emotion is maybe going a bit far. Whether you like it or not, having emotions is part of being human. In fact, life would literally not be worth living without emotions.

How about, instead of blanket condemnation of emotions, try defining exactly which emotions are a problem, and in what situation and in what way they are a problem? And remember, it's not me you have to convince, it's the rest of our race.

I wasn't condemning emotions at all, they are very important part of our life but when it comes to serious decisions reason has to come before emotions.