Relativistic Dialectics Relativistic Dialectics Georges Metanomski On the 50’th Anniversary of the Liberation of Auschwitz . #Brexiteers and Climate Deniers the new Jews?

download

“Wer Jude ist, entscheide ich” – “It’s me who decides who is a Jew”.

Who decides what is Brexit?

who decides what is online harm?

 

In the new Fascist EUssr Climate Deniers and BrexitDivergents will be wearing yellow C’s and Yellow B’s in yellow starred armbands.

 

With Extinction rebellion, ( The new Hitler Youth) and The new Fifth Reichs economics ( The Green New Deal) the narrative of Green Fascism based upon the Climate Change religion the NewSpeak of !)(¤ is upon us, decoding the narrative !)(¤ = shift !)(¤ = 1984

All you need is a pair of Sunglasses.

https://bit.tube/play?hash=QmbvEhyv17FipzNVo1H97RAr3yGSUAcjWqv83f3FRFF6tM&channel=285685

download (1)

https://web.archive.org/web/20080724185853/http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/meta_auschwitz02.htm

  1. Relativistic Dialectics            Relativistic Dialectics
    Georges Metanomski
    On the 50’th Anniversary of the Liberation of Auschwitz
    In one of the letters written to the Infeld group in Warsaw Einstein wrote:
    “A new manner of thinking is essential if humankind is to survive.”
         The 50’th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz has been marked by numerous celebrations and manifestations, whose main purpose was to learn from Auschwitz experience in order to make its repetition impossible. Therefore I am asking myself: what have I learnt?

    With respect to all I have seen, heard and read, the answer seems clear: nothing. I heard people cry and I have cried with them; I saw people mourn and I have mourned with them; I have been faced with unspeakable atrocities and I was shocked and distressed. But I have learnt nothing.

    Knowledge, indeed, does not consist of emotions, nor of particular events failing to fall into a logical structure. I still ignore, under which conditions new Auschwitz’s may be set up or avoided. More, I do not know at all, what should be understood under the “Auschwitz-to-be-avoided”. Surely not the specific KZ-Auschwitz, in whose place there is no new Nazi KZ to fear.

    When I wish to say something reasonable about birds, I start with the zoological definition, with the “birds-principle”. I am not obliged to accept this definition and I may call it into question. One thing I cannot do: say anything reasonable about an undefined concept. When zoology still lacked the definition of birds, somebody proposing to talk about them had to supply his own definition.

    As there exists no “Auschwitz-logy” nor a general “Auschwitz- Principle”, I would like to suggest one:

    AUSCHWITZ IS FOUNDED UPON ABSOLUTE PROPOSITIONS IN HUMAN DOMAIN, indeed upon their absurdity, which admits any arbitrary interpretation and discrimination.

    Physics admits exclusively relative propositions. When we say that a stone is heavy, we imply a relation to the earth: we know that it would be quite light on the moon, that in the cosmic space its weight would totally disappear.

    In the human/social domain, absolute propositions are equally absurd, but we lack an authority, a humanistic Galileo, or Einstein, to reinforce this truth. Somebody proposing a physical theory based upon absolute propositions would simply make himself ridiculous. Doing it in the human/social he would have all chances to found an Ideology, a Religion, an Empire. An Ideology, a Religion, un Empire which would be based upon the Auschwitz- Principle, whose laws, principles and virtues would necessarily point towards an Auschwitz.

    I realize that I imply with these words a whole philosophic system, a “Humanistic Relativism” without being able to justify here its principles. An interested reader may find their discussion in the site:

    RELATIVISTIC DIALECTIC

    I shall present here an example which shows the nonsense of the absolute classification criterion “Jew” and of the absolute proposition: “This man is a Jew”.

    From the race point of view, it is obvious nonsense, as nobody has ever observed a “Jewish” gene.

    One may certainly have a Jewish culture, speak Yiddish, Hebrew or ladino and tell Jewish jokes. However, culture is clearly a relativistic concept. Nazis may have used it as an indicator, but never as an essential, absolute criterion of discrimination. A large part of Jews murdered in Auschwitz had little or nothing to do with the Jewish culture. Some were Catholic priests, some have heard for the first time from the Nazis or from the blackmailers that they were Jews.

    The criterion of the Jewish religion is equally absurd. According to the Jewish law is Jew who has a Jewish mother, or who has been converted by a Jewish rabbin. However, in order to be sure that my mother is Jewish, I have to ascertain that she had herself a Jewish mother, or had been converted by a Jewish rabbin. The same holds of course for the converting rabbin. A clear case of a vicious circle.

    Consequently, the absolute concept “Jew” is empty and, as such, may get any arbitrary meaning. Heidrich understood it perfectly when he declared: “Wer Jude ist, entscheide ich” – “It’s me who decides who is a Jew”.

    If we want to avoid Auschwitz in the future, we must abolish situations in which a human being may classify and discriminate other ones upon absolute, arbitrary criteria. In other words, we must extend the Relativistic Reason over the human/social domain and may admit only relative, demonstrable propositions in this domain as well. This calls, of course, into question nearly all established ideological and political structures, which are based upon absolute principles.

    We live in an Auschwitz-friendly world and if we want to avoid Auschwitz in the future, we have to call into question its essential principles.

    But do we want it really?

    https://twitter.com/jbhearn/status/1115507677197688832

 

 

https://steemit.com/@francesleader

 

 

123

While the wife of the Secretary of the Treasury recites “Gonna drive my love inside you” and Senator Gore’s wife talks about “Bondage!” and “oral sex at gunpoint” on the CBS Evening News, people in high places work on a tax bill that is so ridiculous, the only way to sneak it through is to keep the public’s mind on something else: “Porn rock”.

Is the basic issue morality? Is it mental health? Is it an issue at all? The PMRC has created a lot of confusion with improper comparisons between song lyrics, videos, record packaging, radio broadcasting, and live performances. These are all different mediums, and the people who work in them have the right to conduct their business without trade-restraining legislation, whipped up like an instant pudding by The Wives of Big Brother.

The establishment of a rating system, voluntary or otherwise, opens the door to an endless parade of Moral Quality Control Programs based on “Things Certain Christians Don’t Like”. What if the next bunch of Washington Wives demands a large yellow “J” on all material written or performed by Jews, in order to save helpless children from exposure to concealed Zionist doctrine?

Franks Advice.

Advertisements

18 thoughts on “Relativistic Dialectics Relativistic Dialectics Georges Metanomski On the 50’th Anniversary of the Liberation of Auschwitz . #Brexiteers and Climate Deniers the new Jews?

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_hermeneutic
    The double hermeneutic is the theory, expounded by sociologist Anthony Giddens, that everyday “lay” concepts and those from the social sciences have a two-way relationship.[1] A common example is the idea of social class, a social-scientific category that has entered into wide use in society. The double hermeneutic is held to be a distinguishing feature of the social sciences.

    Like

  2. Anthony Giddens (1982) argues that there is an important difference between the natural and social sciences.[2] In the natural sciences, scientists try to understand and theorise about the way the natural world is structured. The understanding is one-way; that is, while we need to understand the actions of minerals or chemicals, chemicals and minerals don’t seek to develop an understanding of us. He refers to this as the ‘single hermeneutic’. (Hermeneutic means interpretation or understanding.) In contrast, the social sciences are engaged in the ‘double hermeneutic’. The various social sciences study people and society, although the way they do so is different. Some social sciences such as sociology don’t just study what people do, they also study how people understand their world, and how that understanding shapes their practice. Because people can think, make choices, and use new information to revise their understandings (and hence their practice), they can use the knowledge and insights of social science to change their practice.
    In outlining his notion of the ‘double hermeneutic’, Giddens (1984: 20) explains that while philosophers and social scientists have often considered the way “in which lay concepts obstinately intrude into the technical discourse of social science,” … “(f)ew have considered the matter the other way around.” He explains that “the concepts of the social sciences are not produced about an independently constituted subject-matter, which continues regardless of what these concepts are. The ‘findings’ of the social sciences very often enter constitutively into the world they describe.”[3]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Giddens

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s