Irony

Among recent generations, although not exclusively, it has been popular to praise irony and find in it some kind of meaning. Whether this is the Generation X hipsters who wear t-shirts from bad 1970s TV shows and shop at thrift shops for memorabilia of crap they hated, or the hollow maneuvering for political effect by our leaders, irony is with us in an almost religious context. "Isn't it ironic that the one thing he hated was his downfall?" say the witty voices of our peers, with that certainty of having found some move to hold all our queens in check -- we're so used to it, even, that we don't flinch when every commercial ends with an ironic twist, or every military campaign has some symbolic destruction of the evil enemy by the very means that brought him to power.

It's easy to fall into the game of irony as well, since it's easy. Find something that is paradoxical in the character of another event or person, and hype it until you've taken it to an extreme where it is hardly distinguishable from its opposites. Aha! Now you are the witty one. This strengthens your sense of self-esteem, which is something external to your actual being - it's your impression of the impression a generalized group, peers or friends or socially-important people, have of you. This gives it a sense of religion, or that of finding something non-visible which is more important than the visible, because at this point what matters is not reality, as you perceive it inside of yourself or as it exists outside of your perception, but an arbitrary abstraction of reality, namely that impression of what the impression that the people around you might have might be. In this mechanism, the state of seeing irony as having some meaning at all sustains a thought process of the unreal taking precedence over the real.

read more here:
http://www.anus.com/zine/articles/irony/

good points.

especially in universities, the gay/ironic/leftist type pervades and poisons conversations everywhere it alights.

isnt irony the constant attitude of "deconstructionists" everywhere?

Much of that makes up the "camp" that the fags love so much.

Except for the "Isn't it ironic that the one thing he hated was his downfall?" what is described as irony here is sarcasm, not irony.

irony and sarcasm are related. both are OK in reasonable amounts, both are overindulged by Seinfeld like Jewzim

It's always been a verrrrry jewish thing.


I want to be
where the land is free....
of irony

(Don't know who wrote it,but found it in "Redneck Manifesto",by Jim Goad - might have been him)

I'm a big fan of irony. Not jewish irony, but "straight" Aryan irony. The average idiot equates straight with honest, and he hates irony because it doesn't come with a laugh track, and he feels cheated, endangered, and scorned by it. Average people like things really slow and really obvious and they don't trust anything that isn't. Irony is only possible where there's higher intelligence and imagination - the ability to see more than one aspect of something. Most people lack that ability, and so if you sell them a dogshit wrapped in a tortilla and call it a freedom burrito, they eat it happily just as though it were the real thing.

The most fun to be had in today's society is jewing the jew. Mocking the John Stewarts, the jews at the top of their game at mocking Aryans, and seeing who's the better man. This the stewarts would outlaw as "hate." Jews are glass-jawed Lenny Bruces. They're obscene and self-congratulatorily iconoclastic when it comes to Aryan institutions, but the minute you say, hey, fruity, let's see if your syngogue of shit can withstand one nostril's worth of snort, they fall fetal and whimpering. And that is one of a thousand reasons I despise their cunt of a race. In the deepest sense, jews are the biggest race of pussies the world has ever seen. Even when they're on top they're quivering crybabies. In a strict sense, there are no male jews.

good points.

especially in universities, the gay/ironic/leftist type pervades and poisons conversations everywhere it alights.

isnt irony the constant attitude of "deconstructionists" everywhere?
Absolutely. Did you see the little incident a while ago where Boyd Rice participated in some kind of weird symposium on "evil" which was covered over on overthrow.com (yes, I know, Bill White - ignore that for the moment)? Boyd Rice, if you are not familiar with him, is a long time experimental musician and controversialist, an interesting fellow who enjoys taking extreme positions, and who is perfectly happy to allow his more clueless fans to make the mistake of thinking that he is being "ironic" - which is, of course, part of his actual irony, to those who understand and appreciate Boyd Rice on his truer, deeper level.

Bill White commented that one of the speakers was a clueless female bimbo professor (from Harvard or MIT, I forget which) who moronically equated "evil" with the Bush administration in a typically blinkered leftist manner (ie, she equated the war with Bush - not Jews - and equated Bush with Nazis, etc.). So Bill White goes to her blog and posts some typical Bill White "crazy white man" comments that were (to give him credit) pretty funny and outrageous and accurate (give Bill White his due: he does know how to shock and annoy people).

What happens next? Some college student fan of this bimbo professor posts a typical college, deconstructionist "ironic" interpretation of Bill White's comments which pretended Bill White didn't really mean what he said (this pup probably couldn't imagine real people could believe and say such "awful" things and mean them literally), and thus, he "actually" meant the opposite of what he had actually written.

I experienced the same reaction on Usenet back in the early 1990's, I think it was in discussions of certain crypto-"fascist" music groups there were popular amongst many fans who were otherwise typically liberal. I pointed out the similarity in themes of this music to certain pre-WWII fascist/rightist/anti-leftist/illiberal thinkers or movements, I either got responses that "they couldn't be Nazis because of what they sang in this or that song", etc., demonstrating that the respondent didn't know anything about Nazis except for WWII propoganda (and I wasn't saying these music groups were Nazis, anyway), or, more typically, I got the "ironic" treatment, because "obviously" these groups "couldn't mean what they sang to be taken literally or at face value" but must have meant the "opposite" (whatever the hell opposite was supposed to be in that context) which always ended up (conveniently) with a liberal/leftist interpretation that just happened to agree with the political prejudices of the one making the "ironic" interpretation.

This form of "ironic" thinking is just a lazy man's way of dealing with ideas he does not like. Using such methods, white is black, up is down, night is day, etc. Anything is possible.

Jewish irony is similar: it is destructive, it allows an unearned sense of superiority, it tears down things one resents because they are superior, it hides a hostility based on resentment and envy. Unlike purely academic decontructionist irony, however, Jewish irony is at least occasionally funny. I'd rather watch an episode of Seinfeld, for instance, than be subjected to the mental torture required to read or listen to a "decontructionist" thesis or essay on some subject or other. Camille Paglia and others have done a good job critiqueing this mind-numbing variety of academic decontructonist "irony", which, ironically enough, is almost never ironic in the commen sense, that is, enjoyable as humor.

I was confused about the distinction between irony and sarcasm. I looked up definitions for both, and they were virtually identical; indeed, one defintion would refer to the other. This defintion below contends that sarcasm is simply irony that is "hurtful" which is of course highly subjective.

http://home.comcast.net/~garbl/stylemanual/ithruj.htm
irony, sarcasm Sometimes confused. Both terms (as well as ironic and sarcastic) describe situations or use words that are directly opposite of what's expected or meant. And both can involve use of humor. But sarcasm and sarcastic jokes usually mock and ridicule in a hurtful way.
Naturally, using this definition, Hitler's ironic response to FDR in his speech to the Reichstag, in which he promises FDR that he will not invade a large laundry list of countries (and this is a genuinely funny speech; watch it with English subtitles to get a clue about Hitler's ability as a humorist and ironist) must be categorized by the Jewish orthodox version of history as "sarcasm" not irony. Since Hitler has been demonized, of course, and "we all know" he was planning to invade everywhere in Europe, naturally Hitler is not seen as an ironist, he's just one of those nasty sarcasm users, according to the standard orthodoxy. Hitler is "hurtful" by (Jewish) definition. When you understand Hitler's actual point of view and what he actually wanted and intended (as opposed to the demonized war propaganda version of him), it is very easy to see that Hitler is using irony, pure and simple, not sarcasm. He's not being mean, he's just pointing out that FDR was sticking his nose where it did not belong; he had no intrinsic hostility to FDR or to the USA and there is no hostile or "hurtful" tone to his speech.

Whereas, in contrast, we are suppose to believe that Jewish "humor" is just gently ironic, no sarcasm or hostility (open or veiled) there, nosiree. And if you think otherwise, you'd better keep quiet about it!

The English are another group that pride themselves on their irony, often to an excessive degree. They claim that Germans don't understand irony; not true, but Germans do tend to be too serious, too often, and thus give that impression. Americans are generally not good at irony, at least not your common boobus-americanus.

Americans don't like humor that requires them to think - that's why, for instance, the recent movie version of The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy butchered a lot of Douglas Adam's best dialogue and replaced it with more "obvious" slapstick humor. Reading or listening to an original Douglas Adams line of dialogue is a humorous experience that actually forces you to use your mind a bit (and we all can use the mental exercise) whereas the Hollywood movie version greatly reduced that and relied on humor it thought would sell to the lowest common denominator, which lowest common denominator is in fact the definition of the average American - this is where America's democratic character really hurts us collectively.

There's nothing wrong with irony. Just don't misuse or abuse it - Deconstructionists, I'm looking in your direction - or expect that ironic "humor" will allow you to disguise your hostility and pathological hatred of white people - Jews, I'm looking at you. Like most things, irony is a good thing that has been perverted by Jews and their tools and allies.

Irony is most certainly not inherently jewish. Rather, the misuse of it is. Jews use irony cheaply and dishonestly, as they use everything else, and to the same end: to destroy anything of solid value or Aryan integrity by pretending to reveal the "real" motives underneath.

But even if no jews existed, there would be one hell of a lot of Christian types whose howlingly stupid religiosity and malevolent earnestness cried out for mocking. Quoth the 19th century's most famous American atheist:

No man with a sense of humour ever founded a religion.
-- Robert Green Ingersoll

People who do not appreciate irony dislike it because they are constitutionally incapable of understanding that there is more than one way to be serious about something. Slow and obvious = serious, in their pinheads. Anything else - humor or irony, is highly suspect. Humor and irony both trade on incongruities, and working multiple aspects or angles at the same time. Having no brain of his own to think with, the Christian feels laughter at his ridiculous dogma is directed at him, and he won't stand for mocking. And in ages when his church controlled the state, he killed the mocker, and would do the same today if he could. Laughter shows the christian what he is, and if he doesn't understand it, he senses it enough to know he hates it.

Anytime you have intelligent people, you're going to have irony. At best, and properly, in its consciousness of multiple and often opposing angles, it displays an understanding of our lack of understanding, our educated consciousness that more may be involved than we know, thereby paving the way for genuine progress. Yes, irony, properly used, betrays genuine humility. The Christian bonehead, by contrast, is always cocksure. He has no mental mechanism for coping with disagreement because he can't think enough to pose the questions, let alone answer them. His answer to criticism can only be "shut up." His answer to the laughter his stupid-sureness inspires can only be a scowl. He has nothing to fight with other than huge masses of people as stupid as he is. Apart from the herd stampede, he is defenseless.

Perhaps the good Prozak can answer this: how am I supposed to respond to my town's choosing the slogan: "Kirksville -- where people make the difference" without irony? It would take a mind of stone not to read that and riff gibes. And yet, it is a perfectly unironic, earnest expression of the mentality of the average Kirksville citizen, circa 2005.

Without irony, there's nothing but big-eyed kindergarten teachers and special-ed students as far as the eye can see.

Irony can be light and playful, it doesn't have to be flesh-ripping (lit meaning of sarcasm) or jewily dishonest. It can be an "easy, there, trigger!" reminder not to get too overheated about things. Playfulness and nimbleness and mental flexilibity can be bound with irony as easily as cheap cynicism. I use irony to help humanity, because I'm a people person, hailing from Kirksville as I do. Did you know that people make the difference here? We deep-fry and serve 'em with a special Heartland sauce.

Earnestness can be abused as easily as irony. These days, thanks to tv, we're all drenched in jew-tv-writer irony, so that even the laff-trakers have learned to ape the cynicism. But the device itself remains valid. I chanced across a website on Roald Dahl the other day. One of his grade-school teachers said that she had never seen a child who so many times used a word to mean its opposite. Get rid of irony, and along with it goes a lot of funny, nasty, clever, vicious stuff.

I experienced the same reaction on Usenet back in the early 1990's, I think it was in discussions of certain crypto-"fascist" music groups there were popular amongst many fans who were otherwise typically liberal. I pointed out the similarity in themes of this music to certain pre-WWII fascist/rightist/anti-leftist/illiberal thinkers or movements, I either got responses that "they couldn't be Nazis because of what they sang in this or that song", etc., demonstrating that the respondent didn't know anything about Nazis except for WWII propoganda (and I wasn't saying these music groups were Nazis, anyway), or, more typically, I got the "ironic" treatment, because "obviously" these groups "couldn't mean what they sang to be taken literally or at face value" but must have meant the "opposite" (whatever the hell opposite was supposed to be in that context) which always ended up (conveniently) with a liberal/leftist interpretation that just happened to agree with the political prejudices of the one making the "ironic" interpretation.


Yes, this is how it works. I got the same thing in college in the eighties. I was writing ordinary conservative stuff, and had many people come up to me who simply would not believe that I actually believed what I was writing. They just assumed it was a joke. And it was 100% politer than VNN. I take this not so much a symptom of laziness as a consequence of decades of campus control by the jew-left. They have gone so long without resistance, the very idea of resistance has been lost.


This form of "ironic" thinking is just a lazy man's way of dealing with ideas he does not like. Using such methods, white is black, up is down, night is day, etc. Anything is possible.

I think it's more like that lib writer who said, "I don't see how Nixon won -- I don't know anybody who voted for him." Milieuthink, itz.


Jewish irony is similar: it is destructive, it allows an unearned sense of superiority, it tears down things one resents because they are superior, it hides a hostility based on resentment and envy.

Yep, it is cheap and incorrect because the supposed contradictions pointed up always rely on some Marxist-money or Freud-sex drive/motive, when in fact the better part of realism is observing that people -- Aryans at least -- are driven by honor and honesty, as long as food is plentiful.


Unlike purely academic decontructionist irony, however, Jewish irony is at least occasionally funny. I'd rather watch an episode of Seinfeld, for instance, than be subjected to the mental torture required to read or listen to a "decontructionist" thesis or essay on some subject or other.

Agreed. But we should remember that jews made America a country about nothing, at least insofar as Aryan cultural preservation is concerned. Poddy had a quote long ago about the triumph of the middle-class being the relegation of all non-money drives to the status of obsessions. Seinfeld is the perfect comedy for a nation of consumers. Four adult children arguing in mildly funny ways about things that don't matter. It does beat ugly lesbians maundering on for two dozen pages about the cultural hermeneutics of the turkey baster.


Camille Paglia and others have done a good job critiqueing this mind-numbing variety of academic decontructonist "irony", which, ironically enough, is almost never ironic in the commen sense, that is, enjoyable as humor.

These midgets imagine they're lording it over men. It is sad, indeed. She wrote a great essay about the great times that should be for grad student, lost forever due to domination of bizarre theory-hangars for students with no facts-clothes.


I was confused about the distinction between irony and sarcasm. I looked up definitions for both, and they were virtually identical; indeed, one defintion would refer to the other. This defintion below contends that sarcasm is simply irony that is "hurtful" which is of course highly subjective.


I cant' find my lit book, but sarcasm is disdainful and flesh-ripping (etym.), whereas irony can be funny or not funny, vicious or playful.



Naturally, using this definition, Hitler's ironic response to FDR in his speech to the Reichstag, in which he promises FDR that he will not invade a large laundry list of countries (and this is a genuinely funny speech; watch it with English subtitles to get a clue about Hitler's ability as a humorist and ironist) must be categorized by the Jewish orthodox version of history as "sarcasm" not irony. Since Hitler has been demonized, of course, and "we all know" he was planning to invade everywhere in Europe, naturally Hitler is not seen as an ironist, he's just one of those nasty sarcasm users, according to the standard orthodoxy. Hitler is "hurtful" by (Jewish) definition. When you understand Hitler's actual point of view and what he actually wanted and intended (as opposed to the demonized war propaganda version of him), it is very easy to see that Hitler is using irony, pure and simple, not sarcasm. He's not being mean, he's just pointing out that FDR was sticking his nose where it did not belong; he had no intrinsic hostility to FDR or to the USA and there is no hostile or "hurtful" tone to his speech.

Good points. Someone said saracasm is the defense of weak people, I think it was jew Salinger. So naturally vicious brittle low-class hater paperhanger would use it as a poor-man's comeback to rich expansive genial demo-aristocrat FDR.


Whereas, in contrast, we are suppose to believe that Jewish "humor" is just gently ironic, no sarcasm or hostility (open or veiled) there, nosiree. And if you think otherwise, you'd better keep quiet about it!

The English are another group that pride themselves on their irony, often to an excessive degree. They claim that Germans don't understand irony; not true, but Germans do tend to be too serious, too often, and thus give that impression. Americans are generally not good at irony, at least not your common boobus-americanus.

'Arbeit macht frei' is a good example of humor. It reminds me of American tax forms with "contribution" on them, with the difference that I think the German who commissioned the gate was in on the joke.

And you are right about Germany. There is a twinkling quality in the culture that is unknown here since we only get The Agenda version of history.


Americans don't like humor that requires them to think - that's why, for instance, the recent movie version of The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy butchered a lot of Douglas Adam's best dialogue and replaced it with more "obvious" slapstick humor.

True, but not all intelligent people share a taste for that type of humor. I don't think Monty Python is funny, whereas I think Benny Hill is very funny.


There's nothing wrong with irony. Just don't misuse or abuse it - Deconstructionists, I'm looking in your direction - or expect that ironic "humor" will allow you to disguise your hostility and pathological hatred of white people - Jews, I'm looking at you. Like most things, irony is a good thing that has been perverted by Jews and their tools and allies.

Irony can be used to deflate blowhards, but in the hands of the jew it becomes a cheap smear-enabler to reduce every Aryan impulse to sex- or money-seeking. Irony serves reductionism, in the hands of the jew, and expansiveness in the hands of the Aryan.

True, but not all intelligent people share a taste for that type of humor. I don't think Monty Python is funny, whereas I think Benny Hill is very funny.Douglas Adams was never part of or involved with Monty Python. He was half a generation younger, for starters, than the Monty Python group.

As a wordsmith, I would think you would find Douglas Adams interesting; his humor is highly dependent on how he strings a sentence together, and I think you would find his writing style interesting, at least, if you haven't read Douglas Adams you might want to check out the original Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe book just to get a taste for his prose. It's not at all like Monty Python, apart from some of the absurdism.

Douglas Adams himself claimed P.G. Wodehouse as a major influence, and I can certainly see some of that in him. Not sure what you think of Wodehouse. In any case, Adams knew how to string a sentence together in a way that makes people think, even if they don't want to. Worth checking out if you have not before.

I like Monty Python myself. It's absurdist humor like Douglas Adams, but less wordy and Monty Python in fact has huge elements of physical comedy; not quite slapstick like Benny Hill, but still physical comedy and not pure prose comedy like Douglas Adams.

Yes, this is how it works. I got the same thing in college in the eighties. I was writing ordinary conservative stuff, and had many people come up to me who simply would not believe that I actually believed what I was writing. They just assumed it was a joke. And it was 100% politer than VNN. I take this not so much a symptom of laziness as a consequence of decades of campus control by the jew-left. They have gone so long without resistance, the very idea of resistance has been lost.

I think it's more like that lib writer who said, "I don't see how Nixon won -- I don't know anybody who voted for him." Milieuthink, itz.
Yes, initially, this tends to be true, but conservatives - and even white nationalists - have been out and about long enough now that liberals can't be suffering from that much isolation from opposing views anymore.

For instance, in the Bill White exchange I mentioned, the deconstructionist respondant initially conceeded that the "nazi" point of view might be genuine, but he was going to deconstruct it as "irony" anyway, "just in case". It was like he was going through the motions.

Thanks to the internet, it's not as though alternative viewpoints are that hard to find anymore. A few cracks in the propasphere are starting to show.

Douglas Adams was never part of or involved with Monty Python. He was half a generation younger, for starters, than the Monty Python group.

I know.


As a wordsmith, I would think you would find Douglas Adams interesting; his humor is highly dependent on how he strings a sentence together, and I think you would find his writing style interesting, at least, if you haven't read Douglas Adams you might want to check out the original Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe book just to get a taste for his prose. It's not at all like Monty Python, apart from some of the absurdism.

Yeah, I never quite read that book, although I've seen it a million times. I did run across a bunch of quotes from him today, and some of them were pretty good, so I will read it at some point. I just always associated him with the comic book store guy mentality. [/quote]

Douglas Adams himself claimed P.G. Wodehouse as a major influence, and I can certainly see some of that in him. Not sure what you think of Wodehouse. In any case, Adams knew how to string a sentence together in a way that makes people think, even if they don't want to. Worth checking out if you have not before.[/quote]

I will. Wodehouse is first rate, far funnier than the overrated Waugh.


I like Monty Python myself. It's absurdist humor like Douglas Adams, but less wordy and Monty Python in fact has huge elements of physical comedy; not quite slapstick like Benny Hill, but still physical comedy and not pure prose comedy like Douglas Adams.

Well, they're ok. I just don't find them wildly funny like many do.

The episode of the Flying Circus where the English cricket team are playing a match against a spear-bowling Zulu team (mit animal hide-shields) is hilarious. It's polite and middle class to take a spear in the leg rather than worry yourself with putting down the savage and his strange, backward habits.

I think O Henry captured the idea of irony in many of his short stories. I alway found them to be quite delightful.

The major ironist is Socrates.