WWW.HUBERT-BRUNE.DE

 

Occidental culture

D E M O G R A P H Y   -   E C O N O M Y   -   P O L I T I C S


It is not possible to rule and govern the world population (today: about 7 billions) democratically, it is not possible to rule and govern the population of the EU (today: about 500 millions) democratically, it is not possible to rule and govern the population of the US (today: about 300 millions) democratically in the long run. Merely populations which numbers are not higher than the number of a village or a polity (ancient Greece) can be ruled democratically in the long run.

So, what happened in history when former small populations growed and became controllable? The form of government changed! Democraties changed to monarchies. De facto the European nations are only 10%- or 20%-nations because they depend on the EU (correctly also called: EUSSR), and this political monster is not ruled democratically. Those who believe in a „democratic“ EU or other lies have no idea how power, rule, goverrnance, authority, command, leadeship, control work, especially in the long run.


We live in an age of globalism which is a system of both capitalism and socialism. Please don't underestimate the socialism!


Both capitalistic system and socialistic system are not able to afford what is needed for them. The capitalistic systsem has always to fear the socialistic system, and the socialistic system can not exist without the capitalistic system. It's Hegel's „Dialektik“. So this is merely possible with a „Synthesis“ of both capitalism as „Thesis“ and socialism as „Antithesis“. There is no other solution in order to “manage” that - as long as history last (**|**|**).

Perhaps it would really be better if we were small groups of farmers working for our self and owning some goods and land, and perhaps it could really be like some of the barbarian’s style of life, but I am afraid that the civilised barbarians would not want us to do that because they want us to be consumers, social welfare beneficiaries, but no farmers or other freelancers, self-employed persons.


Poulation and food
Be careful with Malthus and Malthusianism! There is much propaganda! Please be careful with concepts like “Malthus curve”, “Malthusian dilemma”, “Malthusian catastophe”, “Malthusian crisis”, “Malthusian nightmare” and so on ....

Is the population always rising at a geometric rate? Is the food always growing at an arithmetic rate?

Do you know how the food has been growing since the industrial revolution?

In addition: Many of the demographic “informations” are disinformations.

Already during his lifetime “Malthus was criticized severely. His fellow clergymen thought he was crazy; politicians and journalists called him a heretic. But others, especially a famous economist of the time named David Ricardo, made much use of the Malthusian theory. Let’s delve a little more deeply into why Malthus came up with such heretical ideas. We will see that although his theories didn’t describe the industrial society of his own time very well, they did do a good job of describing preindustrial Europe (and perhaps certain less developed countries today).“ - Economics Today.


The growth rate of the world poulation has been declining since about 1968.

**

The reason why the world population is still growing is the fertility of the black human beings.


Besides cultural (cp. e.g. decadence and so on), economical (cp. e.g. welfare, debt, terror of consumption and so on) and other reasons there are also techn(olog)ical reasons (cp. e.g. machines and so on) for the decline of the so called developed population, the white population (and their “branches”). Cultural reasons lead - via economical reasons - to techn(olog)ical reasons, and the last ones make the decline complete by mechanical replacing. Machines are the modern “crown of creation”.


Non-Westerneres live according to their tradition; they don’t know and don’t want (!) the typical white, typical Western reasons: “Individualism” and so on. So they live and decide to have children because of their tradition, just as they have always done - that's all.

When the Western culture was brought to them they at first partly adopted and partly negatetd it, but then they negated it more and more, because they noticed the negative side of the Western culture. One of their reasons to change their opinion about the Occident was their growing self-confidence. So they didn’t and don't want to change the fertility.

The economical reasons, you mentioned, are not the only reasons. Behaviour doesn’t have merely economical reasons. Contrariwise the economical reasons should not be underestimated. Nevertheless: economical reasons are not always the only reasons for having children.

1.) Firstly one has to see it from the layer of the evolution because we human beings are involved in evolution.
2.) Secondly we have to see it from the layer of the history because we human beings have been having history since 6000 years.

So we human beings have an (1) evolutionary and a (2) historical development which means that we e.g. have an (1) oral / verbal and a (2) written / recorded cultural tradition.

Economical and - last but not least - techn(olog)ical reasons are important when it comes to explain why human beings have children, but they are not the only reasons; other important reasons are biological and - of course - cultural ones.


If one only looks for economical reasons for having children, then one will only find a ¼-solution.

There are 4 main reasons:

1.) Biological reasons.
2.) Cultural reasons.
3.) Economical reasons.
4.) Techn(olog)ical reasons.

The reason, why decadent people always think the reasons for having children are always and exclusively economical ones, is the fact that they themselves always think (decadently) the reasons for having children would be always and exclusively economical ones.


So the fertility of the white population shows - without any doubt - they are (1.) culturally decadent, (2.) economically under terror of consumption and debt, thus: bankrupt, insolvent, (3.) techn(olog)ically endangered because of the replacement by machines (**|**|**).


How much percent of the gross national product ends up as income after taxes and social transfers?

Examples Finland Germany USA Brazil WORLD
Richest 20% => about 35% about 40% about 47% about 65% about 85%
Rest (80%) => about 65% about 60% about 53% about 35% about 15%

The trend is the “Brazilization of the World”. And when the „Brazilization of the World“ will be reached, the next trend will be 80/20 (80% to the richest 20% and 20% to the rest, thus 80%).

Guess what the goal is.


The birthrates and fertility rates I have given in one of my posts are known and accepet worldwide. They are facts. The population of the most african populations have grow exponentially since the last centuries. In the 1940's they had the population of “x” and in the 1990's they had the population “10x” - ten times more! Not an african, but a west asiatic example is Iraque: In the 1920's Iraque had a poulation of 3 millons, 2010 Iraque had a population of 32 millions - more than ten times more!


Communism have killed the most people of all time. Please don't forget that. Egalitarianism is a homicidal system like all other kinds of totalitarianism, and they all fail at last at the fact that they don't work.


According to Hegel's Dialektik there has to be a Synthesis of the Thesis „capitalism“ (especially successful in the 19th century) and the Antithesis „communism“ (especially successful in the 20th century). What kind of Synthesis can it be? Merely something like globalism or its contrary: localism / regionalism which will lead to the pre-historical times resembling post-historical times (**|**|**).

If the “new world order” is really “as ideologically necessary in today's world” (**), then this new world order can merely be - llike I said - something like globalism or its contrary: localism / regionalism, which will lead to the pre-historical times resembling post-historical times (**|**|**).

The “Hundred Years’ War of ideological conflict” (**) was the epoch where egalitarianism (socialism, communism etc.) were stronger than liberalism (capitalism etc.) because it had undercut and threatened all liberalistic (capitalistic) systems. But now we are living in a different epoch: capitalism is weak, communism is not as strong as in the last epoch, and globalism - as the Synthesis of capitalism and communism (cp. Hegel's Dialektik) - is the strongest. That means that both capitalism and communism still exist, but as a mix in which capitalism dominates as a communism.

Referring to the fact that globalism is a Synthesis of capitalism (Thesis) and communism (Antithesis) the end of history will be reached when this Synthesis has changed to such a New Thesis whithout any historical existence. Merely something like globalism or its contrary: localism / regionalism, which will lead to the pre-historical times resembling post-historical times (**|**|**).


The current art shows also what globalism means (see above), so the current art is also enbedded in both capitalisms and communism, in Thesis and Antithesis of the Synthesis globalism. Nobody else than Oswald A. G. Spengler has so consequently and arrestingly shown how art works as a semiotic and/or linguistic indicator for historical phases of a culture / civilisation.

According to Schopenhauer in the face of the will as Kant’s „Ding an sich“ (“thing in itself” / “thing as such”) human beings are almost powerless, but amongst them the genies of the art, especially of the music, are able to conceive and represent the eternal ideas.


A system of government does not have to be ruled by a so-called “elite” of “academic experts“, but merely functionaries, because the so-called “elite” of “academic experts“ can, should be slaves (and they are!) and/or machines (and they are!). You merely need functionaries for technocracy. Rulers have merely one purpose: control (power). So what are all rulers doing in order to control? They are enslaving humans and/or creating machines by enslaved functionaries and/or machines.

The risk is that there will be at last merely machines. Because humans act in this way, their end is clear. The question is only: When?


Not the US president, but the most powerful men of the world calculated well. The US president merely works for them.


The US and the USSR - the former is the current USSR, the latter (perhaps) the current US - have no ideologies?

The US president has never been ruling.

If the US president were not a functionary - a slave -, he would not be paid, but he is paid!

The US president has nothing to say.


A society or culture has to have a real antithesis (and not a artificial one), else it can't be a real thesis. But if it is a real thesis with a real antithesis, then it becomes sooner or later a synthesis. And after that this sysnthesis becomes the new thesis, either a real or not a real one. The older a society (culture) the more artificial its thesis and so on.


The synthesis becomes a new thesis. Life with no synthesis would be very boring, merely acting (thesis) and reacting (antithesis), no qualitative change. There would be no qualitative development without any synthesis (and further: no new thesis). Humans changed their lives - compare the humans of the Stone Age and the humans of the last 6000 years.

Without any synthesis life would be merely a ping pong game because it would merely consist of thesis and antithesis, for example: action and reaction.


We should have more than one currency, and the first one should be a currency of knowledge, wisdom, information.

Due to the fact that the money economy, also known as monetarism or finance, is too much in line with energetic resources, we would have a very much better economy, if it were more in line with knowledge, wisdom, information than with energetic resources.

Another point is the relation of production and reproduction. All fertility rates have to be almost equal, and after that (not before and during that) the rich and the poor will also become more equal, not equal - because that is impossible -, but relaitively equal. That is a fair deal. Else the result will be: Stone Age or even extinction!

But the more the machines are successful the more the human beings are threatened with extinction.

So we have three great modern human errors or mistakes: 1.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false input of machines; 2.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false demographic policy (population policy); 3.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false concentration on energetic resources (instead of knowledge, wisdom, information) by the money economy.


Actually the liberals say “everyone is free”, which is impossible, and the egalitarians say “all are equal”, which is also impossible. So they have to find a synthesis, if they don't want to constantly fight aginst each other; and the fact that they have found one is the reason for the fact that they say the thesis (“everyone is free”) and the antithesis (“all are equal”) together.


Hyperbolism, hedonism, utilitarianism, individualism and all the other nihilisms are those problems, which became as much bigger as the attempt to control them in order to prevent chaos, anarchy, and - last but not least - overthrow, downfall. It's a vicious circle.

So a solution of the three great modern human errors or mistakes seems to be impossible: 1.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false input of machines; 2.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false demographic policy (population policy); 3.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false concentration on energetic resources (instead of knowledge, wisdom, information) by the money economy.

No one wants to take responsibility!


The disproportion between: (1.) machines and humans to the disadvantage of humans; (2.) population of poor and population of rich countries to the disadvantage of about 99% of all humans; (3.) energetic resources and other resources to the disadvantage of non-energetic resources. That is what is meant by the three great modern human errors or mistakes: (1.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false input of machines; (2.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false demographic policy (population policy); (3.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false concentration on energetic resources (instead of knowledge, wisdom, information) by the money economy. In the long run that will lead to something like a suicide of all humans.

A more fair distribution can follow then (and only then!), if those three great modern human errors or mistakes have been disappeared or at least demagnified. Else the unfair distribution remains, the unfairness increases exponentially.

We have to correct the three great modern human errors or mistakes (=> 1., 2., 3.). We must slow down.


Why is there this huge disproportion between (1.) machines and humans to the disadvantage of humans, (2.) population of poor and population of rich countries to the disadvantage of about 99% of all humans, (3.) energetic resources and other resources to the disadvantage of non-energetic resources?

The first impression may be that there is no disadvantage of humans (=> 1.), of about 99% of all humans (=> 2.), of non-enegertic resources (=> 3.), but is that really true? The paradox is that the past, present, and some of the future advantages will change to disadvantages in the (long run) future. So we can interpret this “advantages” as “short advantages”, or as “pretended advantages”, or even as “disadvantages”, because the prize is to high, and the prize has to be paid by all humans: the probable extinction of the humans because of a very short moment of wealth for very few generations of the humans!

So if we want to keep wealth, we have to correct the three great modern human errors or mistakes (=> 1., 2., 3.). The only alternative to that correction is the extinction of all humans.

We must take another direction and slow down.


One has to underline the term “in the long run” here. In the long run it is possible that machines replace all human beings (**|**|**) - the probability is about 80%, I estimate.

This probability that machines will replace all human beings is too high (80% - as I estimate; see above), and if they will not replace all human beings (20% - as I estimate; see above), the probability of poverty, dullness, and other badnesses is too high (99% - as I estimate).


“Willpower”does not mean “will to power”. “Willpower” means a kind of power, namely a “power of will”, but “will to power” means a kind of will, namely a “will which tends to power”.

So both “willpower” and “will to power” are more different than many people think.


My recommendation:

Everyone should reproduce himself / herself one time in his / her life, so that the reproduction rate could be always about 1, the fertilitiy rate always about 2 children per woman. If he / she doesn't want a child, that should be no problem anyway because he / she would have to pay for his / her desire - a so called “management of reproduction”, or “management of children”, or “management of family” would adopt the task having one child per one adult person. Anf if one person wants to have more than one, or a couple (two persons) more than two children, he / she / they would have to pay for that desire. In short: the reproduction rate would always be about 1, the fertility rate always about 2.

We know that fertility and prosperity (wealth) correlate with each other (b.t.w.: also with intelligence). So where the fertility is too high you can be sure that there is poverty and vice versa. Politicians have no idea or just don't want (corrupion etc.) to change anything in that way that fertility can “control” prosperity (wealth): the current politicians and other so-called “experts” (they are no experts at all) want the prosperity (wealth) to “control” the fertility, but that doesn't work in the long run. In the long run the result is always poverty of all or about 99%, if prosperity (wealth) is wanted to “control” the fertility. Prosperity (wealth) produces infertilitiy, especially of those who work very much, but also of those who are very much self-centered (cp. “individualism”, bad egocentrism), and at last of all or almost all.


My solution would help all to become richer - all, thus the rich and the poor. But the rulers would not agree with that, because they would not become as fast richer as they now do, although they would become richer too, but not in the same fast way as now. So my solution is not wanted by the most powerful 1% (possibly on the way to become a new “human species”).

The problem is not, that my solution would not work - it would work very well -, but the problem is that no one wants to be responsible for such a policy. For the rulers and the politicians it is easier to control the population by continuing their policy of lies, cants, double moral standards, simulation and so on. Those who have to be responsible are not responsible at all. So the irresponsibility continues - meanwhile the shear between rich and poor increases exponentially.


In the mentioned case it is a question of the dimensions, circumstances, and time. If 99% become richer, then the 1% becomes not necessarily poorer, but with the utmost probability also richer, although not so much and not so fast as before because the richness of that 1% depends on the poorness of those 99%. And the scissors between rich and poor are expoentially widening.


Some corporations (companies, organisations or however you may call them) are already so rich / powerful that each of those corporations has a property / power which is more than the gross national product of France or Italy.

GNP France = 2.78 trillion US dollars.
GNP Italy = 2.07 trillion US dollars.

For comparison: the current (2014) world GNP = 70 trillion US dollars.

So the mentioned corporations are super-corporations, super-companies, super organisations (similar to a super organisms). The difference between them and the ordinary people is already so great that one can almost speak of two different human “species”.


Joining information theory and economy makes sense, but I don't think that everyone who calles himself an “information theoretician” or an “economist” is really an information theoretician or an economist.


According to Hans-Peter Raddatz those „four levels“ are:

1) World “nobility” (upper “nobility”).
2) State “nobility” (middle “nobility”).
3) Dressage “nobility” (lower “nobility”).
4) Masses.

Interestingly the governmental politicians are not a part of the “state »nobility«” (“middle »nobility«”), but merely a part of the “dressage »nobility«” (“lower »nobility«”).The “state »nobility«” (=> 2) and the “dressage »nobility«” (=> 3) shall unite to one “nobility”; both shall become one “dressage »nobility«”, because states shall vanish.


The “policy of deterrence” and the “policy of cuddling” can be successfully used by both sides, and in the case of mass murder the death penalty has to be a very valid law, even then, if all human beings are bad and accomplices of the mass murders, so that all laws are merely a formality and the anarchy an everyday occurrence.

In the long run the real libertarianism is anarchy; in the long run the real egalitarianism is anarchy; in the long run the real synthesis of libertarianism and egalitarianism is anarchy, but called humanitarianism.

You will get the anarchy sooner, if there is no “policy of deterrence” at all.

Both cases bring the machines, but the first case with punishment, which is the more “traditional” case, wins time by procrastination, while the second case with cuddling, which is the more “modern” case, wins some people by “reprogramming“, as you call it. As a “chief accountant“ I would say that the first case is more efficient. So I prefer that first case. Call me “old-fashion”.

Relating to those two cases there is no “best aim”, because the differences between those two cases are too small, and both cases are bad, too bad.

One has to be very micrological in order to find those very micrological differences.


“News” for US people:

The “contrast” of being “conservative” and being “liberal” in the USA means the “contrast” of being “conservative/liberal” and “socialist/politically-correct” in Europe. That's absurd and ridiculous.

The “war“ between conservative and liberal “parties” in the USA or the “war” between “conservative/liberal” and “socialist/politically-correct” “parties” in the EU are merely the stage play with which to keep the masses confused and distracted while conquering them. Motto: divide and conquer!


According to Karl Marx the capitalism is a pre-condition to communism because he was a Hegelian, a Left Hegelian. There has to be the thesis capitalism (wealth) before the antithesis communism (egalitarianism) can take place and lead to the synthesis. So there has to be wealth before anything (namely: that wealth!) can be distributed. Therefore Karl Marx expected the “revolution” to take place in Germany because Germany was the most advanced country. If Karl Marx had lived one century later than he did, he would have said that the “revolution” in Russia was a farce. Why? What happened? In Germany where he had expected the “revolution” did not occure, but instead of that the “revolution” occured in Russia 1917 - with causes, reasons which were the reverse of that he had expected, and under pre-conditions he had never expected because Russia was a Third world country, no advanced country. And because Russia was not advanced enough Stalin forced the Russians / Soviet population for industrialisation, and because of this forced industrialisation 40 million or more people died (even by pogroms and propaganda trials). That was not what Karl Marx expected in the century before that farce and mass murder.

A country has to be rich or wealthy because without richness or wealth it is not possible to distribute it.


There are quite a few signs that suggest that states will disappear. I have already spoken of these signs. States are indeed amongst the historical existentials (**|**). Globalism, super organisations, organisations like UNO, nongovernmental organisations (NGOs), and many other organisations and institutions replace the national states - that is already obvious -, and will replace states at all.


It is well known that the Glozis want to abolish the nations and have already abolished the nations for the most part; but it is not so well known that they also want to abolish the states.


Sovereign or at least semi-sovereign states are in a position to better solve. But that should not be solved by states, because for the rulers the control of the people is easier to do without states - according the motto “DIVIDE ET IMPERA”.


The real (!) upper class wants the other two classes (middle and lower class) to fight each other - according to the motto: „DIVIDE ET IMPERA“.


The West has partly done away with states or nations. So the states ore nationshave not disappeared to 100%, but approximately to 50, 60, 70 or even 80%.

That's funny, isn't it? The West as the founder of the nations has merely 50-80%-nations, demolished nations, but the Non-West has nations.


In order to be an upper class the upper class does not have to be „noble“, but an upper class.


What is tried again and again, is to be powerful, to be the most powerful. They need all people in order to rule, to control them, and therefor they have to split, to divide them. That seems to be a paradox, but it happens due is to an old effective method of ruling: “DIVIDE ET IMPERA”.


A successful currency that is not under the control of the Glozis (Globalists) will never be tolerated by the Glozis. An autarky will never be allowed by the Glozis. Glozis will never allow an economy that is directed against their economy.


The worst racism is the auto-racism (racism towards one’s own race). The Whites daily show how auto-racism works.


A real democracy is merely possible with very small populations or with states of polity (city states) or nations. Nations are one of the greatest Western creations, and nations function, although they have large populations, because of the states which manage the function of nations. If the state is taken away, the nation can no longer exist. A state can exit without a nation, but a nation can’t exist without a state. So if you want to have merely a little bit of democracy, you must either have a very small population or a well working state of a polity (city state) or of a nation (if you have one). Now please combine, draw the right conclusions.


The biggest unproblematic units of populations will disappear, if the globalists will destroy them totally (and I’m sure that they will do that): nations. So what will be socially left after that destruction? Emipres? Yes, but only one, namely a global or almost global empire because that is the goal of the globalist, and b.t.w.: it is mostly already reality.


The end of blind lusting and the dissolution of the (temporary) last empire will come. But it will take time. And what will happen in the meantime? That’s the most important question? Will the humans be able to solve their problems in the meantime? Will the machines take over in the meantime? Will that happen or not happen during or after the globalism epoch, or will it never happen?


When the nations are eliminated, there is no more impediment for the Glozis to eliminate the states of that ex-nations as well. First the nations, then their states. If a nation is already eliminated, then its state is not needed anymore. And if there are no nations and their states anymore, very small social unities or empires can merely be possible. An empire has its own state, and that state has nothing to do with any political participation of the people/s. So either imperial dictatorship or anarchy will follow, if nations and their states are eliminated.

What we can currently notice is the reduction of national aspects, which shall lead to the elimination of the nations, then of the national states, or even states at all, with the result totalitarianism as never before: globalism.


Empires can only be held together, if they are like dictatorships, if they are totalitarian.


What about the possibility that the globalists, or the machines, or both together will bring such a situation to the people of the whole globe as it was brought by Augustus to the people of Rome (“Pax Augusta” / “Pax Romana”)?

This “Pax Augusta” (“Pax Romana”) for the whole globe or for the whole solar system? With such Glozis as rulers? And/or with such machines we have already described as the probable rulers of the world in the future?


First, the middle class will be eliminated, and after that the lower class will be eliminated, namely then, when it will have grown up to 99% (lower class + ex-middle class = lower class of 99%).


The middle class has to carry everything and everyone. The only difference between former modern times and curent modern times is that the nobility and clergy have been becoming globalists.

The middle class carries the upper class

The middle class carries the upper class.


The history clearly shows that all previous socialisms, because they were modern, were either national or - in the worst case - imperial totalitarianisms. The current globalism is also such an modern imperial totalitarianism, namely the worst case of the worst cases because it is the greatest of history.

The two ways to get out of the imperial madness are the alternatives as city states or as nation states; but because both are about to be destroyed (and even are going to destroy themselves), only one possibility remains: the very small social units, for example something like the “communal particles”. But this only possibility will come again anyway, because history repeats its form.

So one could think one has only to wait. But there is another modern problem: the modern trend itself which means also - and amongst other powerful things - machines (**). You and other human beings will not be needed anymore. Perhaps no human being will survive because that threat with all its consequences will probably come true.

And if someone has an idea like “communal particle” (see above), then he is threatened with lies, that he is a “friend” of the “bad socialists” of the past, although / because the liars themselves are this bad socialists, even in a global scale of imperialism.

Do what thou wilt. Ye watch thee.


You and other human beings will not be needed anymore. Perhaps no human being will survive because that threat with all its consequences will probably come true. And b.t.w.: not later than since the beginning of the history of the words „joblessness“ and „unemployment“ it has been being obvious! Johann Wolfgang Goethe knew that already towards the end of the 18th century!


“Liberal democracy” is merely one of the (last) Western forms of governement. All “liberal democracies” content an antagonism, a contradiction, similiar to all “liberal equalities” or all “capitalistic socialisms”. And liberality without democracy or democracy without liberality are one of the worst forms of society or government because they serve the purpose of exploitation and are not of long duration.


The reason why the Glozis, their functionaries, and their seduced crowd can say that it is communistic or socialistic - and not just democratic. They say: „You are not democratic. You are communistic or (national) socialistic.“ And so they can incite their seduced crwod against you. The crowd is too much influenced by the Glozis and their functionaries.

They themselves are more communistic or (national global) socialistic than the people as the huge majority, but they (and not the people as the huge majority) have the power.


Do you remember what happened after the so called „Cold War“ relating to the former members of the USSR? Many states of the erstwhile Eastern Bloc came back into the Western control, and the Westerners agreed to the Russian will to control all - except the Baltic - erstwhile members of the USSR. That was the deal. According to this deal it is not allowed that the ertswhile members of the USSR can also become a member of the EU, thus EUSSR.

** **

Putin is more powerful than Obama - not at first because of the dictatorship, but because of the fact that US presidents are politicians (as functionaries!), but not rulers because they are dependent on their money lenders, donors, “sponsors”. Not only Russia has an interest in the erstwhile members of the USSR, but also the West, in spite of the fact that according to the deal I mentioned (see above) the West is not allowed to have an interest in the erstwhile members of the USSR. So the presumption is justified that the West is corrupt and that not the West itself - as a whole -, but his leaders, the globalists, have this interest and pretend as if the whole West would defend the so called “free world”. That's ridiculous!


Reforming Demography.

If we really want to reform Western “societies” and economies, we must take into account the correlation between wealth, intelligence/knowledge and demography.

Like I said: We know that fertility and prosperity (wealth) correlate with each other (b.t.w.: also with intelligence).

The statement that knowledge depend of the so called “free market” is merely partly right, thus partly wrong. For example: (1.) The current Western/global market is not really a “free market”. (2.) Knowledge depends on genetics, because intelligence is mostly based on genetics, and on education, thus on a relatively long time; so it is not primarily a question of a market, or of capitalism versus communism, but a fortiori of culture. (3.) Knowledge can be used in several ways; so it is also important to keep knowledge by selecting the right people with their achievements and trustworthiness, and that (of course!) is also not primarily a question of a market, or of capitalism versus communism, but a fortiori of culture.

When it comes to speaking about knowledge, the meaning of knowledge, and the importance of knowledge for a “society” and its economy, then it is primarily important to do it in connection with (1.) genetics and evolution of intelligence, (2.) education and history of culture (cultural evolution), including economical facts, (3.) information (including all kinds of communication that leads to knowledge, e.g. all sciences, semiotics, linguistics, philosophy, mathematics, if they are in fact no sciences). That does not mean that economy is somehow unimportant. No. That only means that knowledge is firstly a genetic/biological and cultural issue (remember and see above: “long time”) - and guess why this issue is a taboo in the Western “societies” -, and secondly an economical issue, but then (and only then), if such knowledge is well arrived in economy, then there is such a great feedback that the West had in the past, still has in the present (although the negative trend shows clearly in the other way!), but will not have anymore in the future.

So first of all a “society” has to have people with knowledge and a trustful will to work, thus intelligent people with a trustful will to work, and only then it can also enjoy the advantages of this people because they have enriched the economy and via economy also the “society”.


Does something like a “communal particle” or the so-called “Social Anentropic Molecule” (“SAM”) has to be “democratic”? And if so: why?

Even “SAM” can merely be successful and more than ever democratically successful, if it remains a small common or corporation. But more than other forms of government democracy is prone to corruption. That is - b.t.w. - the reason why democracy has a shorter duration than other forms of government. But anyway: if this small commons or corporations do not grow in the long run, then they will have a chance. And this chance would grow, if each common or corporation would be more like a (for example!) city state, thus more like a republican aristocracy. I don’t say this because of my own social and political belief or opinion, but because of the logic of “SAM”.

The forms of history repeat. In other words: The time of “SAM” is going to come!

My question wether it must be “democratic” was meant generally and related to the possibility that if “SAM” is “democratic”, it would get more and more under the control of the gloablists and their system of corruption. Then you wouldn’t have a “SAM”, but a “GANG”.

If “SAM corps are an element within a somewhat democratic/capitalistic” (**), then they are vulnerable to corruption, even if SAM remains small.

It depends on (1.) the social/political system you belong to, (2.) the personalities and characters of the members of the social/political system, and (3.) the might around you (currently the power of the globalists and their system). (1.) SAM for instance is perhaps “democratic”, but “democracy” means more vulnerable to corruption than other forms of government; and SAM has for example 4 groups - seers, strategists, doers, overseers -, and that doesn’t “sound” like democracy, although SAM’s smallness allows to call its social/political system “democracy”. (2.) One has to be sure, in spite of the smallness of SAM, that all members are not corruptible. (3.) The globalists as SAM's enemy can eliminate SAM, if it SAM not willing to be corrupt.

Logically, SAM has firstly to be monarchic, then aristocratic, and at last democratic. Else you can’t build it correctly. Check out the history of all hitherto successful companies/corporations! No one of them started democratically, but they all started monarchically, then they changed to aristocracy, and at last they perhaps changed to democracy (perhaps! because most of them did not want to change to democracy, but they lastly had to because the corruption had grown and forced them). It would be no good omen for SAM to start democratically, in spite of its smallness. Unless you could be sure that no one of its members is corruptible. But how can you be sure in that case? You can never be sure, but almost be sure, if your social/political system is monarchic, thus authoritarian.


“Human rights” “are” to be read only on paper and “are” because of merely one “right”: 1% of the humans „is“ allowed to exploit and destroy the Earth and 99% of the humans.


The Nazis were never conservative, on the contrary, the conservative humans were their greatest enemies. The only real (!) resistance against the Nazis were the conservative humans.

Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg

Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg (committed an assassination on Hitler).


Interestingly but not surprisingly, the oldest generations and the youngest generation are seldom told anyway.

In future all generations are seldom told. The end effect will be the redundance of all humans. They will not be needed anymore.


This is always the same:

Spiralbewegungen
Staatsformen    Spiralisches
Spiralisches

Please follow the arrow!

And the process is a circular / elliptic or a spiral motion.

Almost like the one which is shown in the picture on the right side.

The motions of the planets and their moons are also spiral motions, even the motion of the sun is a spiral motion. And the motions of the planets and their moons belong to the motion of the sun. There is perhaps only one or even no arrow in the universe because all orbits in the universe universe belong probably either to one spiral (one arrow) or to one circular / elliptic (no arrow) orbit.

Naturally / universally considered, the forms of government have also only one or even no arrow / goal. That is the reason why we often say: “always the same”. It’s just true.


“Isms” are no forms of government, but forms of ideological systems, and both are not the same. But those „isms“ are included anyway, because forms of government and ideological systems “like” or even “love” each other very much, especially in modern times, the times of “isms”.


Each human should have the right and the duty to reproduce himself / herself; that should and would lead to an ideal case with the reproduction rate 1. If someone wants to have more or less than one child, he or her would have to pay for it.

In this way the rate remains at 1. But if not, it would be no problem anyway. If the reproduction rate is higher than 1, it would be reduced soon because there are enough humans who don't want to reproduce themselves. If the reproduction rate is lower than 1, the state or a professionell corporation would have to add the reproduction rate by "reproduction managers" ("state mothers" or "professionell mothers") who are paid by those who don't want to reproduce themselves.

If we do not solve the demographic problem, we will get very much bigger problems!


Demography and economy have much to do with each other, but it is the demography that has the 51%. Or to modify your sig to a metaphor: „In a pure demography, 51 percent of the people get to pee in the economy of 49 percent of the people.“

You all want to prefer to live in luxury and therefore not to make the smallest sacrifice.
You all are partly to blame for the disaster that awaits us.
You all say: “After me, the flood.”
You all do not want to see anything because you are too luxury horny.

That's a shame.


Who pays for it, that many people have too many and some people too few children? Who makes sure that it is paid for?

My solution means (amongst others) that less would be paid.

Who has an interest in defending the current circumstances, thus problems?

We could really avoid these problems, if there were no interest in defending them!


My solution means that less would be paid, // And less state would be made.

That rhymes and makes very much sense.


It is known that economists should be and sometimes really are rational humans. And what do economist mostly do? As far as possible, economists try to quantify any quality! But it is also known that economists are humans. Machines are much more rational than humans and their economists. Machines are much more efficient than humans and their economists. We count 1 and 1 together: machines are far more rational and far more efficient than humans and their economists; thus machines are also the much better economists.

Technologically spoken, the last two economic crises were caused by machines, although they had got their numbers and data from humans, humans with no idea, but power.


My solution has nothing or merely less to do with restriction because the regulation does not work via state, but via market. Those family managers are not paid by the state, but by the market. The “restriction” refers merely to the law of birth control, family planing, population control (“oh”, you may think, “China!”, but it is not like “China”) and not to the regulation itself. China's regulation was and is part of the regulation by a dictatorship. We may wait until the Western countries will have become more dictatorial than China ever was; then this regulation will come anyway, but it will come with more restrictions, with more repressions, depressions, suppresions, ... and so on. Better we do it via market than dictators will do it instead of us and “for us” via dictatorship.

It is possible to do it via market.

In this case referring to China means distracting from the subject, and referring only to the exceptional cases means the same because those problems are existent anyway and increase exponentially. So we have to find a solution for the problems, or the increased problems will come to us.

Again: My solution leads to less regulation, thus less state, thus less dictatorship because the gigantic and exponentially increasing costs that we have now for ignoring this problems would gradually disappear.


Does the difference between “conservative in US” and “liberal in US” really exist? No - because that “difference” is only show.


The US politicians are not powerful enough; so they aren’t “putting on a show for the rest of the world”, but for themselves and for the chance to become a president, thus to get more power; but mainly they are staged.


If the societal/political systems are extreme, then the probability of brainwashing is very high.

So we have to ask whether the societal situation in the US, or elsewhere, even in the world, is already extreme.


Capitalism is the pre-condition for socialism. Without capital there is nothing to share, to redistribute.


The current demographic policy is regulated by a “global beurocracy to dictate the terms under which every human being is allowed to reproduce” - it is the declared goal of all global institutions to reduce the population. So what I want to do is nothing else than change this dictatorship of gloabl institutions into a market. It is that beurocracy of the global institutions which costs a lot of money.

If we want to make clear what we are talking about, then we have to say what the facts are. And one of the facts is that the global institutions are a global beurocracy and nothing else, and this beurocracy allows and forbids every human having children by beurocratic policy.

Another fact is that this theme / topic - reproduction / demography - is a taboo for the people (and not for their rulers). But if we want to talk about it we have to mention the facts. There is a terrible global beurocratic system that dictates the reproduction.

Many people “do not decide to have or refrain from having kids every day” (**), because they “decide” according to what is regulated by the global institutions and “think” (!) it were their own “decision”. There is a global bureaucracy that regulates anything and everything, and the “national states” have to implement what the global bureaucracy dictates (and it does dictate!). Whether or not humans, especially Western humans, have children is determined by the global bureaucracy and the regulated markets. The people are not “free” - this is merely what party leaders and their media always say, have to say -, and there is no real democracy.

Humas are not “free” and do not have a “free will”. You are not “free”; no human is“free”; humans do not have a “free will ”, but merely a relative free will.

You are more influenced, affected, as you think.

My solution of the demographic problem leads to more market!


THESIS ANTITHESIS SYNTHESIS

Liberalism

Egalitarianism Fraternitism
  Socialism,
Communism
Globalism

Those “isms”are totalitarianisms.


A “free market” means an absolutely free market. That's logical, even tautological. The “liberal humans” want a “free market”? - Okay, here is one:

Free Market
Free Market


“We should all join together and change the world!” That sentence is a term of those who believe in progress as an eternal process without any return or other direction than straight forward. The world has been changed enough; it is important to protect it from those who want to change it! Unfortunately the changing of the world will not stop because they can’t stop even when they believe that they really need to.


The world has been changed enough; it is important to protect it from those who want to change it! That sentence is directed against the following sentence of Karl Marx: „Die Menschen haben die Welt nur verschieden interpretiert; es kommt aber darauf an, sie zu verändern.“

We should not change the world, because the world is changed enough.


Like I said: it is the influence of all those who believe in progress as an eternal process without any return or other direction than straightforward. I don’t believe in such an eternal progress without any return or other direction than straightforward.


No one could ever describe „Faust“ as accurately as Goethe and Spengler. The Occidental humans (and only they) are Faustians, their (and only their) culture is a Faustian culture.

Geographically the Occidental culture means the North, West, Central, Southwest, and some Western parts of East Europe. In the following maps you can see the Eastern border of the Occidental culture as a black line in the left map and as a white line in the right map:

Grenze des AbenlandesDie Ostgrenze des „Westens“ (S. P. Huntington, 1996)
                                                    
„Grenze des Abendlandes“ = “Eastern border of the West (Occident)”.

„Abendland“ (= “West / Occident”) means the Western part of Europe, especially Germany, England, France, Italy, and the Iberian peninsula. The German word „Abendland“ literally means “evening land”.


The reasons why beliefs, thoughts, theories, metaphysical ontologies, philosophies of physics are different refers to the difference of cultures. Two examples of that much different that they are antipodes are the Apollonian culture and the Faustian culture. The humans of the Apollonian Culture always interpret physical bodies staticallly, the humans of the Faustian culture dynamically. So it is no wonder that in the Faustian culture a „Faust“ came to the idea to interpret the dynamics (and no longer the rest position, the statics) as the normal state of a physical body and to postulate forces as the cause of this dynamics.

Newtons physcal theory is one of these Faustian physical theories, although there had been many more Faustian physical theories before Newton, especially those of Johann(es; Georg) Faust himself, or of Galileo Galilei, or of Johannes Kepler, and also after Newton.


The author “The Idiot”was a Russian, and Russia has never been a part of the Western culture. All Orthodox Christians have never been a part of the Western culture. The border (see above) between the Catholic and Protestant Christians, thus the Westerners, on the one side and the Orthodox Christians on the other side has been existing as border since the 4th century or earlier because the Roman Empire had been declining since the 2nd century.

Dostojewski believed in the Orthodox Christianity and didn’t want Russia to copy the Western culture, but Russia had been doing it since tsar Peter (“the Great”). Probably Dostojewski’s books were based on that two aspects.


„Tolstoi ist das vergangene, Dostojewski das kommende Rußland.“ - Oswald Spengler, Der Untergang des Abendlandes, 1917-1922, S. 792 **
Translation:
“Tolstoi is the past, Dostojewski the coming Russia.”


„Tolstoi ist mit seinem ganzen Innern dem Westen verbunden. Er ist der große Wortführer des Petrinismus, auch wenn er ihn verneint. Es ist stets eine westliche Verneinung. .... Der echte Russe ist ein Jünger Dostojewskis, obwohl er ihn nicht liest, obwohl und weil er überhaupt nicht lesen kann. Er ist selbst ein Stück Dostojewski. .... Das Christentum Tolstois war ein Mißverständnis. Er sprach von Christus und meinte Marx. Dem Christentum Dostojewskis gehört das nächste Jahrtausend.“ - Oswald Spengler, Der Untergang des Abendlandes, 1917-1922, S. 792, 794 ** **
Translation:
“Tolstoi with his whole inside is connected to the West. He is the great spokesman of Petrinism, although he denies it. It is always a Western denial. .... The real Russian is a disciple of Dostoevsky, though he does not read it, though, and because he can not read. He himself is a piece of Dostoevsky. .... The Christianity of Tolstoi was a misunderstanding. He spoke of Christ and meant Marx. The next millennium belongs to the Christianity of Dostoevsky.”


A goal could be the protection of nature, or the right and the duty of fair production and reproduction, but as you could and can see: each attempt of stopping change was, is, and will be answered with more change.


If everything and anything being in harmony is really anentropic, then the tautological term “anentropic harmony” could stand for something like a paradise, a paradise for the “last men”.

„Seht! Ich zeige euch den letzten Menschen. Was ist Liebe? Was ist Schöpfung? Was ist Sehnsucht? Was ist Stern? – so fragt der letzte Mensch und blinzelt. Die Erde ist dann klein geworden, und auf ihr hüpft der letzte Mensch, der Alles klein macht. Sein Geschlecht ist unaustilgbar, wie der Erdfloh; der letzte Mensch lebt am längsten. »Wir haben das Glück erfunden« – sagen die letzten Menschen und blinzeln.“ - Friedrich W. Nietzsche, Also sprach Zarathustra, 1. Teil, 1883, S. 13.
Translation:
“Look! I show you the last man. What is love? What is creation? What is desire? What is star? - so asks the last man and blinks. The earth has then become small, and on it the last man jumps, who makes everything small. His species is ineradicable as the flea; the last man lives longest. »We have discovered the happiness« - say the last men and blink.”


„Zum Schlusse drängt es mich, noch einmal die Namen zu nennen, denen ich so gut wie alles verdanke: Goethe und Nietzsche. Von Goethe habe ich die Methode, von Nietzsche die Fragestellungen, und wenn ich mein Verhältnis zu diesem in eine Formel bringen soll, so darf ich sagen: ich habe aus seinem Augenblick einen Überblick gemacht. Goethe aber war in seiner ganzen Denkweise, ohne es zu wissen, ein Schüler von Leibniz gewesen.“ - Oswald Spengler, Der Untergang des Abendlandes, 1917, S. IX. **
Translation:
“Finally, it urges me to once again mention the names, I owe almost everything: Goethe and Nietzsche. From Goethe I have got the method, from Nietzsche the questions, and if I should bring my relationship with this in a formula so I can say I have made of his moment an overview. But Goethe had been in his whole way of thinking, without knowing it, a disciple of Leibniz.”


The sentence “workers always lose, economy always wins” is right, if workers are paid (and they are usually). Economy is the household, means the cost effectiveness, earning power, profitableness, ... and so on. So there is no way out of the trap. Humans themselves have been building this trap - with the risk that they will be completely replaced by machines in the future.


Are those US “liberals” and IS “conservatives” similar to those who are called „die Linke“ (“the left”) and „die Rechte“ (“the right”) in Europe? I think so, but in Europe “the left” is interpreted as “the egalitarians” (communists etc.) and “the right” as “the liberalists” (capitalists etc.). If you ask a politician from Europe whether he or (even!) she is “conservative” the color of this person’s face will change immediately like this: . And then this persons will say: “I am not »conservative«, I am »(social)democratic«¨. Apparently there are merely “democrats”, namely “social democrats” in Europe, although its reality is much different - of course!


Many years ago, when the Occident began to more and more aggressively meddle in the affairs of Ukraine, my certain idea was that later the Western Ukraine will come under Occidental and the Eastern Ukraine under Russian control.

Do you remember what the deal was when the “Cold War” ended? All Occidental countries of the Eastern bloc countries under Occidental, the other Eastern bloc countries, thus also Ukraine, under Russian control, and the US promised to adhere to it.


Human beings are luxury beings.

The classes are merely a part of the consequences. Either there are two classes (upper and lower) or there are three classes (upper, middle, lower), and believe me: the higher the number of classes, the better the society as a whole. A „classless society“ is no society but a primitive horde, often without real houses. In any other case: a “classless society” is rhetoric of those who want to become the upper class, thus the power, thus the luxury.


There are merely two kinds of human get-together possible: (1) a modern one (with a middle class and modern luxury) or (2) a non-modern one (without a middle class, but with non-modern luxury). What remains? The power, the classes (either two or three), and the luxury, but either as (1) a modern one or as (2) a non-modern one. If there will be no human luxury anymore, then the Earth will have become an inhabitable planet.


There are two hostile groups within one „society“: (1) the powerful one of the rulers (controllers), and (2) the powerless one of those who are ruled (controlled). Roughly calculated 1% are powerful and 99% are powerless.

(1) Powerful 1%  vs.  (2) Powerless 99%
Main principle: „divide et impera“ („divide and conquer“) „obey or suffer“
Conspiracy: yes no or merely partly
Conspiracy theories: yes no or merely partly
Probability of success: high (ca. 70-90%) low (ca. 10-30%)
Degree of disunity: low high
Classes: one (upper class) one (lower class) or two (lower and middle class)
Degree of wealth: very rich poor (lower class), mildly rich (middle class)

You see that conspiracy and conspiracy theories are mainly the issue of the powerful 1% and not of the powerless 99%.              

A) Those of the 1% who assume someone who is a member of the 99% to be a conspiracy theorist support the conspiracy and conspiracy theory of the 1%.
B) Those of the 99% who assume someone who is a member of the 99% to be a conspiracy theorist support the conspiracy and conspiracy theory of the 1%.
C) Those of the 1% who assume someone who is a member of the 1% to be a conspiracy theorist reveal the conspiracy and conspiracy theory of the 1%.
D) Those of the 99% who assume someone who is a member of the 1% to be a conspiracy theorist reveal the conspiracy and conspiracy theory of the 1%.
- And the latter two (see C) and D)) are living dangerous because being hunted by the 1% and a great part of the 99%.

Someone who denies conspiracy denies the power of the powerful 1% or even the existence of the powerful 1%, ... and in the extreme case this someone denies even any difference between living beings - b.t.w.: that is the reason why it is so easy for egalitarians and similar totalitarians to have success with their rhetoric and methods of catching their victims.


Reforming democracy is relatively useless, but reforming demography is not useless.

These are my presuppositions:

(1 Currently there are three main modern problems:
(1.1) the ecological problem,
(1.2) the economic problem,
(1.3) the demographical problem.
So, if we really want to solve that three main modern problems, then we can do it only by considerating this three facts:
(1.1) the pollution of the environment is a disaster,
(1.2) the wealth is unfairly distributed,
(1.3) the offspring is unfairly distributed.
(2) Currently the politicians are not able to solve that three main problems and produce more and more regulated markets.
(3) “Free” markets have not existed anymore since the end of the Stone Age and will not exist until the Stone Age will come back.

The politicians don’t solve but increase the problems. The market alone can't solve but decrease the problems, if such a market is wanted, allowed.

My solution requires less regulated markets and laws than we have today. A familiy manager is needed for my solution and will be found soon via market, if those bureaucratic laws which currently forbid to have family managers will be eliminated. Many other laws will have to be eliminated as well before the concept of the family management will be successful.

Many people have no time for their children - a family manager would do the job temporarily instead of them. Many people merely have children because the state pays for them - that is criminal, unsocial, thus egoistical, and of course that leads to many more problems which increase exponentially. Many people who want to work, to supply, to carry, to achieve, to accomplish, to afford will be able to have children then, now they can't, and other many people who don’t want to work will have children too but not more than one per adult (= two per married couple).

The merely one law which is needed for my solution is that which says: “it is not allowed to have less and more than one child per adult”. In view of the fact that many laws will disappear, this one law is no problem at all. Furthermore, my solution leads to more wealth because the productive people can be reproductive again (now they can't), so that there will be also productive people in the future. Because of the probability that again more intelligent and responsible people would take more care about their environment the reduction of the pollution of the environment would also become more probable.

This solution is a taboo, not wanted by the rulers because if practised it will be successful, and that means that the rulers will lose their control and consequently their power. The rulers don't want other humans, especially intelligent humans, because they are not needed, machines can replace them (**|**).

I have made a proposal how to solve the three main problems of Western modernity which has become the three main problems of the planet Earth, thus of all human beings, probably of all “higher” living beings, perhaps of all living beings. If each adult of the human beings is allowed to have one child but not allowed to have less or more than one child, then the population shrinks very slowly because the reproduction rate is merely 1.0 and not 1.07 or more (population growth). My solution means that the qualitiy of the population grows, while the quantity of the population shrinks, so that all become richer and also more responsible for their environment because of their quality.

Else the reverse continues: Western modernity as a way of life for all human beings as a growing population with unfairly distributed wealth and offspring on a more and more uninhabitable planet Earth.


The more a market is regulated the more corruption is there. My solution leads to less regulated markets and therefore also to less corruption. Today there is more corruption than ever before. Those who are not against corruption - political or other kinds of corruption - are either corrupt or stupid, or both.

Besides my solution, there are mereley two other “solutions” (they are no real solutions): (1) “continue / carry on with the exponentially increasing problems”, (2) catastrophe. This two are actually merely one because the (1) former leads to the (2) latter.

The relationship between regulated markets and the relatively free markets must be changed again in favor of relatively free markets. Then we can reduce the corruption very much. Unfortunately the corruption has become so powerful that there is a huge problem to start from a point of a corrupt society in order to reach a point of a relatively incorrupt society. So please don’t ask me to forebode whether my solution or the other two “solutions”, which are merely one “solution”, will occur.


We shouldn't just watch how the disaster as the only alternative comes up to us. The probability that no one survives this disaster is just too high. We can also not have a „communal particle“ without any law, and a law is not always merely fore one but for all in that little society, even then, if a law merely refers to the “recognition of association between definitions such as to reveal an associated definitional truth” (definitional logic). Since the end of the Stone Age the humans have been living with written laws. Maybe that our goal is a new Stone Age anyway or even the death of all human beings, but is that really desirable? You know, we have this “global society”, and socially we can only start from a point of that “global society”. This “global society” is full of laws, regulated markets - in the EU there is a law which dictates even the angle degree of the banana curve. So should we do nothing else than await the disaster? We can't start with the goal. That is impossible. The goal could be a “ommunal particle”, but the way to it can only be the way from the “global society” to the “communal particle”. The only alternative to it is to continue with the “global society” as the way to the disaster (see above: catastrophe [**|**]).


It works theoretically, and it would work practically too, if the rulers weren’t against it. They are against it because they profit by the current population policy, by the current employment market which is mostly a regulated market (cp. cheap workers), and orther regulated markets, a huge bureaucratic policy. Put it away!

Please think about it before replying too quickly, too rashly.

I would also prefer to continue with the “global society”, if the global(ictic) problems were not so huge. We can also accelerate the coming of the disaster (cp. ochlocarcy, anarchy, nihilism) and hope that after it, if any human will survive that disaster, we will start with a new way of life, a new culture, and/or, for example, a “communal particle”.

I hope that someday (and hopefully before it will be too late) my suggestions will be accepted.


The main reasons for the disability of the Western states, if we can call them still so, are - amongst others (for example: cultural decadence = the so-called “civilisation”) - the structure of the power, the bureaucracy, thus the overregulated markets and societies, the dictatorship on the one dirty hand and the ochlocracy on the other dirty hand.

And by the way: the global market is so over-regulated that almost any change can only mean a less regulated market.


(1.) Currently the less-productive people have still too many children and therefore they can’t become as rich as the more-productive people; (2.)) the reasonably fair distribution of children (2.1.) also increases the wealth, (2.2.) leads to (2.2.1.) more peace, (2.2.2.) more intelligence, (2.2.3.) more competence, (2.2.4.) more responsibilities, thus (2.2.4.1.) less pollution of the environment - that all because the more-productive people can also have children and the less-productive people can not have more children than the more-productive people. And that all is fair.


Having no children would merely be the best way to accumulate wealth then (and only then), if there were not two risks: (A) the risk of losing competence and skills because there were not enough children who could learn those competence and skills; (B) becoming unfertile (that would be the end anyway).

So having no children can only be the best way to accumulate wealth for a short time, for a long time having no children is fatal, killing.


Motzer USA   Motzer
Staatsverschuldung USA
The goal that the children must profit from this development is one of the main reasons why we must change the current expropriation of all by all, of everyone by everyone, of anyone by anyone, and especially of the future generations by the current generations.

Debts and a polluted planet mean an extreme egoism, an egomania.

We live at the cost of our children, our grandchildren, ..., in short: our offspring.


- The reasonably fair distribution of children. The invisible accent are the adverb „reasonably“ and the adjective „fair“. Currently the distribution of children is absolutely unfair, and if it is right (and it is right - because fertility, intelligence / competence, and wealth are correlated) that everyone wants to copy himself / herself, then it is fair that both the less-productive people and the more-productive people can do it. Currently the less-productive people merely produce children and nothing else, and for that they get get money from the state, thus the taxpayers. Do you think that that is fair? If yes, then we can end our conversation. Do you think it will be alright if we will have merely less-productive people, so that the whole human poulation will be less-productive which actually means unproductive? If you say “yes”, then you have to say “yes” too when it comes to this question: Will machines completely replace all human beings? (**|**|**).

- The reasonably fair distribution of children increases the wealth of the less-productive people - right - but of the more-productive people too. Both condition each other. If the less-productive people are poor and have more children than the more-productive people and have to be supported by the more-productive people (and that all is the case), then the trend is that the more-productive people also become poor and less-productive. One has always to consider the time too, for example to differ in “short time”, “middle time”, and “long time”. What I am reffering to is mainly the middle and especially the long time because this “global society” lives and thinks merely for a very short time at the cost of our children.

- The reasonably fair distribution of children leads to more peace because that distribution is reasonably fair. The invisible accent are the adverb “reasonably” and the adjective “fair”. The huge majority of people who are wealthy don't want war, they just want wealth. Human beings are luxury beings (**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**), and if the luxury of the present time is reached, then they are - by the majority - satisfied (I am not speaking of the rulers, the upper class, which is a special case because of its power which has been increasing exponentilally, horribly). Normal people are mostly satisfied when they have reached the luxury which they think has to be reached at a time. They are peaceful. War is an issue of the upper class, not of the middle class, and of the lower class because of their poorness, envy, unhappiness, resentment.

- The reasonably fair distribution of children leads to more competence because the reasonably fair distribution of children leads to more intelligence (see: 2.2.2. [**|**|**]). It is proven that fertility, intelligence / competence, and wealth correlate with each other.


Aa) If you have no children and want to be a more-productive, then the probability is high that you have much time for being a more-productive.
Ba) If you have many children and want to be a more-productive, then the probability is high that you have less time for being a more-productive.
Ab) If you have no children and do not want to be a more-productive, then the probability is high that you are not a more-productive.
Bb) If you have many children and do not want to be a more-productive, then the probability is high that you have less time for being a more-productive and that you are not a more-productive because you do not want to be a more-productive.


Egoism is on both sides, and you can’t eliminate egoism but merely extreme egoism, thus egomania.

The history of the Western societies shows how the trend will be for the other societies in the future, but there is one problem: it will not be the same but merely a similar devolopment because the other societies belong to other cultures, and if they know the history of the Western culture, then they also know what to do in order to become modern but not Western. They don’t want to live the Western way of life, they have a different tradtition. More and more of them resist the Western way of life.

You can have many children and be a very egomanian pigheaded fellow. You can have no children and be a very egomanian pigheaded fellow. It depends on which culture you belong to, which mindset / mentality and feelings / affects you have.

The scapegoat is not always the typical Western middle class “bourgeois”.


I want the more-productive people to pay less taxes, less charges, less surcharges etc.. It is logical. So both the more-productive people and the less-productive people will become more wealthy, if those of the less-productive people who have become part of the more-productive people are more that those of the more-productive people who have become part of the less-productive people. And that is the case. So a solution of the demographical problem is necessary.


The welfare state is not a new penomenon. If I showed you the welfare state of the 19th century (for example the German state during the time when Bismarck was Reichskanzler), you would have asked: that was a welfares state? Yes, it was, and Bismarck's welfare state was the first and the best one. What I want to say is that we have to consider that this welfare state has changed and unfortunately become a huge monster. But my main point is not the welfare state allone but also and first of all the justice of generations (remember: demography is my theme here). The problem is that this modern “society” lives and thinks merely for a very short time, at the cost of the offspring, as I already said (**|**|**|**|**|**). This includes not only the debts but also the demographic disaster and the pollution of the whole planet Earth.

The welfare state must not be eliminated but reduced. If we wanted to find back to a pure or nearly pure society of humans (and not to rush in a “society” of machines and half-machines and human slaves or even no humans (**|**|**]), then the welfare state as a monster would not be needed anymore. But the most people want the contradiction, the oxymoron, because with the machines and more and more machines the welfare state will be needed more than ever before but eliminated. That's a “good” outlook for our offspring, isn’t it?


A modern society is velociferic, expanded in any case, accelerated in any case, greedy in any case, too fat, too ugly ....


It is true that “the greatest single mistake that brought so much of this into the modern world was made in 1913. From that time to this, each generation only gets worse (and not by accident).“ - James S. Saint, 16.09.2014, 01:33 (**|**). Meant is the foundation of the Federal Reserve System (on 23.12.1913) which is the allegedly “national” but in reality private central bank system of the U.S.A. That is why it is always becoming increasingly difficult for each generation to come out of that trap. And that is in fact no accident.


The justice of generations means that any generation should not live under worse conditions than its former generation.

Again: Currently there is a crazy expropriation of all by all, of everyone by everyone, of anyone by anyone, and especially of the future generations by the current generations.

Debts and a polluted planet mean an extreme egoism, an egomania, a life at the cost of our offspring.

We live at the cost of our children, our grandchildren, ..., in short: our offspring.

If a society lives at the cost of its future, then this society is in a suicidal mood. A suicide of a society means that there is no offspring anymore. And our society says: “We are a global society”. That's lunatic.

So the justice of generations is very important.


A modern society is velociferic, expanded in any case, accelerated in any case, greedy in any case, too fat, too ugly ....

Newton was a scientist and theologian while his German „Zeitgenosse“ (“time accomplice”, coeval, contemporary) Leibniz was a scientist and philosopher; so theology and philosophy make the crucial difference. Newton had political power, Leibniz had no political power. Calculus was invented by Leibniz. Wether calculus was also, simultaneously and independently of Leibniz, invented by Newton too is doubtable because of Newton’s political power.

“Goethe ... war in seiner ganzen Denkweise, ohne es zu wissen, ein Schüler von Leibniz gewesen.” (Oswald Spengler, Der Untergang des Abendlandes, 1917, S. IX **).
Translation:
“Goethe ... had been in his whole way of thinking, without knowing it, a disciple of Leibniz.”

What has been found and brought in a formula by Newton could also have been found and brought in a formula by another person. It was Newton's political power that made him and his “laws” famous. If he hadn't had this political power, he and his “laws” would probably not have become famous. The history of Western science would have remained a Faustian one anyway but been written in a different way and probably never mentioned Newton. The history of Western science would have remained a Faustian one anyway but been written in a different way and probably never mentioned Newton. So without any doubt, Newton was also a Faustian scientist but he gave a very special form to the Faustian science. And what I just said about Newton, applies similarly for Einstein. So Newton and Einstein are not the most typical Faustian scientists but nevertheless also Faustian scientists. Their relativity theories are not as absolute and dynamic as other Faustian theories but nevertheless also Faustian theories.


The other Faustian theories are all the other Occidental (Western) theories. They are so many that I didn't want to list them in my last post. In this case, it doesn't matter wether they are “right” (“true”) or “wrong” (“false”) because in this case it is crucial and essential wether they belong to the type, the form, the character of the Faustian culture, for example: dynamic, infinity, infiniteness, endlessness, everlastingness, boundlessness, illimitableness, force(s), dilatation, expansiveness, ... and so on.


The Non-Faustian cultures had and have a completely different idea when it comes to undertand what “nature”, “physics”, “universe”, “life”, ... means. Humans at different places and times understood, understand, and will understand their environment differently, they even have their own “worlds”, and so they also value and justify differently. If you know how “science” was and/or is understood by the Mesopotamian culture, by the Egyptian culture, by the Indian (or South-Asian) culture, by the Chinese (or East-Asian) culture, by the Apollonian culture (our ancestor), by the Inka/Maya culture, by the Magic/Arabian/Islamic culture, and the Faustian culture (the descendant of the Apollinian culture), then you know also the differences in their theories and even their philosophies (metaphysics, ontologies, ...). Merely the Faustian culture has developed a real science; partly ,and merely partly also the other cultures, partly because they had and have (a) a too hot climate, (b) a too dominant religion, so that something which could be called “science” nearly remained or remains a religion, or (c) other conditions that prevented or prevent the developmet of a real science.

You may say (for example): “there were the constructions of the Tower of Babel, the pyramids of the Egyptians and the Maya, the inventions and discoveries of the Mesopotamian culture, the Chinese (East-Asian) culture, the Apollonian culture (our ancestor)”. Alright, but they weren't like that what the Faustian constructions, inventions, and discoveries were and are. Merely the Faustian culture had and has a concept of an autonomous “science” and “technique/technology”. You may see what it means to have a more religious “science” and “technique/technology” when you look at thre current Faustian science which is again more dominated by religion than in former times of the Faustian culture, for example the era of the so-called “enlightenment” („Aufklärung“). It is comparable to humans personal development: the most scientific time is the time of the adolescence and around the adolescence; the era of the “enlightenment” („Aufklärung“) was such a time for the Faustian culture. A younger one is too unripe, an older one is already too ripe - for example too conservative, too philosophical, thus too wise - for science as an “enlightenment” („Aufklärung“), but not too ripe for a more religious or philosophical (metaphysical, ontological) science.


Did anyone of the other cultures invent theories of “relativity”, “gravitational force”, “electromagnetic force”, “strong nuclear force”, “weak nuclear force”, “speed of light”, “thermodynamics”, “quantum”, “big bang”, “inflation of the universe”, “black holes”, “dark matter”, “dark energy”, ....?

That has not merely to do with the different times when those cultures had their best time in order to invent and form something like science and its theories. The Non-Faustian cultures invented theories for their religion, theology, philosophy, or just their states; they had not a really autonomous (system of) science, no universities (universities are invented by the Faustians, they are a pure Faustian form, institution). The “scientists” of the Non-Faustian cultures researched at home and the most of them also studied at home. If you now think of the library of Alexandria, then I have to remind you that it was no university in a Faustian sense.

My point is not that the theories of the Non-Faustians were not useful at all; my point is that they were not scientific (just in a Faustian sense). In the good old times of the Faustian science one could relatively freely study and research because the universities were relatively free then, and this was not possible in other cultures. So the university system, the unit of studies and research, and especially the relative freedom of all universities are unique, and abbeys and cloisters are their forerunners. Monks, namely Occidental (Faustian) monks, were the cultural ancestors of the students of the universities.

In Mesopotamia, especially in Egypt and China, not seldom also in orther cultures (except the Apollonian and the Faustian culture which are related), “scientists” or technicians were killed after important inventions or discoveries they had made. There was no scientific system, all that what we - the Faustians - call “science” lacked there, especially the relative freedom, the unit of studies and research. The universities as a sytem of science, thus of real science, is unique, is Faustian.

The current development of science shows whereto it tends: probably it will not vanish but become a new religion. Science came out of religion and will end as a new religion. The future scientists will probably be similar to the monks of the so-called “Middle Ages” but only a bit similar because their relative freedom will probably decrease but not vanish as long as the Faustian culture will exist.

That is my firm conviction.


You have to know Goethe’s “Faust”, especially the second part (but also the first part), in order to understand what is meant with “Faustian culture” and why all the other cultures are no specific or at least not as much science cultures as the Faustian culture is a science culture. But the Faustian culture is not only a science culture but just a Faustian culture, and as one of the most important parts it includes the part science. In any case, one has to read Goethe’s “Faust” or Spengler’s “Decline of the West” when it comes to really and well understand what “Faustian culture” means. The absolute, categorical will to knowledge is probably the most important example if one wants to know the impulse of Faust and the Faustians.

The other cultures are more religious, but not very much, except one which is the most religiuos of all cultures: the Magic/Arabian/Islamic culture; all so-called “monotheisms" have their origin in this culture because in the territory of that culture are a lot of deserts, and the monotheistic religions have much to do with deserts.

Religion belongs to culture, so each culture is religious, more or less. For example: the Magic/Arabian/Islamic culture is the most religious culture, the Faustian culture is the most scientific culture.

It is no coincidence or accident that the Faustian culture invented and discovered so much, and the consequences which can clearly be seen are the pollution of the planet Earth and its neighborhood, the unresponsible politics, the bad conscience, the hypocrisy, the lies, and as the next goal: the new religion. Science is Faustian science and nothing else, and one can easily guess what it means when it becomes a new religion.

Goethe has not only described the typical Western man with his “Faust”, but also predicted the future of the Western man.


In the near end of Goethe’s „Faust“, part II, an angel says to Faust:

„Wer immer strebend sich bemüht, // Den können wir erlösen.“
(Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust, Teil II, S. 376.)
Translation:
“Who strives always to the utmost, // For him there is salvation.”

And amongst others this is what the „Chorus mysticus“ sings when Faust is in heaven at last (... fortunately!):

„Alles Vergängliche ist nur ein Gleichnis.“
(Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust, Teil II, S. 383.)
Translation:
“All perishable is only an allegory.”


The great cultures are city cultures, and world history is city history and megacity history.

Globally the cities are rising, not declinig, not yet. In the year 2007 the global city poulation reached the mark of 50% (for comparison: 1950 it was 30%, and 2050 it will probably be 70%). But most cities of the Occidental culture are declining.

**

That is is very depressing. The future looks bleak.


Humans’ pleasure and replication are already separated. So humans are now a species between animals (humans) and (humans,) machines or gods, not far away from (those) machines between humans and gods.


There are many correlations (for example):

Cultural development.
– Fertility development.
– Demographical development.
– Educational development.
– Intelligence (IQ) development.
– Political development.
Economical development.,
– Wealth development.
– Welfare development.
Artistic development.

Technical / technological development.
– Mechanical development.
– Civilisational development.

When the red coloured arise, then the green coloured arise merely a little bit, and the blue coloured lacks.
When the red coloured decline, then the green arise very much, and the blue coloured arises.
When the green coloured also decline, then the blue coloured declines as well, first a little bit, then much and very much.The culture turns the light on, the civilisation of the culture turns the light off.


To a peasant population it is an advantage if the the Earth is at the center of the universe, but to an urban population it is an advantage if the the Earth is not at the center of the universe.


We have to know (a) what “democracy” really means, (b) whether there is a real democracy or not, and, if so, (ba) to which degree, and (bb) why. You think there is a real democracy in Europe and North America? In Europe the European Union dictates and is not elected by the European people. The national governments in Europe have nearly nothing to say because they are the diener (servants) of the European Union which serves the globalists. Merely 10% of the political decisions in Europe come from the national governments, thus 90% of the political decisions come from the government of the Eurpean Union, thus from the globalists. Do you call that “democracy”?


Peak oil is not a scientific fact because we do not know whether oil is a limited resource.

But we also do not know whether oil is not a limited resource.


This so-called „Eurovision song contest“ is merely one part of the stupidest Eurodecadent horror show.


It is not advisable to consider, and especially to assess military and economy only separately. **


One important purpose is a kind of scrutiny / surveillance / control / supervision because science needs money for research and therefore becomes a corrupt system if there is no control. The current control is a political or religious control, so that science (which has already become corrupt) becomes more and more a part of the political or religious system. But a political or religious “science” is no science anymore. Philosophy should protect science against corruption. Philosophy does not need money for research. So philosophy is a good spiritual weapon against corruption, although (or because?) also for corruption.


Do you have enough money for such a scientific research like the “European Organization for Nuclear Research” (“CERN”)?

Philosophy can also be corrupt, but currently it is not as much corrupt as e.g. science. Philosophy is both a part of science and not a part of science. So in the case of philosophy the risk is not as high as it is in the case of science in general.


Six situations are possible relating to a mother and her feelings she holds towards her husband and / or children:
1.) She holds his feelings equally to her husband and to her children.
2.) She holds his feelings more to her children than to her husband.
3.) He holds his feelings only to her children, thus not to her husband.
4.) He holds his feelings more to her husband than to her children.
5.) He holds his feelings only to her husband, thus not to her children.
6.) He holds his feelings neither to her husband nor to her children.
The same applies analogously for a father.
In modern times that normal sequence (1 to 6) stands on its “head” (6 to 1).


Can we slow down the modern velocity? **

The modernity seems to be a the accelerated mobilisation, the accelerated change, the accelerated time. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe called the modern velocity „das Veloziferische“ which is composed of the first four letters of thje Latin noun „velocitas“ (“speed”, “hurry”, “rush”) and the last five letters of the German noun „Luzifer“ (“Lucifer”) respectively the last four letters of the German adjective „luziferisch“ (“luciferic”, “luciferious”) and with an „e“ because that adjective is nominalized to the neuter noun „Veloziferisches“ (with the neuter article: „das Veloziferische“).

Remember the stupid sentence of Karl Marx: „Die Philosophen haben die Welt nur verschieden interpretiert; es kommt drauf an, sie zu verändern.“ (“The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point however is to change it.”) I say (with Peter Sloterdijk): „Die Philosophen haben die Welt immer nur verschieden verändert; es kommt drauf an, sie zu schonen.“ (“The philosophers have only changed the world in various ways; the point however is to save [conserve] ]it.”)

Since the beginning of the industrialisation by the steam engine there was a resistance against it. At first in England, then in Germany, and later in other European countries and in the United States of America too.

Let’s think about Luddism, Neo-Luddism, and Neo-Neo-Luddism?

Named after Ned Ludd, a youth who allegedly smashed two stocking frames in 1779, and whose name had become emblematic of machine destroyers. Ned Ludd was allegedly called General Ludd or King Ludd, a figure who, like Robin Hood, was reputed to live in Sherwood Forest.

**   **

But is Luddism, Neo-Luddism, and Neo-Neo-Luddism a solution?


Perhaps (!) the humans will be so stupid that they will don’t know or have forgotten how machines work and slow down the modern velocity; and then it will depend on the developmental stage of the machines’ intelligence whether they will be able to accelerate the velocity again or slow it down, and whether they will keep the humans alive or not.


I think many of the people of the US and many other countries outside from Europe do not know enough about Europe. And what they are told by the media, is largely lie.

The Holy Roman Empire of German Nation lasted 1000 years - exactly from 843 (treaty of Verdun) to 1806 (during the Napoleonic wars). And b.t.w.: Metternich was not Austrian but German, he was born in Koblenz; but that doesn’t matter very much because Austria had been a part of Germany until 1866 - and again from 1938 to 1945 as you probably know, for example: Hitler was an Austrian, he was born in Braunau (Inn). Since the end of the Second World War the Austrians have been confusing Metternich with Hitler () and saying Metternich was an Austrian and Hitler a German, although the reverse is true.

There were more than one attempt in the European history to form an European Union, and any time it was Germany that did the first step. The EU we now have is a product of six countries: West-Germany, France, Italy, Holland, Belgium, Luxemburg.

Earlier, in the end of the 19th and in the early 20th century the German government and the German Kaiser Wilhelm II. were going to build something like an European Union, then the First World War startet and the hope was destroyed. Cui bono? The idea of an European Union is good but it has to work. The current European Union doesn’t work well. So it has to be reformed - soon - or it is going to decay. Cui bono?“

What the German government started at that time was almost the same that Europe got later, after the two world wars, but it was just the beginnig of the First World War that destroyed this European Union, as if there were interests to prevent it (and such interests existed, especially in England).

The German Hanse or other Städtebünde (associations of cities in Germany and Italy) were the first attempts of creating something like an European Union. The project of an European Union has always had proponents and opponents. The last powerful European opponent was the British Empire. No wonder that there was no possibility for an European Union before the British Empire ended. The German Empire was no European opponent but the most powerful proponent, and - of course - the most powerful rival of the British Empire. The profiteer of the rivalry between the British and the German Empire was the USA - that is the reason why the Dollar Empire could be formed. So the current most powerful European opponent is the USA as a Dollar Empire, and merely other than economic unions with the USA are no European opponents, for example the NATO. So the NATO is important also for Europe; but again: I don’t want such an aggressive NATO, and I also don’t want the hierarchical structure the NATO has. We should reform the NATO, change it from an aggressive and unilateral into a defending and multilateral military union.

After the ascending United States of America and the descending British Empire had bombed Europe (especially Germany and robbing it, cp. the robbed patents, knowledge, scientists and technicians [by blackmailing them], and - amongst much others - territories [cp. the forced displacement of about 20,000,000 Germans] and the whole gold of the German Reich) the United States of America have been bombing it with immigrants because thatt will weaken it sooner or later. Why should we again defence the USA by sacrificing all European people?

Many of those immigrants and many of the indigenous Europeans have already built an alliance (a “colored“ alliance that units these very different humans because of the fact that they have the same enemy) and try to continue and reinforce the so-called “permanent revolution” by their terror, “civil war”. Why should we tolerate or even accept that?


According to Nietzsche the state is the coldest of all cold monsters: („Staat heisst das kälteste aller kalten Ungeheuer.“ - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, „Also sprach Zarathustra“, 1883, S. 57 (**). And the Federal Reserve is a private bank. The European Central Bank (in Frankfurt) is a bank of the European Union. So in this case we have one superordinated monster (Fed) and two subordinated monsters (EU and ECB) like states. And they lie always: “I, the state, am the people”: „Ich, der Staat, bin das Volk.“ - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, „Also sprach Zarathustra“, 1883, S. 57 (**). And if a state is already a monster, then an empire like the “Dollar Empire”, which is monetarily based on the Federal Reserve System, is a many times huger state-like monster.

The so-called “Western World” has been completely united or already overstretched (which seems to be more probable) since e.g. Poland, Czechia, Hungary, Slovenia, Slovakia, Lithuania, Latvia , Estonia became members of the NATO (1999-2004) and the EU (2004). This empire as the superordinated monster (see above), thus the super monster, is comparable with the Imperium Romanum of the mid-2nd-century-B.C..

“Expansion is everything.” - Cecil Rhodes.


Economy and military belong more together than many people believe.

Economy and military are very closely connected with each other. Almost all wars have their causes in economy.

My thesis is: If the NATO partners are enemies, then the NATO is either useless, or very schizophrenic, or both; so one of the consequences must be the end of the NATO.

My opinion is: The occidental culture needs something like a military alliance but not an aggressive one like the NATO. My opinion is is not yet an ingredient of my thesis. If it were, then I could not so easily speak about the end of the NATO as a consequence but would suggest to reform the NATO in order to prevent the end of the NATO.


Economy and military are very closely connected with each other

Will there be war in Europe before 2050? ** **


<= || =>

- Register -

 
  Occidental culture