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 or nations have 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? ** **


The EU and the US are economical enemies (and that is something different, isn’t it?). And furthermore: Germany and the US (as well as 99% of the world) are military enemies because there is no peace treaty for the Second World War (cui bono?). This all is absolutely schizophrenic but true. The historical facts do not lie. Humans lie.


Some (unfortunately mostly too powerful) people are crazy, others too stupid. That is a very dangerous mix of madness and stupidity and yields the greatest of all mistakes the more powerful the powerful people and the more stupid the stupid people are.


Can we slow down the mobilisation, the consumption, the lust, the greed which are around us almost everywhere on this planet?


How dangerous are demographically armed societies?

- Demographically armed societies are extremely dangerous, thus very much more dangerous than other societies. Out of 100: 51-100 danger points for the demographically armed societies and 0-49 danger points for the other societies.

- Demographically armed societies are not more and not less dangerous than other societies. Out of 100: 50 danger points for both the demographically armed societies and the other societies.

- Demographically armed societies are less dangerous than other societies. Out of 100: 0-49 danger points for the demographically armed societies and 51-100 danger points for the other societies.

- Demographically armed societies mean societies with a very high number of young people aged 0 to 14 years (30% and more of the whole society) and/or aged 15 to 29 years (20% or more of the whole society). This phenomenon is also called „youth bulge“.

An example for a society with a „youth bulge“

Pakistan of 2007 as an example for a „youth bulge“:

**

Percentage of population younger than 30 years old (2005 and 2025):

****


Probably each form of government has its time, and if its time is over, then the time of the next one begins.The monarchy has the tyranny as its negative part before it ends, the aristocracy has the oligarchy as its negative part before it ends, the democracy has the ochlocracy as its negative part before it ends.

Staatsformen


Do you know Gunnar Heinsohn?

Wikipedia wrote:

„He is known most widely for his theory of the Youth Bulge. He argues that an excess in especially young adult male population predictably leads to social unrest, war and terrorism, as the »third and fourth sons« that find no prestigious positions in their existing societies rationalize their impetus to compete by religion or political ideology. Heinsohn claims that most historical periods of social unrest lacking external triggers (such as rapid climatic changes or other catastrophic changes of the environment) and most genocides can be readily explained as a result of a built up youth bulge ....“ **

I think that Heinsohn's theory is quite interesting but not entirely true.


A reproduction rate of 1 is not high and not low. It is exactly in the balance - at least statistically. The current reproduction rate is about 1.17, and demographically the difference (0.17) between 1 and 1.17 is a very big difference. Anyway, my argument is not as much a quantitative one as it is a qualitative one.

You (**) say that parents with many children abuse their children, thus you say that (for example) African parents abuse their children. I don't know whether you are right, although, statistically, one can say that the more children parents have the more the children are at risk of being abused - but that is merely a statistical statement, thus often but not always true. If everyone has merely one child, thus a couple two children, then everything is fine. Currently every human on this planet has statistically 1.17 children, thus a couple statistically 2.34 children. The African reproduction rate is about five to seven times higher than the European reproduction rate. If you are right, Kriswest (**), then you should demand the reduction of the African reproduction rate. And if that will happen, then the global reproduction rate will be soon less than 1. But that is not my argument. My argument is that it is very unfair and thus it should not be allowed that the Africans and the West and Central Asians have the children but almost no money and power while the others have the money and the power but almost no children. That will lead us into a real hell on Earth. You knwo what I mean?

There is a very deep correlation between the reproduction (biological and demographical), the production (economical), the wealth (economical, social), the power (economical, social, political), and the intelligence. If the reproduction rate is high, than the others are low; if the reproduction rate is low, than the others are high. Those who say that this correlation doesn't exist are liars.


If you agree to the statement that the „societies“ of the Stone Age can be called „societies“, then I say that the oldest „surviving societies“ are those who lived in the Stone Age. But I guess you mean the later societies. Before I answer your question in that way, I have to know what you exactly mean by „surviving societies“. Do you mean a unit of culture or a nation? Nation would be difficult because it is only an occidental, a modern occidental concept.


According to the traditional theory there are three main governing forms with their degenerated forms:

Monarchy (degenerated: Tyranny).
Aristocracy (degenerated: Oligarchy).
Democracy (degenerated: Ochlocracy).

In the long run no governing form can defend itself gainst other governing forms and also not against ist own degeneration.


If the government did not use the abortion through feminism for its own goals or the goals of the global rulers, then it would be a very ignorant, a very stupid government which is not wanted by the global rulers.


Small parts in Amazonia, Central Africa, Papua New Guinea and a small part of the aborigines in Australia will probably be the places where humans wil survive the global holocaust; and due to the fact that these places are really small parts and the human groups are small groups, the probability that these human groups will survive is even higher.

If their jungles will not completely be cut down, then they will probably have the best chances to survive the global holocaust.


Which country in the EU has the most pervasive latent nationalism? The Slavic (slavish) nations with their nationalism and Nazism, of course. But do they really belong to Europe? There is not much nationalism and not much latent nationalism in Old-Europe. The globalistic media lies but has the medial power over all humans, especially the Occidental humans. The globalistic rulers and their media functionaries want the US and other people to think that Europe is evil - it is somehow similar to the situation just before and during the two World Wars -, otherwise they could not so easily reach their goals. I want you to not believe what your corrupted government and your media is saying to you. We don't want any war, and you don't want any war. But do you know the facts about the port of Havanna, about the Lusitania, about Pearl Harbor, about the Gulf of Tanking, about the Twin Towers?


Your media tells you: lies. What you call the „yesterday's Hamburg demonstration“ (**) was a demonstration of the rulers and their functionaries. It was not against Islamic terror - the reverse is true.


Bismarck was right. If Europe will approach Russia, then it will not work without power. Each country with major power could be called militaristic, thus not only Germany but also Spain, Portugal, Italy, France, Belgium, Holland, England, the British Empire, the Russian Empire, the USA, the Soviet Union, and Russia. USA and Russia are still militaristic - very evil.

If Europe will approach Russia, then it will have to expect a confrontation as well. It will not be easy. And if the Europeans will make too many mistakes in that case, then they will get probably worse times than they have today.

The worst solution would be an economically isolated Europe. Europe has not much natural resources but more and more decadent people. The best European factor of production has always been intelligence. But it has been vanishing sinde the dysgenic politics began. Another worst solution would - currently (!) - be a militarily isolated Europe, because the German government doesn't want nuclear weapons and the French government wants to have more nuclear weapons and not to share them with foreign governments, and that is too dangerous.

Russia (Siberia) has natural resources and nothing else; so it could be a partner of Europe, but an economical partnership without any military partnership can easily be destroyed. So the decision is difficult - but necessary. The NATO and the partnership between Europe and Russia are currently impossible. So the consequences are clear. The decision lacks.


Interestingly, you (**) said „Europe and UK“. Perhaps you want us to conclude that UK is not Europe. USA is not Europe, and it is told that Russia is not Europe, and it is also told that UK is not Europe. Hey! What is going to happen here?

Is that the reason?

Do the Europeans have to build a „Fortress Europe“ again (like in the Second World War) ?

Festung Europa

The French newspaper „Le Monde“ shows where the border (yellow) of the „Fortress Europe“ and the main gateways are.


The national parliaments have no power anymore because they have given their power to the dictators of the EU. The problem is the EU itself.


The internet, mass communication, multi-culturalism, feminism, and other isms are the current means or tools of control and - of course - the accompanying symptoms of the current Occident.


I have often thought that it will be one day even forbidden to live outside the cities. So then, anybody and everybody will have to live in cities and will not be allowed to leave the cities. Horrible.


Competing ideologies have not directly but merely indirectly to do with the forms of government. Shadow governments have not directly but merely indirectly to do with the forms of government, because shadow governments are part of other governments or one government. Forms of government are concrete, and if they do not exist, then there is - of course - „no one“, thus anarchy.


The Romans of the republican age were and the US people of the republican age are so much frightened of monarchy. The Romans were frightened of monarchy, so later they got ... monarchy; and the US People are frightened of monarchy, so later they will get ... (... put in the right word ...).


Cecil Rhodes
If the Euro or/and the Amero will fail, then they will come with the next - also failing - money: the Globo, the money for the whole globe.

The people of the increasing lower class and of the middle class will become poorer and poorer and at last be one class, the lower class, whilst the people of the upper class will become richer and richer. Thanks Dollar, Yen, Euro, Amero, and last but not least Globo.

et all prices skyrocket up! That will happen anyway! It is better when it happens today! Later the damage will be much more terrible!

Those people who are maniacally frightened of high prices do not want to give up their hedonistic life. That's all.

What do high prices do? They fall!

Cecil Rhodes once said: „Expansion is everything“.

Life has its price too. You don't want to pay this price; you prefer the hedonistic life. Okay, I let you live that life, but that is not the point.

We all know that rising prices are not good. But hedonistic people are also not good. We have to pay the price(s); otherwise our descendants will have to pay the higher price(s), probably war (compare my thread: „Will there be war in Europe before 2050?“ [**|**]).

I see, you want our descendants to live and die with war just because you and other people don't want to give up your middle class life. I am not the one who demands the lower class life of you. I would never do that. But please understand: this what happens at the moment in this world has a price, and you are the one who has no idea of this price. This price is rising in the background. You do not notice it.

Sometimes one has to pay a price for something now in order to not have to pay the higher price for this something in the future

I did not write „US“ or „USA“ or even „America“. I did not speak about the people of America. I spoke about all humans, especially about hedonistic humans. Maybe that the most hedonistic humans are US humans - but that was not what I said. But you say dangerous stuff; and you are not aware of it.

Do you have children? (And do you know why I am asking you this question?)

High prices can't become high prices because they are already high prices. That's logical. High prices can't always remain high prices. That's logical. So high prices can only fall, high prices become low prices. It' s a cycle. We can't annihilate this cycle, but we can reduce the number of its amplitude. But most people don't want to reduce it because of their extreme egoistic and hedonistic behaviour.

Accept this cycle and try to reduce its amplitude!

But you don't want it. So you help those people who want the US to be destroyed.

The US economic or commercial problems (which are now higher than they were before) were already visible a long time ago, when they were not as huge as they are now. If anybody had offered a painful solution at that time, this one would have been scolded or driven out or even killed. Now, the US economic problems are already huge, but nobody tries to offer any painful solution (because the economic problems are huge, thus too huge for a solution), although such a solution is more necessary than before. That's absolutely crazy.

Why a globo will necessarily fail? Because it is a symptom therapy, thus no real therapy. It is as if you had one broken leg and tried to heal it by breaking a second leg.

But when these limits are reached, then there may be corrective methods to deal with it's monetary implication? Do you know anybody who really wants to deal with that?

Almost all are frightened of it, especially the people of the middle class. Only those who have nothing to lose or/and have other interests or/and benefit from it are not frghtened of it.

What we see is an economical war against the middle class.

I am not against the middle class - the reverse is true.

Each human has to calculate that there will be at least one war in his country during his life (averagely there is war in each country about every 70 years, and if not, then this war takes place in other countries), and this is because of economic or political desasters which are caused by humans with much greed, thus much will to power. It is always the same: those people get the power and do what other people have to pay for; and in the end the price is war. And when I say „war“, I mean a real war, not an economic war (which always happens!). Basically the US governers have the choice between „keep it up“ and „stop it“, between „accelerator politics“ and „brake politics“, but almost always they choose the first one („keep it up“ / „accelerator politics“) which can also be called „expansion“.

Remember what Cecil Rhodes once said: „Expansion is everything“!

They try to expand economically and politically, and if there is no other means possible anymore, then they will start war - as usual. Instead of „war as politics with other means“ we can also say „politics as war with other means“. One phenomenon remains in any case: expansion. Expansion happens because of the will to power.

The example of the Euro shows how the Amero can start and end, but, because they don't want this end, they try to expand in another way, with other means, for example: the Globo, preferentially at last war, because war is the last means, brings the end of this cyclic process; after it a new cycle begins and ends - of course - with war. If they don't expand, then others expand. That seems to be an „unwritten law“.


Adolf Hitler and Mohandas (Mahatma) Karamchand Gandhi were the candidates for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1939. And if the Second World War had not started in 1939, Adolf Hitler would have got the Nobel Peace Prize.


The distinction of „conservative“ and „progressive“ is moronic.

Evolution and history do not „proceed“, do not „run“ in one „linear“, in one so-called „progressive“ direction. Evolution and history move cyclically, spirally - like this:

Spiralisches

It's like the circulation of our planet Earth and our Moon, of the other planets and their moons, of asteroids and comets, of our Sun, thus of the whole Sun System, and of all other solar systems in our Milky Way:

Spiralbewegungen
Spiralbewegungen


The Greeks can do that because they have time enough due to their retirement age: 58 de jure, 50 de facto.

No violence, please!

And they should not demonstrate against countries and people, thus nations. They should demonstrate against empires, against the EU, against the ECB, against the dictatorship of the EU , against the Fed and other powerful private banks, against the WTO, against the globalism in general.


Do not concur too quickly (**), because know thyself does not have very much to do with the concrete „others“ due to the fact that it is again yourself who has to know what the others think of you, and the others' judgement can be wrong; they can tell you that you are „too much different“ and therefore „very evil“ - in other words: the others tell you egalitarianistic nonsense, and if you not agree to that nonsense, they will put you in jail, in Gulag, or in psychiatry.

A map of the horrible Gulag camps in the „egalitarian“ (a.k.a.: „communistic“, „socialistic“) Soviet Union:

GULAG

„A map of the Gulag camps, which existed between 1923 and 1961, based on data from Memorial, a human rights group.“ **


Reportedly, there is a discussion about the division of the Euro (€) into a North-Euro and a South-Euro. If the US (which are similar to the EU anyway), Canada, and Mexico will divide their Amero into a North Amero and a South Amero, then Mexico will have to play the same role the countries of the probably coming South Euro play in the case of the Euro.

In order to prevent or circumvent such a division, they will probably implement the Globo. They will say: „See, the Euro and the Amero do not work, and therefore we need the Globo.“


Before the Euro was established, it was known that the the South Europeans would get problems with the Euro! Most humans do not learn from history. That is the problem!


Do you think that humans do what history has taught them?
Mostly they do what others want them to do, regardless whether it is reasonable or not.
The governments in Canada, USA, and Mexico will probably not reasonably decide. They will decide what the real rulers want them to decide. It is alomost a safe bet that the Amero will be established without a general support, without a real majoritarian support.


Governing forms are implemented by (1) one, (2) few, (3) all (majority of all). Mixed forms are possible because there are several social classes, but, however, at the bottom line there is merely one form for each society possible. It is the upper class that affects the other classes very much more than the other classes affect each other or even the upper class.

Okay, let's talk about „SAM“: „Social Anenthropic Molecularization“. „SAM“ does only work in small societies. So should we reduce the current societies (except those in jungles, deserts, and steppes) to small societies?


The cell is the smallest unity of of a living thing. it is able to fulfill all main functions of an organism. The cromatin in the cell nucleus contains the carrier of the hereditary information: the DNA. The DNA is a long molecule chain with four different bases (A, C, G, T). The RNA is the „translater“. On the DNA chain each amino acid of the later proteins is coded by three successive bases.

So the „basic law“ or „constitution“ of „SAM“ („Social Anenthropic Molecularization“) could be similar to the genetic code.


Many phenomena correlate with each other, thus also the population growth (fertility rate and mortality rate), the economic growth, the cultural development, the development of intelligence. The most important phenomena are summarized in the HDI (Human Development Index). The following map shows the HDI ranking list:

**

For example: „dark green“ means the highest HDI (?0,900 and higher); „dark red means“ the lowest HDI (0,349 and lower).

Correlation of population and economy.
P=>E) In the short-term the population growth influences the economic development positively; in the long-term it influences it negatively because of other phenomena which are long-term phenomena (culture /education, intelligence).
E=>P) In the short-term the economic growth influences the population development positively; in the long-term it influences it negatively (long-lasting wealth leads to decadence).


Culture it is not the same as nature, but it is a part of nature. I said: »When it comes to distinguish the nature of human beings from the nature of other living beings, then human nature is human culture/s.« (**|**). That does not mean that nature and culture are the same. They are similar, not the same. There are analogies between them.

Naturally human beings are animal beings, but culturally human beings are not animal beings but human beings (just becaue of their culture). Of course, there are feedbacks between nature and culture, thus also between human nature and human culture. But if it comes to distinguish the nature of human beings from the nature of other living beings, then human nature is human culture/s. And one of the main features of human culture/s is luxury.


Obama does what he has to do. The US presidents are paid. That is the reason for their contradictory speeches, their hypocrisy, their double standards, their lies, ..., and so on and so forth ....


Most humans do not always want politicians to say the truth. But what about the others? And sometimes most humans want politicians to say the truth, so that the politicians have no chance anymore with their contradictory speeches, their hypocrisy, their double standards, their lies, ..., and so on and so forth ....

But that is also a question of quantity and quality. Most humans are far too shallow and self interested and subconsciously vote in the qualities that they admire within themselves. But what about the others? And sometimes most humans are not too shallow and self interested and do not subconsciously vote in the qualities that they admire within themselves.

The main problem is that most humans are too late with their awareness, too slow with their bringing to awareness, they know too late, thus they are too stupid or ignorant, or just too decadent and hedonistic. This fact is used / misused by the rulers. The history is full of such examples.


I need four (exactly four) seasons.

**

Humans were „born“ in areas of merely two seasons and developed into areas of four seasons and into areas of other two seasons (namely in the polar regions). So originally, thus more (not only) naturally, we are beings of the two seasons in warm or hot areas, but being on our way, thus more (not only) culturally, we are also beings of the four seasons, of the two seasons in the coldest areas (polar regions), and in some sense even of the one „season“ in the outer space. We became beings that can live in both the hottest and the coldest climate zones and in some sense, as I said, even in the outer space. That's great and terrible, fortune and fate, destiny. Isn't it?


The use of tools that do not belong to the own body are alrerady a prestage of luxury; the use of language, if it is close to the value of the human language, as well; games do all mammals have (maybe it is a pre-prestage of luxury). B.t.w.: Luxury can be measured by the degree of insulation. The more living beings are able to live on an own „island“ (meant as a metaphor!), the more they are luxury beings. Or, in other words, the more living beings are able to behave against the Darwinistic evolution, the more they are luxury beings. Insulations give those beings a relative (!) independence of adaptation to nature. The adaptation to nature has not vanished but has been added by dissociation of nature. And the only living being that has achieved this independence in a sufficient extent is the human being.

The question is how we value this relative (!) independence. This relative independence is caused by insulation or dissociation of nature with the main effect: luxury. And this insulation is (a) natuarlly caused by the relatively huge brain and (b) culturally caused by the huge consciousness, awareness, knowkedge, language of human beings.

That's an interesting theme.


Whether „alpha males and their mates get the first resources in almost any specie“ (**) or not is obviously not important for luxury beings. Are Occidental humans alpha males and their mates? Do they have the most descendants? No! The reverse is true: They have the least descendants. Do the humans with the most descendants (thus currently the Black humans in Africa) get the first resources? No!

Humans do not completely fit in the scheme of the Darwinistic evolution theory!


In Europe, especially in West and West-Central Europe the average winter-temperature is often higher than +2° Celsius (35.6° Fahrenheit) - caused by the Gulf Stream.

**

The natural cause of the relative (!) independence of human beings is their brain, and the cultural cause or reason of the relative (!) independence of human beings is their huge consciousness, awareness, knowkedge, language. So we owe our relative independence (relative free will) to our brain.

The development of our brain is almost a miracle, a wonder.


The main aspect is the insulation (dissociation of nature) which leads to luxury and is naturally caused by the brain. So we have (1) the brain, (2) the insulation (dissociation of nature), (3) the luxury and also the self-consciousness with its epiphenomenon egoism and many other features, but it is more the luxury that leads to the self-consciousness than it is the self-consciousness that leads to luxury. Some animals have self-consciousness in almost the degree that human children in the age of 1 to 2 years have, but these animals do not have luxury in the degree that human children in the age of 1 to 2 years have. And human children become egoistic in that typical human way (you said: „extreme“) after that age, usually when they are older than 2 years. Luxury is more a communal than a personal matter.The human development is more a communal than a personal („individual“) development. The human development is more a cultural than a natural development, because the natural development of the humans is more (about 98%; see above) an animal development than a human development.

Naturally you need a relative large and a very complex brain, if you want to become a human being, but then, when that brain exists, your further development is more a cultural than a natural development. The huge consciousness (with its accordingly huge self-consciousness), the huge knowledge, the huge and complex language, ... were naturally caused by the brain but would be totally useless, if their development were merely a natural development. The humans are humans very much more because of their cultural development than because of their natural development. Naturally humans are 98%-animals, but culturally humans are 98%-humans.


Naturally humans are 98%-animals, but culturally humans are 98%-humans.


Like I said (**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**): Human beings are luxury beings.

Evolution is not just about adaptation to nature, to environment, but also about distancing from nature, from environment, thus about the „luxury islands“.

Human beings are the only living beings that can disassociate themselves from nature in such a dimension that they do not completely have to adapt themselves to nature, to their natural environment. They can destroy the nature just for fun. Other living beings can also have a little bit luxury, but their luxury is always embedded in their immediate nature, their natural environment. They are not able to overcome their dependence of nature. They remain living creatures in the sense of Darwinism: those that are successful have the most descendants, and those that are not successful have the less or no descendants and die out. Luxury beings are the only living beings that can show also the opposite direction: being successful and having less or no descendants (children) and beeing unsuccessful and having the most descendants (children). This two cases would immediately lead to extinction, if they were completely embedded in nature, in natural environment. In the case of human beings it does not lead to extinction, if they are in situations of independence of nature; they often are in such situations, and then It depends on human decisions whether a group of human beings or even all human beings die out or not. Humans have two natures: (1) the real nature which all other living beings also have, (2) their own nature as their culture(s) which is (are) much independend of the real nature.

So when I say „human nature is human culture/s“, then I mean that - in a pure natural sense - humans are 98%-animals; so in this sense they have a 98%-animal nature and merely a 2%-human nature, but this 2% are their culture/s. And in a pure cultural sense this relation is inversely proportional.

If humans are humans to 100%, then merely to 2% because of their nature; but to 98% because of their culture/s!


„It will be a peaceful world when humans have eradicated themselves.“ (**) ?

When humans have eradicated themselves there will be no one who knows what a peaceful world is.

„Up until then, so long as we have people who divorce and separate we will also not have syncretistic anything.“ (*) ?

Syncretism has always been a part of the human evolution at some times.

„People will never unify.“ (**) !

That is even not necessary.

A syncretistic religion does not require an unification of all humans. But nevertheless: if we all get a syncretistic religion, then those who don't want this syncretistic religion will also get a syncretistic religion (that's logical, even tautological!), although they do not want it, although they are not religiously (but for example: economically or politically) unified.

But the question is: Will we get a syncretistic religion? This syncretistic religion would be more syncretistic than all other syncretistic religions before it. Probably a syncretistic religion for all humans (the minority is included) is already in the making but not a complete reality yet, because those who are against it are still a majority.

A minority of students who do not study are nevertheless students - because they are as matriculated as the majority of students who study.

Replace the word „students“ by the word „syncretistic humans“ and the word „study“ by the word „believe in a syncretistic religion“.

There is reality on the one side and ideality on the other side


Obama said: „No religion is responsible for terrorism.“
Is the system of greed and lust responsible for terrorism?

Obama said: „People are responsible for terrorism.“
Are the globalistic people responsible for terrorism?

Obama said: „The terrorists do not speak for“ all „Muslims.“
Does Obama speak for all US Americans?
...?
Did Truman speak for for all US Americans?
Did Churchill speak for all English / British?
Did Hitler speak for all Germans / Aryans?
Did Stalin speak for all Russians / Soviets?
Did Roosevelt speak for all US Americans?
Did Lenin speak for all Russians / Soviets?
Did Wilson speak for all US Americans?
...?
...?
...?
Did Napoleon speak for all French(men)?
...?
...?
...?
...?
...?
...?
...?
...?
...?
Did Caesar speak for all Ancient Romans?
...?
...?
...?
Did Alexander „the Great“ speak for all Ancient Greeks?


There was a Japanese-Soviet Nonaggression Pact during the whole Second World War, and this Japanese-Soviet Nonaggression Pact was the reason for no aggression in the East of the Soviet Union (Siberia). The Soviets were very much interested in it because of the front in the West of the Soviet Union (Russia): they did not want two fronts. But the Japanese were also very much interested in it because of similar reasons. It would have been very stupid, if one of them had attacked the other one.


Each of the three forms (monarchy, aristocracy, democracy) has its degenerated form which can always be interpreted as the negative form. So each of the three positive or better forms and each of the three negative or worse forms are merely subordinated forms of one form, thus there are three superordinated forms and six subordinated forms:

1) the form of one ruler with (1a) monarchy as the positive subordinated form and (1b) tyranny as the subordinated negative form;
2) the form of few rulers with (2a) aristocracy as the positive subordinated form and (2b) oligarchy as the subordinated negative form;
3) the form of many rulers with (3a) democracy as the positive subordinated form and (3b) ochlocracy as the subordinated negative form.

In reality there are often mixed forms; but, if so, then one form dominates the other forms anyway (you may compare it with a club, i.e. a sports club).

„No form“ means anarchy.


There would never have been any industrial „revolution“ (the better word is „explication“), if the Faustian people had not brought it to them.

The whole culture of the islamic people is a religious culture - that means that their lives are dominated by religion / exercise systems (see above).

In almost all cases cultures have many forms, thus not only religious forms. Religious forms can influence the culture, of course, but the religion of the Faustian culture has never been as powerful as the Islamic religion. The „Abrahamic“ myth is not important for that, and Christianity, which was and is the official but not the real religion of the Faustians, is not as monotheistic or henotheistic as Islam and Jewry are (but that does also not as much matter as each whole culture matters). It makes not very much sense to isolate religions from their cultures and their landscapes they belong to. Christianity is not an original religion of the Occident but of the Orient, especially of the Oriental desert (also Jewry and Islam); but the mix of this Oriental desert religion on the one side and the landscape and climate of the Occident (boreal, nordic, rainy, just mild: not too warm and not too cold) and its original culture on the other side is a successful one. One of many examples is that in the Occident religion and state (secaular politics) are seperated from each other.


Humans lived and live in different (A) cliamte zones and in different (B) cultural zones.

(A) Climate zones:

**

 **

**

(B) Cultural zones:

Cultural zones mean cultures that are influenced by the climate zones (see above) and other circumstances. It is no accident that nearly all monotheistic / henotheistic religions arised in deserts, and when they were brought to people in cultural zones without deserts, then the religions changed more or less (depending on where, how much different these zones were). I will not go into details because of the derailing danger.


It is always the same:

The group „X“ commits crime, and instead of the group „X“ the group „Y“ gets punishment for that crime.

(Put in the right real groups for „X“ and for „Y“.)


We ourselves can solve most of our problems and do it in many various ways. We do not need any Freud, Freudian, Freudianist, or other preachers. Most children grow up without any negative results of problems, because they solve their problems themselves and with the help of their parents and other relatives. If the revers were true, then there would be more problematic children or more so-called „experts“ who design problematic children. And indeed: since we have so-called „experts“ the problematic children have been becoming more and more. So-called „experts“ design problems and problematic humans, and I know the reason behind it. For the same reason we also do not need any Marx, Marxian, Marxist, or other preachers. If you start to consult a so-called „expert“, then you start the misuse.


In most cases, a person gets more problems than this person had before the „careful analysis“ you mentioned (**). Such cases are not or mostly not published, because publishing such cases is forbidden or at least a taboo.


In the Land of Lies war is „peace“, ideality is „reality“, dreams are „non-dreams“, deseases are „cures“, ..., and so on.


Would you agree, if I said that language can damage people? You do not need medicines or drugs in order to become damaged, if you have a language. Language is as effective as or even more effective than medicines and drugs are. The effect of language is a lengthy one, is awful long. Therefore it is very suitable when it comes to influence anyone and everyone, each person and a whole society. Look into societies where is no psycho-„market“ (for example in Amazonia or other non-urban regions) - the people of this societies have almost no problems, because they are not damaged by the psycho-„market“, the socio-„market“, and other hyper-modern „markets“ nobody needs. This „markets“ indicate the modern civilisation and its abnormality. Civilisations as urban societies yield such „markets“ which „market“ the abnormality. So again: The Occidental culture in its modern or civilised forms designs, constructs, produces patients in order to „market“ them, because there is no other possibility anymore to control them. The main effect of that is a society of damaged people, of patients.

Patients are made. Therefore some psychiatrists imitated lawyers by calling their patients „clients“.


I mean that people who are normal become abnormal because of the psycho-„market“, the interests of those who become rich and powerful, because they really make patients, problematic humans ... - as I said before. This finding is a historical fact!

But note: We are not only talking about psychiatry but about the whole psycho-„market“.


Augustinus is right: Prosperity inevitably leads to depravity.


Human beings are group-living animals - just like pack animals. Since the human beings came into the world - whenever their „birth“ was - they have been being such group-living animals (naturally) and group-living humans (culturally). So it is very difficult for them to not differentiate themselves from others, especially from other group-living animals (naturally) and group-living humans (culturally). They can not give up their attitude of „we-are-not-them“, „we-do-not-want-to-be-like-them“, „we-are-against-them“, „we-fight-against-them“ and so on.

Cecil Rhodes

If such a group becomes too large, then it becomes less controllable; if such a group becomes too small, then it also becomes less controllable, because it can easily be conquered /captured by a foreign group. Now, „put 1 and 1 together“ and think of the current Occicental culture which is too large because of its economic restraints (i.e. expansion) and too small because of its individualism, extreme egoism. So you have a too large group with too much too small subgroups as one phenomenon. This group can very easily be conquered /captured by a foreign group.

Cultures, empires, nations and other large societies are too large; but if there are already different cultures, empires, nations and other large societies, then they also have already changed their strategy in order to defend themselves. Ideally a human group should consist of not more than about 100 members, but the history of the last 6000 years shows which strategy more and more humans chose in order to defend their groups: some groups became large (too large!), many groups remained small (in an oriiginally ideal sense which became a disadvantage), and many of this many groups got conquered / captured by the large groups. And each time when this large groups became „civilisations“ with economic restraints (see above) - „expansion is everything“ (Cecil Rhodes) -, then the small groups becamne less and less. So today we have some very large groups and some very small groups, and one of the very large (very much too large) groups is a group of individualsm, thus exists of too much very too small subgroups. That's dangerous. Another very large group which is not a group of individualism behaves like every large group which has not too much very too small subgrous, thus wants to expand and to prevent individualism. That's dangerous. too. - So the Occident has many strategic problems: enemies inside (the very too small subgroups) and outside (foreign groups), economic restraints (i.e. expansion) which strengthen those enemies, .... The West is both very too large and very too small (because of too much individualism), and that means tendentious weakness, thus "feed" for those groups which are strong, large, and intelligent enough to conquere / capture it.

The more a group grows the more strategies are needed to control this group. If a group has its enemies both outside (foreign groups) and inside (i.e. its own subgroups and parts of foreign groups) of itself, then this group is tendentially weak and destroys itself from inside (demographic facts are included - of course), so that this group's enemies just have to await their best chance.


Repetitions or recurrences belong to development like cycles or spiral cycles to change in general. That's fundamental. So the question is whether repetitions or recurrences can really be „caused by a fix“ or „based ... on such ... types of dream content“. If you have a pain and a dream and think they depend on each other, then it is probably not in that way that your dream is the cause of your pain and the repetition or recurrence of your dream and pain, but in that way that your pain causes your dream, and both are under the „control“ of repetition or recurrence. If you try to delete repetition or recurrence, you will fail, because you can not delete them as such, but you can i.e. change „negative“ repetitions or recurrences into „positive“ repetitions or recurrences by changing your actions and thoughts. Try to change your actions and thoughts, so that your dream contents can also change. In that case, a tiny part of your development changes, what means that the repetitions or recurrences also change.


What has really become new since the modern Occidental times is the huge dimension, the technical development, especially the enormous acceleration of the technical development, and - as a result - the possibility that machines replace all human beings (**|**). Humans have always tried to design a new religion, but this time the designers will probably either integrate or exterminate all humans of this planet, and this will probably include a huge reduction of the number of the humans.


Please compare (**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**): Human beings are luxury beings.


„Did history prove him or others right or not?“ (**) is also a complicated question becauss history has not ended yet (**|**). Did history prove (for example) Platon right or not? Who decides this? History decides. And history has not ended yet.

Was it right to invernt enginess, especially steam engines? What does history prove in that case? Huh?

- „Will machines completely replace all human beings?“ ** ** =>
- „Is it possible that machines completely replace all humans?“ ** ** =>


Hedonism leads i.a. to the conclusion that we should just believe whatever gives us the most pleasure to believe.


The dialectic process as Hegel's method is pretty fundamental. One can not deny it. It is true. it is true in the sense that Hegel meant.


And hedonism leads i.a. to more lies and hypocrisy, to any kind of socialism, to any knd of anti-socialism, to any knd of facsism, to any knd of anti-fascism, to any knd of feminism, to any knd of anti-feminism, just to demise.

Hedonism is one of the attributes of modernity (its main attribute is - by the way - any kind of exaggerated mobilisation).

„Isms“ are always extreme / unhealthy forms of decadence / demise. So i.e. hedonism and decadence have very much to do with each other.

**

The last one is „homo hedonisticus“.


The antagonist of the hedonism will not vanish or sublate in a synthesis as long as the hedonism itself will not vanish or sublate in a synthesis. Either both vanish or sublate in a synthesis or no one of them.


The year 1929 was the beginning of a world economic crisis; and if we consider that since the end of the 18th century something like a world economic crisis has been averagely occurring every 70 years, then we can easily calculate when the next world economic crisis after 1929 should have averagely begun: 1999. But 1999 a world economic crisis did not occure, but the Euro was implemented, probably in order to prevent a world economic crisis; howsoever, the next world economic crisis after 1929 began 2007, 78 years after 1929.

The world economic crisis of 1929 was released in the USA by financiers, and the world economic crisis of 2007 was also released in the USA by financiers.


„Do we, really, need to have our dollars backed up by gold?“ (**). No. You do not need to, but you should have your dollars backed up by gold, because gold is much more safe than paper. If it comes to a monetary crisis and your dollars are not backed up by gold, then all your dollars are lost, because of the lack of safety.

„Could society function without it?“ (**). Yes. It could, and it can, because you and I live in such societies, and they function as long as there is no monetary crisis.

„How can primitive societies function by merely exchanging coins?“ (**). Because they were much more interested in a very much concrete money and in safety. Coins, goods, other things, houses, lands etc., animals, and even slaves seemed to be „moving money“ or even „living money“ (animals, slaves). They did not have huge problems with their monetary system, because money was much more safe: backed up by the goods, other things, houses, lands etc., animals, and slaves.

The less safe your money is, the more risk you have. The dollar is as safe as the trust (faith, belief) in it is safe. Thus the dollar is one of the least safe currencies of the world. The dollar and other currencies are risk currencies which have their safety merely in paper and people who have trust (faith, belief) in this currencies.

Immaterial money makes the 1% of the humans richer and richer (more powerful and more powerful) and the 99% of the humans poorer and poorer (less powerful and less powerfull). Both groups differ more and more from each other, so that they have nothing to do with each other anymore. Perhaps they will become two different subspecies of the species homo sapiens or even two different species.


If the distinction of the so-called „progressives“ and the so-called „conservatives“ makes any sense (beside the propaganda), then this: only the conservatives can stop the destructive exploitation of all living beings, the whole planet Earth, and its neighborhood (this all has to be concerved!), because the progressives are hedonists , thus the most destructive exploiters. Exploitation is also one of the main reasons and motivations behind Nietzsche's „Umwertung aller Werte“ („trans- or revaluation of all values“). Nietzsche's „Umwerter aller Werte“ are nihilists, antitradionalists (antitgenenealogists), try to exclude all traditions, all conservatives, and if they are successful, then all traditions, all traditoinalists (conservatives) are excluded, sidelined, dropped and relatively soon forgotten.

Traditionalisten, Antitraditionalisten, Liberalisten, Egalitaristen, Synkretisten       =>      Traditionalisten (ausgegrenzt), Antitraditionalisten, Liberalisten, Egalitaristen, Synkretisten


There are many aspects which refer to the human reproduction: biological differentiation (for example: pregnancy), other differentiations, for example in the sense of specialisation or division of labor (for example: homework versus other works, gathering versus hunting, ... and so on ....), ... and so on ....


The evolution of the human beings implies the differentiations / specialisations. If there had not been such a specialisation, there would never have been any human being.

When these human differentiations / specialisations will vanish, then the human beings will vanish. That's clear.

Males and females should be different in order to prevent the extinction of homo sapiens. Without their differentiations / specialisations they would never have become humans and will never survive.


Fiat money is probably the last step before the step of no money: the machines pay instead of the moneyless humans who are more effectively controlled than ever before.

The Romantic period was a different period to the period of today. Now we have to „judge“ anything and everything „optimistically“ - it is like it was and is in all communistic and other socialistic societies. The period of Romantic was very much different to what happened after it. I do not want a commanded pessimism or a commanded optimism (besides: pessimism and optimism are convertible) or any other kind of depression of communistic and other socialistic societies. The Romantic period has very much to do with irony and also self-irony. Don't confuse your situation with the situation of the people during the Romantic period.


The origin of the dollar is the German Taler.

Wikipedia wrote:

„On 15 January 1520, the kingdom of Bohemia began minting coins from silver mined locally in Joachimsthal. The coins were called „Joachimsthaler“, which became shortened in common usage to thaler or taler. The German name Joachimsthal literally means Joachim's valley or Joachim's dale. This name found its way into other languages: Czech tolar, Hungarian tallér, Danish and Norwegian (rigs) daler, Swedish (riks) daler, Icelandic dalur, Dutch (rijks)daalder or daler, Ethiopian ??? („talari“), Italian tallero, Polish talar, Persian Dare, as well as - via Dutch - into English as dollar.

A later Dutch coin depicting a lion was called the leeuwendaler or leeuwendaalder, literally »lion daler«. The Dutch Republic produced these coins to accommodate its booming international trade. The leeuwendaler circulated throughout the Middle East and was imitated in several German and Italian cities. This coin was also popular in the Dutch East Indies and in the Dutch New Netherland Colony (New York). It was in circulation throughout the Thirteen Colonies during the 17th and early 18th centuries and was popularly known as lion (or lyon) dollar. The currencies of Romania and Bulgaria are, to this day, »lion« (leu/leva). The modern American-English pronunciation of dollar is still remarkably close to the 17th century Dutch pronunciation of daler. Some well-worn examples circulating in the Colonies were known as „dog dollars“.“ **


Is the difference between sex and gender already completely hidden behind the English language, namely behind the word „gender“?„Gender“ is a word of rhetoric, of political strategy, of control.


„Gender“ is a word of rhetoric, of political strategy, of control.


The rulers need the lie in order to rule, and those who are ruled need the lie in order to not tbe pushed over the edge. The truth is that humans need the lie and that humans also need the truth in order to overcome the lie, but the question is whether and, if yes, when they will fully overcome the lie.


Human beings are very specific living beings: animal-not-wannabes on the one side and god-wannabes on the other side. Humans are pretty much animals, but do not want to be animals, and they are not pretty much god(s), but want to be god(s). Humans are not able to be real animals and not able to be real god(s) - they are between the two, so a human being means a being between an animal and a god.


The Ancient Romans said to someone who was as presumptuous as you seem to be: „Remember that you are a mortal being“.

Gods are no mortal beings - this belongs to the definition of „god(s)“.


Some mllion years humans (including some ancestors of homo sapiens) lived together with wild animals. Since about 6000 years humans have been living together - more or less - with pets and other harmless animals and not or hardly with wild animals. You personally have never lived together with wild animals but merely with pets and other harmless animals.


Humans are just not really perfect.


Since the date when humans became „modern“ - whenever it was - they have been following the idea that „something“ should do the work for them, but they have never been considering that that also implies the possibility of their complete replacement by this „something“. Human beings as luxury beings have been considering mostly the comfort but rarely the danger of this development.

Who of the humans is really able to decide in place of every and any human being, especially those of the future?
I answer: No one of the humans. In that case the humans play „God“


In the EU the laws are not read but just signed. They are too complex and very rarely understandable for the human EU representives.


Education is a major point, but the current education seems to tend to its lowest point.


By the way: 2007 the number of humans who do not live in cities was topped for the first time by the number of humans who live in cities. That has never been the case before 2007.

Stadtbevölkerung


About the PEW Research Center:

Wikipedia wrote:

„The Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan American think tank based in Washington, D.C., that provides information on social issues, public opinion, and demographic trends shaping the United States and the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis, and other empirical social science research. It does not take explicit policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts.“ **

PEW Research Center


Creating false guilt is always good for those (0.001—1% of all humans) who create and manage it as a moral tenet, but who are „those“ today? If „they“ are really „religious“ people, their „religion“ is a political, governmental, financial, criminal one, a modern ideology for the other 99—99.99% and with idols (false gods) which are called e.g. „Political Correctness“, „Affirmative Action“, „Feminism“, „Genderism“, and other kinds of racism, sexism, communism, capitalism.

The current rhetoric trick is that each of those who create false guilt for profit says e.g.: „I am not religious.“ But each of them is religious, although in a modern manner, thus in an ideological manner.

Ideologies are opium for the people.


Should each adult person become a childlike person or/and the species homo sapiens become the species homo erectus or even one species of the genus australopithecus?

Of course: No.


„Man sollte nicht überrascht sein, wenn sich zeigt, wie mit fortschreitender Weltvernetzung die Symptome der Misanthropie anwachsen. Wenn Menschenfurcht eine naturwüchsige Antwort auf unwillkommene Nachbarschaft bedeutet, läßt sich angesichts der erzwungenen Fernnachbarschaften der meisten mit den meisten eine misanthropische Epidemie ohne Beispiel vorhersehen. Das wird nur jene in Erstaunen setzen, die vergessen haben, daß die Ausdrücke »Nachbar« und »Feind« herkömmlich nahezu Synonyme waren.“ - Peter Sloterdijk, Im Weltinnenraum des Kapitals, 2005, S. 220.
Translation:
„It should come as no surprise if it transpires that the symptoms of misanthropy increase with the progressive interconnection of the world. If fear of humans means a primal response to unwelcome neighbours, an unprecedented misanthropic epidemic would be the foreseeable result of the imposed long-distance vicinity between most people and most others. This should only amaze those who have forgotten that the words »neighbour« and »enemy« were traditionally almost synonymous.“ - Peter Sloterdijk, The World Interior of Capitalism, 2005, p. 141.


The internet is a digital modernity within the modernity. If you know who did benefit, who benefits, and who will benefit from modernity, then you also know who did benefit, who benefits, and who will benefit from the internet as the digital modernity.


The abilities of human beings are too complex, so if there are, for example, two neighborly human groups (e.g. „X“ and „Y“) and the human group „X“ does „x“ and the human group „Y“ does „y“, then it is very much probable that one of this two human groups will sooner or later change its doing, unless these two groups are isolated from each other. Huamn beings have far more possibilities of doing or behaving, far more capabilities or skills than e.g. ants. Ants are great specialists - but they do always the same.


Evolution is more natural than cultural, wheras history is more cultural than natural. It is a difference - often even a huge difference - whether living beings like the human beings develop naturally or culturally. It is a difference whether the brain of the humans has grown or the constitutional state is established by the Occidental humans. Evolution is more important than history when it comes to naturally survive. Evolution came before history - the revers is not possible. At first you, for example, have to change from an animal to an human before you can change from an natural human with natural and cultural evolution to a cultural human with natural and cultural evolution and then to a cultural human with history, thus with natural and cultural evolution, and - now: of course - cultural history.


Sociologists are as useful as a hole in the head.


Humans are luxury beings; so if you want them to not have luxury, then you do nothing else than the rulers do: make the 1% of all humans (the rulers) richer and richer and the 99% of all humans poorer and poorer.

The „Brazilianisation“ of the world is a process of „3rd-world-isation“ which will lead to a tiny, crowded, and very ugly „islands“ of the 99% of all humans with a tiny luxury and to a huge, sparsely populated, and very beautiful „island“ of the 1% of all humans with a huge luxury.

The humans as the luxury beings are not able to stop the luxury itself - what they get, if they try to stop it, is an unfairer and unfairer distribution (allocation) of the luxury. So, for example, you can eschew luxury, of course, but that merely makes the distribution (allocation) of the luxury unfairer and unfairer, so that you consequently must eschew luxury, whereas the 1% of all humans can get more and more luxury, because your eschewal of luxury does not mean all humans’ eschewal of luxury but the increase of other humans' luxury. At last 99% of all humans will have to eschew about 99% of all luxury (wealth), whereas 1% of all humans will have that 99% of all luxury (wealth).

Don't forget that jobs have also to do with luxury (wealth). So if somemone wants to find a job, this one also needs some things which are usually luxuries and suddenly necessities in order to (get a job to) get more luxury (wealth). So luxuries, although usually not needed, can become necessities, and if they do, then merely in order to get other, thus more luxuries, not in any and every case but in order to reproduce and propagate luxury in general, regardless whether they are for anyone and everyone or not. So luxury can only find its end by disasters, catastrophes, cataclysms.


„Give me the control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws.“


What most people do not understand is the economy, especially the economy of money. So they often confuse economical causes with pure sociological or pure psychological causes, thus with something that has nothing to do with the reality.This misunderstanding is exploited; so those humans who control the other humans have an interest in that misunderstanding and strive to keep the controlled humans in ignorance.


Is it true that one out of five children of the US go to bed hungry?


Is DARPA really „independent from other military research and development and reports“ (**)?


„Wo immer das Interesse an Enterbung und Neubeginn aufflammt, stehen wir auf dem Boden der authentischen Moderne.“ - Peter Sloterdijk, Die schrecklichen Kinder der Neuzeit, 2014.
Translation:
„Wherever the interest in disinheritance and a new start flares, we stand on the floor of the authentic modernity.“


Europeans averagely see guns all 70 or 80 years - when the rulers bring their war to Europe.

I was told - many years ago - that two cities in the US with almost the same number of inhabitants had very different criminal statistics because they had different gun laws: one city had a very high crime rate and a very strict / tight gun law, while the other city had a low crime rate and a lax / slack gun law.


If a man (or a woman!) wants to rape a child and to make the rape of children „legally“, then the easiest way is that he (or she!) tells again and again the lie that „children are atheists“, because the probability that this will become a law is not low, if the situation allows it. This was the case in the so-called „comministic“ countries (especially in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia), because all people of this societies had to be „atheists“. If all people are „believed“ (!) and have to be „atheistic“, then it is very easy for the rulers and their functionaries to capture all children by removing them from their allegedly „theistic“ parents and all other allegedly „theistic“ members of their families in order to legally rape this children. The definition of „theist“ is arbitrarily dictated by the dictators, and that means everyone and anyone who does not conform to this dictatorship can be called a „theist“ and be punished by death because of „being a theist“. So the rapists of children can - and do (!) - become more and more.

This tendency exists, and it exists more than ever before.


If anybody had a cow, then this one was called a „bourgeois“ and then killed. This happened, for example, in Ukraine (at that time a part of the Soviet empire) many times, because the Ukranians were not as poor as the other Soviet subjects yet (in other words: they were not „equalised“ yet). And if anybody was suspected (merely suspected!) to be religious or theistic (and the dictator dictated the meaning and interpretation of these words), then this one was also punished and then killed.

Those who do not know or have forgotten what happened in the so-called „communistic“ dictatorships do not change anything of the historical facts. It is this ignorance that opens the floodgates to the demands of all dictatorships.


Did you, your parents, or your grandparents live during the dictatorship of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot or during the dictatorship of other „communistic“ dictators? If one was conformed (not striking, not conspicuous), then this one could have luck, because whether one was punished or not depended on the the other people around this one as well, on the situation, on the fact whether they wanted this one to be punished, ... and so on, thus not only but mainly on the dictators and their functionaries.

How I know this? Not by experience but by science: I have studied history - among other academic disciplines - at the university.


In Cambodia it was not even allowed to wear glasses because that was interpreted as „being intellectual“, and being intellectual was punished by death. Have you never heard of the killing fields?


And China had Mao's terror regime and „cultural revolution“: 100 000 000 people in China were killed, many of them because of theism.


History is science, a science discipline. Of course. And science is also history, because science has its own history. Of course. Studying science history was one of my favorites.

How would you (**) call history then? „Art“? No, history is a science discipline. It is not like physics or chemistry. But that does not matter in order to be a science discipline.

B.t.w.: I also studied economics and linguistics.
Do you not accept that this are science disciplines?
If so, then you are again wrong.


Keeping.

If the greatest degree of stable social freedom is promised, then this promise should also be kept / held.


Culture is a bit different to nature. And the human culture is like an „island“ in a huge „ocean“ (nature).


The capitalistic countries or empires do not always have the same degree of capitalism. Some of them have also a relatively high degree of socialism. But capitalism and socialism are merley the two sides of the same faked coin. If there is merely capitalism, then the market is a liberalistic market or something like a place of Darwin's „survival of the fittest“; but if there is merely socialism, then it is a dead socialism because of the lack of capitalism. So capitalism is always before (although not long before) the socialism. The socialism depends on the capitalism, and the capitalism is not capable of expanding its markets ad infinitum without being stopped by a huge catastrophe. Should it be in the interest of the capitalists, at least the „late“ capitalists, to prevent the disappearance of the socialism (because a coin must have two sides)? Yes and no - because it depends on the development stage of the said faked coin, and e.g. in its last development stage it is not possible anymore to prevent the disappearance of the socialism. The situation of that faked coin is almost a dilemma.


The means of the production can also be controlled by relatively small commons - not merely by states, institutions, or private capitalists.


I often use „communism“ and „leftish socialism“ as hyponyms and „egalitarianism“ as their hyperonym - because in this case it is necessary to differentiate.


Socialism is a form of distributivism. Especially the lefish socialism wants to publicly (via state, thus via taxpayers) distribute like a huge monster of Robin Hood. A small common has nothing to do with states or taxpayers. Commons have a long tradition - but unfortunatley also their tragedy (**). This tragedy is merely then a huge problem, if the commons are no real commons anymore but a cartel / trust or antitrust of so-called „global players“.


I also say that the state-controlled means of production is a bad idea, but nonetheless: socialism is also a form of distributivism. Socialists take money from the taxpayers and give it to the poor („proletariat“, „precariat“). It is a fact which we can also call „distribution“,more precisely „distribution after theft“, or just „redistribution“. One should not deny this fact, although state-controlled means of production is a bad idea. But how can the means of production really be controlled by all people without any help of a powerful institution like state or church?


All authority must be in the form of very small groups / cooperatives. That is important. Otherwise the authority would become corrupt, all economic and political relations and situations would again become the same old (although called "modern") corrupted relations and situations.


How can people of „SAM“ defend themselves against corruption?


If you (**) think that socialism has nothing to do with „distribution“, especially „redistribution“, then you are wrong.

Distributi(vi)sm has to do with distribution. Nobody can change this. And socialism has also to do with distribution, especially redistribution, regardless whether socialists use these words merely rhetorically or not. We know that socialists distribute or, more precisely said, redistribute wealth, and according to this fact we can say that socialism is a form of distributi(vi)sm. Nevertheless it is not the same distributi(vi)sm as the distributi(vi)sm of the Cathoilc social teaching. Did you just notice the word „social“ in the term „Cathoilc social teaching“?

Socialism needs capitalism, although the socialists say that socialism has nothing to do with capitalism. Socialism can also be a form of distributi(vi)sm, although the distributi(vi)sts say that distributi(vi)sm has nothing to do with both capitalism and socialism.

The Catholic social teaching does not have any patent of the meaning of the word „distributi(vi)sm“. Would you say that merely the members of the party „X“ should be allowed to define the word „socialism“? I do not accept this.

The Catholic social teaching is social. Look again at its name: Catholic social teaching. And socialism is a form of distributi(vi)sm, regardless whether socialism is different to the Catholic social teaching. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

Distributi(vi)sm is not only what the Catholic social teaching wants it to be.

Are merely the leaders of capitalism allowed to say what capitalism is? Thus even in a webforum called „I Love Philosophy“ is no other definition allowed?
Are merely the leaders of socialism allowed to say what socialism is? Thus even in a webforum called „I Love Philosophy“ is no other definition allowed?
Are merely the leaders of distributi(vi)sm allowed to say what distributi(vi)sm is? Thus even in a webforum called „I Love Philosophy“ is no other definition allowed?

My definition has to do with logic not with rhetoric like your definition. You do not know anything about the realisation of your odd kind of distributivism, because the statemnets of the Catholic social teaching are not more than theoretical statements - means: that there is no practical example. The only practical examples we have are those of the history where I referred to. The rest must be defined, preferably by logic.

Everyone - except you and some other people who are dense about this topic - know what the word „distribution“ means, what the morpheme „ism“ of the word „distribution“ means, and what the word „distributioni(vi)sm“ means. A philosopher does not have to follow the definition of the Catholic social teaching (I - myself - am a Catholic, but that does not mean that I obey everything what the Catholic church said, says and will say).

Why should it not be allwoed to use the word „distributivism in a very loose and generic way“? Please do not forget that there is no practical evidence. The examples of the premodern economic situations do not count, because we are talking about modern economic situations.

You are wrong. Because of the fact that socialism needs money in order to redistribute wealth, it depends on capitalism. That is logical. Therefore socialism became a part of the economic system.

I would like to read some arguments for the thesis that the distributivism of the Catholic social teaching will have a chance to win in the near future. Are you interested in such arguments or not?


Would you agree, if someone said that most of the human governments are like cancerous ulcers, so that the said cells become more and more ill cells / cells that wrongly handle their environment and will be dead soon?


Humans are not perfect. They are not capable of being 100%-animals and also not capable of being gods.


And at last the EU will probably be the prey of the rest of the world.

Africa and Latin America are the prey of the others anyway. They have been being it since the 15th/16th century.

That chart refers to the Trilateral Commission.

USA/Kanada, EU, SOZ


This is the current top 5 rank of GDP:

1) US.
2) Japan.
3) Germany.
4) China.
5) UK.

If the EU were considered, then it would be: 1) EU.


Economically Europe is still much bigger than US, China, India, Indonesia.
Demographically Europe (750 millions) is much bigger than US (317 millions) and Indonesia (238 millions) but much smaller than China (1370 millions) and India (1210 millions).


The European Union (EU) and the Eurozone are also obstacles for some countries, for example for Germany, Austria, Holland. In other words: there is also a brake in the EU and in the Eurozone, and this brake brakes as a motor brake, and the motor of the EU and Eurozone is Germany. So Germany could probably do better without any EU and Eurozone. Like Japan, and Japan is economically comparable with Germany. The EU and especially the Euro is a huge burden for Germany. From the German point of view the EU and the Eurozone have never been economically necessary. The EU and the Eurozone were politically forced - by dictatorship, thus without any democratic processes. Until the early 1990s the economical rank of the top 3 was: 1) US, 2) Germany (until 1990: only West Germany), 3) Japan. And it was not Germany's so-called „reunion“ but the EU that forced Germany into that huge burden. This burden grows and grows, and there is no other country in Europe or elsewhere that is capable of bearing this burden. But some states, especially the United States, are interested in the economical destruction of Europe.


The so-called „Shanghai Cooperation Organisation“ which is a political, economic and military organisation and was founded in 2001 in Shanghai.

Germany is the leader - it did and does not want to be the leader but had and has to be it because of the economical and political facts (that is what I meant by the word „forced“ [**]) . But okay, now we have this facts that have been making and leading to the scapegoat role for so long.

The „price“ you mentioned (**) could be paid in another, namely a better way. That was my main point. No EU, no Eurozone, no NATO but nonetheless a powerful political, economic and mliitary organisation of European countries without any influence of the USA. It is namely a contradiction that there is a military parrtnership with an economic enemy („competitor“) like the USA, because this means the contradictional politics between Europe and the USA.


First of all, the reasons for wars to happen are always given just because of the nature of living beings in general and of human beings in particular. Secondly, econimical wars as several forms of extreme „competitions“ are typical for the modern „humanity“ and always accompanied by media wars (you can even see it here on ILP). Thirdly, the kind of war I am most afraid of is the so-called „civil war“, and this kind of war is what Europe will probably have to face. The contradictional politics of and between Europe and the USA are one of the main reasons why Europe will probably have to face a civil war. I just said „probably“, thus not „certainly“. But the probability is not low.

If you can't defeat your enemy economically, then defeat him demographically. And if you will have defeated him demographically, then it will soon be easy to defeat him economically too. This implies the high probability of a civil war.

Again: I did not say that it is certain but merely probable that there will be war in Europe before 2050 (**).

By the way the current US debt:
US national debt: $ 18 320 000 000 000.
US debt per taxpayer $ 154 500.
US debt per citizen: $ 57 000.
(Cp. US Debt Clock)


Destroy the motor of a car, and this car will not function anymoe.
Destroy Germany as the motor of the EU and the Eurozone, and the EU and Eurozone will not function anymoe.

Since the wars in Central and Southwest Asia and in Africa that are caused by the USA and Israel the number of immigrants in Germany has increased gigantically.
Since the beginning of the huge problems in Greece Germany's debts have also increased gigantically.
This obviously never ending demographical and economical war will lead to the fact that the EU and Eurozone will not function anymoe.

And this can't be in the interest of all Europeans.


SAM must work according to the principle of subsidiarity.


The dasein / existence of the current machines is authentic. If the machines will remain as they currently are and humans will still live then, then the machines will perhaps cause an authentic dasein (existence, life) of the humans by use of SAM.

But if there is a critical difference, if there are others who do not fit SAM, then they will try to infiltrate SAM and perhaps destroy SAM.


Many humans - especailly most of the current humans - do not want to hope. Those humans want everything now!


States will probably also disappear.

States as we know them will probably disappear, because they are too expensive and can be easily replaced by a machine network that works much more efficiently than a human state. This is already in works. Feel free to call this machine newtork „state“, but keep in mind that this machine newtork will be much more than a human state.


You (**) told me that you believed in the „world peace“/„perpetual peace“ (Kant), so at least in this way you are a Kantian. .... Do not forget ....


Political correctness has caused further disintegration - of course.


Japan could also have been the place of origin of the Bubonic Plague - think of the many volcanoes in and around Japan. But it is an unanswered question whether the Black Death was caused by a meteorite strike or by a pathogenic germs or viruses.


A society in which only the middle class is taxed (as it is in the U.S.) is almost dead.


That is a good questions, because this thread is not only about Christianity but also about economy, at least capitalism; and mostly all good questions are not easy to answer. I strictly referred to the op of this thread when I wrote the post you are referring to (**|**). So we could ask Ierrellus how he meant the term „early Christianity“ in the op of his thread. But at first I try to answer your question. To me the most authentic Christianity is identical with the Christianity of the Late Antiquity on the one side and of the Early Middle Ages of the other side. But this thread is about both christianity and economy, and Christianity came to its economy in the early Early Middle Ages, beginning with - for example - St. Benedict of Nursia (480–547) who wrote an important rule which became the typical form of the Occidental monkhood (monasticism):

„The Rule of Saint Benedict has been used by Benedictines for fifteen centuries, and thus St. Benedict is sometimes regarded as the founder of Western monasticism.“ **

The monasteries became centers of the Occidental culture (science included - of course), economy, and so on. So the earliest typical Occidental form of economy has its roots in the monasteries. Whether this form can also be regarded as the earliest form of capitalism or not is indeed not easy to say, but I would say that this earliest typical Occidental form of economy led to the earliest typical Occidental form of capitalism. And the earliest typical Occidental form of capitalism was already achieved in the 8th century.

But we have to add another aspect, if we want to find out the earliest typical Occidental form of economy and especially the earliest typical Occidental form of capitalism. We have to consider the economy of all Germanic peoples, thus also of those Germanic peoples who conquered and settled the Roman Empire, because the Germanic peoples were the real founder of Europe and had a typical kind of economy, especially a typical kind of sea trade. The combination of their economy and the Christian monastery (cloister) economy led to the the earliest typical Occidental economy and especially the earliest typical Occidental capitalism.

If we seek what the true authentic Christianity is, then we might find it in the Late Antiquity, but because of the fact that this early Christianity was suppressed and pursued until the early 4th century it did not have its own economy style - it had the pure poorness. So economically and socially the Christianity of its first 300 years was the the Roman empire's proletariat, so to speak in modern terms. The proletariat and the modern capitalism are not incompatible, Ierrellus. They are compatible - unfortunately.


I did not deny the fact that other ancient societies did not have economy or even capitalism. They had their economy and capiatlism. Of course. If you really want to know what I was talking about, then you have to read my post more carefully than you did. I said that the mix of the Germanic form of economy and the Christian monastic form of economy led to the typical Occidental capitalism - and not the Greek and Roman form of economy. You did not notice that I was talking about forms of economy - because of the op of this thread.

I was talking about historical facts every schoolchild knows. It is a historical fact that Christianity was a huge part of the Roman empire's proletariat during the first 300 years of Christianity; it is also a historical fact that Christianity became powerful after this first 300 years of Christianity; it is also a fact that the Germanic people conquered and settled the Roman empire and that they had a typical kind of economy, especially a typical kind of sea trade (you do not know which typical kind of economy I meant); and it is also a fact that Benedict of Nursia (480–547) wrote an important rule which became the typical form of the Occidental monkhood (monasticism):

„The Rule of Saint Benedict has been used by Benedictines for fifteen centuries, and thus St. Benedict is sometimes regarded as the founder of Western monasticism.“ **

„ORA ET LABORA“.


The gap between rich and poor is widening. It is similar to the situation in the Roman empire of the Late Antiquity. And just as decadent. The only difference between the Roman Empire of the Late Antiquity and the current Dollar empire is the extent: currently the injustice is truly global.


„Occidental“ means „Western“, namely „Western Europe“. Did you know this? Greece is not Occidental. „Occidental“ is a geographical and a cultural word. Did you know this? You can find Greece in the South East of Europe - not in the West of Europe. I am sorry, but that is also a fact that you do not want to be true. It is not my „idea“ that Greece is in the South East of Europe. The other point is that „Occidental“ religiously means the Western part of Christianity, thus the Roman Catholic part of Europe. It is not my „idea“ that „Occidental“ religiously means the Western part of Christianity.

The frontier/border of Occident and Orient:

Die Ostgrenze des „Westens“ (S. P. Huntington, 1996)


During the time I was talking about the said post Germanic peoples settled in the whole Europe; some of them became, for example, Romans which means Rome + Germans = Romans, or they remained Germanic peoples and/or suppressed the peoples of the conquered territories and forced them to speak their language and live according to all their habits, for example in the territory that later was called England. How did they get there? An example: **.


Geography facts of the European history:

**
Before the conquests.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_ ... ire_period .

**
They all were Germanic tribes - except the Huns.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration ... Chronology .

**
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration ... Chronology .

You have to consider the history of the Germanic peoples and of the Christianity in order to understand the Occidental culture - religiously the Roman Catholic and Protestantic Europe, geographically the Central, West, North, Northwest, South, Southwest, and some parts of the East of Europe.


Belisar's success was of short time. The territories in Italy and in South Spain he conquered for a while were completely reconquered by the Germans (at last by the Langobards), by us.


It has been proven that the economy of the Occident (the Christian Occident is meant!) can only be based on both Germanic peoples and Christianity, namely Roman Catholic and later also Protestantic Christianity. So Belisar had nothing to do with it, because he was a Byzantine, an Orthodox Christian, thus a man of the Orient (East Europe and West Asia). This was how the Europeans divided the world at that time as well as later and how they divide it today too: West and East. (And by the way: I am not against the people of the East - the mother of my daughter is Greek, and my current wife has lived in Greece for 12 years).


1) Is robbery also a form of economy?
1,1) Is robbery also a form of capitalism?
2) Has Christianity anything to do with economy and capitalism?
If yes:
2,1) Is the Catholic formula „ORA ET LABORA“ important for economy?
2,1,1) Is the Catholic formula „ORA ET LABORA“ important for capitalism?
2,2) Is the ethics of Protestantic performance / achievement important for economy?
2,2,1) Is the ethics of Protestantic performance / achievement important for capitalism?
3) Is economy avoidable?
If yes:
3,1) Is economy avoidable by Christianity?
4) Is capitalism avoidable?
If yes:
4,1) Is capitalism avoidable by Christianity?

Answers:
1) Yes.
1,1) Yes.
2) Yes.
2,1) Yes.
2,1,1) Probably.
2,2) Yes.
2,2,1) Probably.
3) No.
3,1) No.
4) Perhaps.
4,1) Perhaps.


Even the Roman empire had its German Caesar, for example one of the Franks. More and more Germans became high military generals in the Roman army. The reason for all of this was the fact that the Romans had had no or too less offspring and to let more and more Germans into the empire - additionally there had been to German provinces in the Roman Emipre since Ceasar: Germania Inferior and Germania Superior. This Germans became either Romans or remained Germans. So the whole thing in the Roman empire during its last 5 centuries was the fact that the Romans had not enough children anymore - beacuse of wealth. It was the same problem the Europeans have today. After Rome was conquered by the Germans there was no single territory - except in East Europe which was a steppe and Byzantium, although it had also many German inhabitants. There was a treaty between them. This all is well documented, also the fact that Augustus tried to prevent by law (LEX JULIA, 14 B.C.) that the Romans in his empire died out. After Rome was conquered there was no single place in Europe that was not ruled by Germans. Shall I name all the German kings of the Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages in the whole Europe? That would be a very long list. During the whole Middle Ages the Holy Roman empire of German Nation was the main power. One can say that the whole Occidental culture is a German culture. The nations as we know them today were formed later when the main power changed more and more to the side of the sea power, and the German Hanse was also a great sea power. „Sir“ Francis Drake was a robber, but he was also ennobled by the queen of England. Why? .... So we have to ask whether robbery is also a great business and a form of economy.


This time the danger is a global one, not only in an economical sense but also in a military and survival sense. Maybe this time the humans will not survive.


Who survived and who will survive? The capitalists? The proletarians? Both?


Human cultures can insure that only the strong do not survive.


Natur and culture are not really a dichotomy, because culture is embedded in nature.


The NATO was formed as an alliance of defense, and now it has nothing at all to do with defense but exclusively with aggression.


The City of London is independent. It has nothing to do with London, England, the UK, and os on.

The City of London was a a very special target during the Second World War.

The royal family was no target.


The „flower power society“ of the hippies failed, and your „sexocracy“ (**) will also fail. But some of those who have other desires will welcome your „sexocracy“, because your „sexocracy“ is no competitor for them. In the long run your „sexocracy“ will even lead to more inequality, injustice, frustration, and so on.

Your „sexocracy“ is based on a proton pseudos.


Your „sexocracy“ lacks too much of what human beings are with all their hopes, fears, desires, dislikes, and so on. Humans are more than sexual beings.


So you are saying: „Sex is the only fundamental desire where you don't die if you don't get it. It's the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That's why it's called the Sexocracy. The Sexocracy fulfills all human desires, it just prioritises sex.“ (**). It is like saying: (1) „Money is the only fundamental desire where you don't die if you don't get it. It's the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That's why it's called the plutocracy. The plutocracy fulfills all human desires, it just prioritises money.“ (2) „Work is the only fundamental desire where you don't die if you don't get it. It's the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That's why it's called the workocracy. The workocracy fulfills all human desires, it just prioritises work.“ (3) „Love is the only fundamental desire where you don't die if you don't get it. It's the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That's why it's called the loveocracy. The loveocracy fulfills all human desires, it just prioritises love.“ (4) „Music is the only fundamental desire where you don't die if you don't get it. It's the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That's why it's called the musicocracy. The musicocracy fulfills all human desires, it just prioritises music.“ (5) „The Demos is the only fundamental desire where you don't die if you don't get it. It's the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That's why it's called the democracy. The democracy fulfills all human desires, it just prioritises the demos.“ (6) „Nobility is the only fundamental desire where you don't die if you don't get it. It's the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That's why it's called the aristocracy. The aristocracy fulfills all human desires, it just prioritises nobility.“ (7) „A king is the only fundamental desire where you don't die if you don't get it. It's the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That's why it's called the monarchy. The monarchy fulfills all human desires, it just prioritises a king.“ (8) „A drug is the only fundamental desire where you don't die if you don't get it. It's the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That's why it's called the drugocracy. The drugocracy fulfills all human desires, it just prioritises a drug.“ (9) „War is the only fundamental desire where you don't die if you don't get it. It's the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That's why it's called the warocracy. The warocracy fulfills all human desires, it just prioritises a war.“ (10) „Machines are the only fundamental desire where you don't die if you don't get them. It's the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That's why it's called the machinocracy. The machinocracy fulfills all human desires, it just prioritises machines." .... And so on, and os on. .... The world is full of such examples. .... It is always the same error - and always based on a proton pseudos.

Sex is not the only fundamental desire where you don't die if you don't get it. It's not the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That's not why it's called the sexocracy. The sexocracy does not fulfill all human desires, it just does not prioritise sex. .... IIt is just the same old ideology with the same old error - based on the same old proton pseudos.

And by the way:

Equality is not the only fundamental desire where you don't die if you don't get it. It's not the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That's not why it's called the egalitarianism. The equality does not fulfill all human desires, it just does not prioritise equality. .... It is just the same old ideology with the same old old error - based on the same old proton pseudos.


There are other „drives“ and desires that are more important than sex. Do you not know them? Do you not breathe? Do you not drink? Do you not eat? Is there no metabolism in your body? If not, then you are no living being.

And there are many people who prefer, for example, work or love or money, not sex.

There are even people who hate sex, for eaxmple Anna Nicole Smith who said: „I hate for men to want sex all the time. I hate sex anyway.“


All typical Jacobean „projects“ are foredoomed to failure.

**


The engineering system and the social engineers of SAM are analogous to the central nervous system and the heart of a living body.

„SAM coop“ is a cybernetic feedback control system.


There must be a regulation. All things and phenomena that humans invent mut be regulated, because human inventions belong to culture. Nature has its own regulation.


If you control the money, then you will pretty soon also control almost all of the rest that can be contolled. This would not work, if the possibility of money control was forbidden. But it is not forbidden. The main reason for the possibility of money control is the compounded interest, thus usury, which causes the exponential increase of the debt, namely of those who were, are, and will be more and more indebted, thus controlled.


Demographically armed societies are dangerous to the other socities and also to themselves, because they tend more to violence than the demographically unarmed societies.


„»All problems in the West are due to males .. especially white males. Thus soon there shall be none. All problems in the East can be resolved by not having so many females. Together they will eternally chase each other.«“ (**). You mean that the survived white females and the survived non-white males will eternally chase each other?


Maybe it would have been better, if I had not used the word „explain“ in my opening post. Economics, sociology, and pschology can and do not explain, ... they show, and they show what the common sense already knows (or at least: should know). Economics can show more than sociology and psychology together.


Mathematical formulae do not show and prove or disprove anything and everything. But mathematical formulae are very suited for economics, despite the fact that some of them are completely redundant.The table (**) is not precise.


1) The cumulative share of the global population is not precisely indicated.

2) There are some small and very small but independent countries that have a higher GDP-per-capita than USA or Germany.

I just name Switzerland, Norway, Liechtenstein, Luxemburg, Monaco, Bermuda, Qatar ...

GDP density (GDP per km²):

GDP density

GNI per capita based on PPP:

GNI per capita - based on PPP

For comparison:
The per capita income in the provinces of the Roman empire in 14 AD:

The per capita income in the provinces of the Roman empire in 14 AD


Do not forget what Hegel said about the recognition.


Since the beginning of the so-called „Neolithic Revolution“ the human beings have been (unconsciously or even consciously) creating something in order to be replaced someday. This „something“ and this „someday“ come nearer and nearer.


Yes, we already have humanism, thus: much more wars than ever before and especially much more terrible / terroristic wars than ever before.


A „youth bulge“ is defined as high number of young people, namely:
1) Aged 0 to 29 years: 50% and more of the whole society;
1a) Aged 0 to 14 years: 30% and more of the whole society;
1b) Aged 15 to 29 years: 20% or more of the whole society.


Monaco has the oldest median age: 52.3 years.
Niger has the youngest median age: 15.2 years.


Population growth 1990–2012 (%):

Africa: 73.3%
Middle East: 68.2%
Asia (excl. China): 42.8%
China: 19.0%
OECD Americas: 27.9%
Non-OECD Americas: 36.6%
OECD Europe: 11.5%
OECD Asia Oceania: 11.1%
Non-OECD Europe and Eurasia: -0.8%

Link to the source.

The change of the world poulation from 1950 to 2100:

Karte

Link to the source.

The world population from 1 AD to 2050:

**

Link to the source.

The „demographic transition“ model:

**

Link to the source.

In Gunnar Heinsohn's book „Menschenproduktion“, published in 1979, is mentioned that from a later view the graph of the world population development could look like this:

**


The world pouplation will become a poluation of a tiny number of very, very, very rich people and a huge number of very, very, very poor people - and nothing (except huge walls) between them.


How many and which options do 99% of the current people have?


If there will be no accident like a big failure of the humans or a huge natural catastrophe, then it will be nearly impossible to go back to times before the so-called „industrial revolution“.


What we do and will economically and technically experience with China is and will be the same that we have been economically and technically experiencing with Japan since the early 1970's and with South Corea since the late 1970's. The next one after China will probably be India.


One of the really good historians - Leopold von Ranke (1795-1886) - said once: „The historian has to become old, because one can merely understand great changes, if one has personally experienced great changes“ (loosely translated) ...! Leopold von Ranke became very old ....


Historically similar times produce culturally similar humans.


The Darwinism is more an sociological/economical than a biological theory. No surprise to me, because Darwin was a Malthusianist, and Malthus was an economist.


When Darwinists talk about Darwinism, then they always talk about sociological and economical aspects.


Most of the global population growth comes from the least developed countries:

TFR 2005-2010


Humans can never be the same, so the real rulers and their functionaries are always saying „humans must be the same to have peace“, because the real rulers know that that is impossible. It has always to do with the control of the 99%


War has much to do with the market and is one of the most profitable businesses, probably the most profitable business.


The world population is still growing:

Karte

Right now, in this moment, as I write this sentence, the daily increase of the world population is about 230000!


|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|

- Register -

 
  Occidental culture