01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 |
61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 |
121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 |
<= [891][892][893][894][895][896][897][898][899][900] => |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
891) Arminius, 24.06.2016, 01:05, 01:05, 01:11, 01:23, 02:23, 02:30, 02:38, 09:21, 09:42, 09:56, 10:32, 11:34, 14:34, 16:58, 18:30, 19:52, 20:03, 20:05, 21:07, 22:04 (4731-4750)
Europe's robots to become electronic persons under draft plan:
Yes, you (**) are right.
Good videos (**), and they are not too long and not too short. Well done.
Exactly (**).
Agreed (**).If one cell of a living being (or a human being as a cell of a super-organism) does not work rightly, then it will almost certainly not cause the death of that living being. But if the living being (like a super-organism) as a whole does not work rightly, then this living being as a whole will almost certainly die soon, so each cell of that living being (like each human being of a super-organism) too.
If you asked a wolf whether it makes sense to have offspring and this
wolf could speak, what would the wolf answer?
|
4737 |
4738 |
4739 |
It's a matter of semantics. If someone asks you, »Do you believe in God?«, you must have a conception of what »God« is, in order to answer in either the negative or the positive. Replace »God« with any other concept and it becomes clear that my argument stands. As an example: »Do you believe in bears?« Most people would say yes, and most people would agree with that statement. And again: »Do you believe in unicorns?« Most people would say no, and most people would agree with that. But that agreement on whether bears or unicorns exist requires a basic understanding (at least between the two people having the conversation) of what the term »bear« or »unicorn« signifies. Same goes with »God«. But »God« can mean many different things to many different people. **
4740 |
4741 |
4742 |
4743 |
Talking of Germany ... the only country that has been benefiting from being in the EU is Germany, due to their technology and motor industries export... and they wanted us to RemaIn so that they could continue profiting ... at our expense. **
Will the Netherlands be better off outside the EU FC? **
Are they more for Nationalism/traditional values of their country? **
Were things just fine before we joined the EU? **
These are the main questions UK voters kept asking themselves every day for the last couple of years (me included) on our UK Referendum... looks like a high percentage of voters said yes to all 3 (me included). **
4744 |
4745 |
4746 |
4747 |
4748 |
4749 |
4750 |
892) Arminius, 28.06.2016, 13:49, 13:54, 14:18, 14:30, 15:04, 15:07, 16:26, 16:49, 17:24 (4751-4759)
We have only one root for the word religion, and this root is a Latin root.
James S. Saint wrote:
That is very likely.James S. Saint wrote:
Yes, it is. Now the number of the views is 102507.
England does not want the immigration, also and especially the Polish immigration.Scotland and Northern Ireland want to remain n the EU. So there is no Brexit but merely an Enexit.(By the way: Br(exit) is nonsense anyway. There are no British people in the UK. They died out in the early Middle Ages. Rests of them fled to what is now called Bretagne.)
No. It's 102517.
The question whether the universe just appeared or was made by a creator is very similar to the question whether nature is because of itself or because of god. This leads to the question whether god is what we call nature or nature is what we call god? The subject is called pantheism (**|**) with all its various modes.
Copied post in another thread.
James S. Saint wrote:
A machine problem.Now, it is 102552.
Religion (or the phenomenon wherefore that word is used) should not be underestimated. It seems to be everywhere - unfortunately or fortunately, whether one likes it or not.
World War III Angry wrote:
They were more pleasant.World War III Angry wrote:
No.World War III Angry wrote:
No.World War III Angry wrote:
Yes.World War III Angry wrote:
No. They know too little. They just want to know whether they have friends or not (cp. especially Facebook); they do not use the internet rightly and effectively as they could, if they were intelligent enough. But the intelligence of the average people of the world, their average IQ, has been sinking anyway; so the people of the world have been becoming more stupid, more dense.World War III Angry wrote:
They merely know irrelevant things about other people. They do not use the internet effectively ... (see above).World War III Angry wrote:
Except the front of the European males. The European males have become too weak; so they are currently not able to be extreme - unless their extreme weakness is meant.World War III Angry wrote:
Later the Earth will perhaps get colder. Think, for example, of the possible collapse of the Gulf stream.World War III Angry wrote:
Many people think that, yes.World War III Angry wrote:
Yes - but not all.World War III Angry wrote:
It makes a certain majority of the humans more stupid than this majority is anyway (see above). |
893) Arminius, 29.06.2016, 14:20, 14:56, 15:29, 15:58, 16:32, 16:37, 16:47, 17:15, 17:31, 17:40, 17:52, 18:05, 18:17, 18:46, 19:15, 19:26, 19:29, 19:51, 20:30, 22:40, 23:06, 23:15, 23:26 (4760-4783)
But the number of the Welsh and Cornish (I mean those who are really still Welsh and Cornish) can be neglected, because it is very tiny. For the same reason France could be called Britain too, namely because of the Bretons (I mean those who are really still Bretons). France has even more foreign people (although it has always tried to obliterate their identities) than Great Britain (this name is like a declaration of war).I recommend to use a different name, and even the name Great Island would be more correct than Great Britain.But what if Scotland and Northern ireland become independent from England?
The internet is not the main cause, but the internet also effects a lot (nobody can seriously deny that), so it is a cause too, although not the main cause.
Politics is also or should be also about the integration of the I and the we. In certain times religion and politics are not distinguishable.
The people of the media - the mediots (from: die Medioten - Udo Lindenberg) - should be punished for their sins.
God as a principle and as the one (the unmoved mover?) who caused the universe (**). Didn't you say in another thread that this has also to do with the impossibility?
But this noise is not the subatomic particle (**) itself.
An ethical question:Do you think that dominating banks is good or evil?
If there is only one causer (this can be doubted), then it is the first mover, the unmoved mover, the causer of the universe. But you do not ask for the absolute main cause, do you?Without the human beings and especially without the occidental culture with its enormous technologies there would be no internet (yet). But who or/and what caused the human beings to be resp. to develop; and who or/and what caused the occidental culture to be resp. to develop? The latter can be explained by genetics, geographical aspects, especially environment (landscape etc.) and climate; but the former is one of the most interesting questions, especially for philosophers.
The super-organisms, especially the huge banks and the huge corporations, are the real governments; so they also control every other politics and - of course - the media. In other words: the modern media is a huge propaganda machine of some super-organisms (which are owned by merely a few men).
But what do you exactly mean when you say main cause (**) in this context?
Strange! Before James and I posted one could read the following text below Jerkey's last post, although he was the last one who posted (before James and me):
How is that posible? Is it a wonder?
James S. Saint wrote:
Yes. Therefore all this operations have to do with the infinitesimal calculus (inveted by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz). So James is right with his answer.
Look at the time that is mentioned below Jerkey's post:
You posted after it. Look at the time that is mentioned above your post:
Strange!
James S. Saint wrote:
And it was about 5:30 pm when I read that Jerkey edited his post.I have never seen that on ILP before.In addition: the serrver does not know when the next poster is going to post.The rule is that it is not possible to read that you edited your post when you did it before the next poster posted.
James S. saint wrote:
I did not mean what the words mean but what you (see above) exactly mean by main cause in this context? What is the root cause according to you?
Who is responsible in this context, for example?
James S. Saint wrote:Yes, the ultimate unmoved mover is impossibility, aka »logical contradiction«.
Yes, we already talked about this. And it can also be read in your signature: The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives. .... The Real God = The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = »The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is«.
He simply means that the equation of 1 = 0,999... does at last not absolutely work: although the difference of both numbers becomes smaller and smaller, they can't become equal, because there remains always a rest, an infinite small rest but a rest. So this equation works mathematically, of course, but that does not mean that it also works logically, thus philosophically. It is a solution for mathematicians but not for philosophers. One can always say that there is a rest that denies the equation.This also indicates that mathematics and philosophy are two different disciplines, and history has shown that they have to be different disciplines.
Celine Kayser wrote:
To start with? This thread consists of three pages resp. 66 posts.Celine Kayser wrote:
Who is paying for this? The German taxpayers - as always.
What is the what (**), and who is the who (**) according to you?
A fact is not merely a copy. A copy can be defect or faked ... and so on.
Look (**).
Human beings are more free than all other living beings, but human beings are nevertheless not absolutely free, they are relatively free. |
894) Arminius, 30.06.2016, 13:28, 14:15, 18:34, 18:44, 18:51, 22:18, 01:02, 01:02, 01:02, 01:02, 01:02, 01:02, 01:02, 01:02, 01:02, 01:02, 01:02, 01:02, 23:43 (4784-4789)
Only Humean wrote:
Yes. How do you call the inhabitants of Brittany? I thought: Bretons? Is that not right?Only Humean wrote:
But Britain is not the correct name. Again: A huge majority of the current inhabitants of what is called Great Britain are not Britains.Only Humean wrote:
So the name is directed against the English people - a good trick. In other words: Minorities are respected, okay; but they are respected too much - no good trick. :wink:Only Humean wrote:
You quoted me wrongly.Only Humean wrote:
Yes.Only Humean wrote:
I agree. So I am - probably as well as you - not a fan of an autocratic system.
Mags J. wrote:
If you had read Only Humean's and my posts before that said post, then you would have known the reasons for that post.Maybe we should continue with this issue in another thread, if you want to.Mags J. wrote:
I agree.Mags J. wrote:
I disagree. (Compare, for example, Only Humean's post and my response above.)Mags J. wrote:
Some humans of this whole world are thinking much nonsense (compare also some idotic, stupid, racist posts of some ILP members who are full of hate, envy, and resentment).Your mentioned simple reason is in the mind of a majority of all Old European people (I mean the people of the so-called EU-15, thus the EU before May 2004, before the East-expansion). Europe has become too different and thus too problematic because of the East-extension. This was foreseeable because of the European history.But extension is something that no super-organism (the EU is such a super-organism) can really refuse - politicians belittle this by using the word practical constraint (Sachzwang). So the EU has got a problem which has to do with overstretching. It has been overstretched since the Euro and the East-expansion. At the latest.You see: I am also not a friend of an autocratic system. This is one of my main reasons for many of my threads and posts in the subforum SGE (compare there, especially the thread Will there be war before 2050 [**|**]).Currently I do not see a solution (except a cataclysmic one, but that is not the one I really want to become a fact).
According to Peter Sloterdijk religions are misunderstood spiritual exercise systems.
Cancer (**) is a hard word, but the internet is indeed something like an illness of an old culture that seems to be written in its cultural-genetic code.
Jerkey wrote:
And I know where you are coming from, Jerkey.
If all governing people (the public and the hidden ones) and all other people who are more than the average people are nihilistic resp cynic, what can most of the average people and most of those who are less than the average people do except being nihlisic and cynic too? They just copy them - more or less. Resistance is something for a minority - as always. |
895) Arminius, 09.07.2016, 16:06, 16:23, 16:28, 16:31, 19:00, 19:53, 22:01, 23:30 (47901-4797)
Only Humean wrote:
Wikipedia wrote:
Only Humean wrote:
Do not forget the Saxons and the Frisians resp. the Jutes (some historians say that the Frisians (Frisii), other historians, especially the language historians, say that the Jutes were the third Germanic tribe that conquered Britannia). So it could be called Great Anglo-Saxonia or Great Anglo-Saxony.Wikipedia wrote:
So it is very probable that Scotland has still an interest in becoming independent from England. And now remember that the Scottish independence referendum took place on 18 September 2014, and immediately after the vote for the so-called Brexit the Scottish said that they wanted to have a new independence referendum. Additionally the Northern Irish, especially the people of the Sinn Fein party, said at the same time that they wanted to reunify with the independent Irish again. So there are two regions of the UK that try to make use of the Brexit just the other way around, because they stay in the EU, if this two independencies become a fact.
Hahaha wrote:
The government nihilists have more power - that is all. It is not a question of the intelligence in this case, because the almost powerless people have more intelligent people than the powerful people, not only because of the fact that the almost powerless people are 99 times more than the powerful people. Even the most intelligent 1% of the 99% who are almost powerless are averagely more intelligent than the 1% who are powerful. It really is a question of power. If you have power, than you do not need to be very intelligent, an average intelligence is enough, the rest is a question of power itself and that you are capable of keeping it (and for this capability an average intelligence is sufficient).
Ierrellus wrote:
Martin Luther was a very intelligent person. (By the way: I am not Protestant but Catholic.) Now the average global intelligence is shrinking. Thus: such an intelligent reformation or even another reformation will probably not take place in the near future or in the future at all. Individualism has to do (although not only) with intelligence, intellectualism in the right sense. This means that we are facing an authoritarian social form of anti-individualism, anti-intelligence, and anti-intellectualism. Unfortunately. They will preach the we more than the I. The we is important, yes, but the I is important as well.
Here's a depiction of a conservative and two progressive American Indians, or Native Americans as they call them in the tongue of the progressives. **Yep.
Do I understand you (**) rightly when I say that you are speaking for doing nothing?
Hahaha wrote:
Yes, and both are private companies / corporations and have been dominating the states, the governments, and all people of the US since 1913 (at the latest). These and other globalists are the real rulers and thus most responsible for all the wars and other catastrophes (including the demographic and economic ones), thus also for the fact that the middle class has almost vanished in the US - the globalists become richer and richer and all the other 99% become poorer and poorer.
Europe has the lowest inflation.Economically, inflation means a sustained increase in the general price level of goods and services in an economy over a period of time. Inflation reflects a reduction in the purchasing power per unit of money.The following depiction Shows the inflation rates around the world in 2013, per International Monetary Fund:
One Liner wrote:
Depends on ....Your body, for example, is exclusively your body, isn't it?Another example: If you are the leader or an inventor of a certain group, then your I is and has to be a bit more important than the we, because your skills are a bit more based on your genetic I than on the social we (the group), and the group has to and usually does accept that you are one of those whose I is more important than the group itself (the we). In other words: A group (regardless which one) needs leading I's, inventing I's, ... and so on.But there are also examples that show us that the we is more important than the I. If you are, for example, a part of a super-organism, then your I is less important than the we (the super-organism). But from the point of view of the super-organism like the church or Goldman Sachs the we is perhaps more the I than the we again.We have to decide from what point of view we are linguistically and philosophically judging - for example: more like Max Stirner (I) or more like Karl Marx (we). |
896) Arminius, 10.07.2016, 01:06, 01:30, 02:02, 02:59, 03:17, 03:52, 12:33, 13:33, 15:08, 15:38 (4798-4807)
One Liner wrote:
So you are saying that your body is the body of your parents?
Uccisore wrote:
That's right.It is even probable that those who claim that they are not conservative are more religious (because of their ideologies and ideological exercises) than those who claim to be conservative.
Uccisore wrote:
You are absolutely right.Liberalism seems to be a typically occidental disease, at least a kind of dementia of the occidental culture.
The humanity, the horde, does not always do only what it wanted.
But since the globalism has become the winner, the nationalism is out and thus not as dangerous anymore as it once was. Globalism is far more dangerous than nationalism.Make America strong means make the globalists richer and thus more powerful (the globalists are not Americans but merely globalists).
That will end catastrophically.
I asked first. So please answer my question before I answer your question.
Hahaha wrote:
Yes, as you know from some of my other posts that I am saying almost the same. The Greek-Roman culture collapsed after it has become a civilization in a Spenglerian sense (perhaps you remember what Spengler wrote in his main work). Long before that collapse the same happened, for example, in Egypt, much later also in the region of the Mayas, for example.Hahaha wrote:
He does not know much about history.Hahaha wrote:
Yes, of course. But transhumanism is not needed when it comes to the end of history.Hahaha wrote:
He does not know what that means, and he also does not know much aboout history.And, by the way, what he and many others also don't know is the fact that there is a difference between evolution and history.So again: I am talking about the end of history not about the end of evolution. The Last Man is indeed an example of a man after history, but he is not an example of a man after human evolution (this would be a contradiction). Androids are no humans but will probably replace all humans (**|**), thus will bring the end of the human evolution.
Quod erat demonstrandum (**). You do not know what you are talking about. You are the one who never took a statistic class. And you are the one who is stereotyping. You are also the one who has no interest in seeing reality, because you are not capable of seeing reality. And of course: You are the one who wants to scapegoat people for the sake of your own ignorance and ego. Being an anti-white racist does not make you a better human but merely a politically correct racist, thus an obeying coward racist.
One Liner wrote:
No. At least not precisely enough. |
897) Hubert Brune, 11.07.2016 ** (4808)
Danke für Ihren Eintrag (**), Herr S. (**).Ich habe Ihnen bereits eine Email zukommen lassen.Um auf einige Stichpunkte in Ihrem Text (**) einzugehen und es einigermaßen übersichtlich aussehen zu lassen, habe ich Sie in meinem folgenden Kommentar zitiert:
Warum haben Sie dafür Archive.org in Anspruch genommen? Sie hätten doch meine Kult-Uhr-Seite (**) auch direkt als Kopie speichern können.
Danke. Das freut mich besonders deswegen, weil Sie mit diesem Satz so etwas wie eine Wahlverwandtschaft (Goethe) durchblicken lassen, ein seelisch-geistiger Bruder zu sein scheinen.
Menschen sind im Vergleich zu anderen Lebewesen Luxuswesen (Verwöhnungstiere), weshalb ich es aus erkenntnistheoretischen Gründen für sehr wichtig erachte, innerhalb der Biologie dem Menschen eine Sonderbehandlung zukommen zu lassen, die den Namen Anthropologie mehr als verdient hat.Sloterdijk ist in Glaubensangelegenheiten voll und ganz im Sinne Luthers erzogen worden, wie er selber sagt. Jedenfalls scheint sein Hinweis auf den Ablaßverkauf auch damit zu tun zu haben. Was damals die katholische Kirche betrieb, betreibt heute das globalistische Kartell.
Danke. Ja. Ich möchte es an dieser Stelle jedoch nicht versäumen, auf meine ebenso ausgeprägte naturwissenschaftliche und naturphilosophische Neigung hinzuweisen. Sie finden innerhalb meines Webangebotes nämlich auch sehr interessante Beiträge zur Naturwissenschaft und zur Naturphilosophie.Was mich aber kulturwissenschaftlich und kulturphilosophisch besonders reizt, ist die fast schon verblüffende Übereinstimmung der meisten natürlichen Formen mit vielen kulturellen Formen. Eine bedeutsame Schlußfolgerung ist daher, daß die Bewegungsform aller Geschichte, aller Evolution, ja aller Entwicklung überhaupt keine wirklich progressive, jedenfalls keine rein progressive, sondern eine spiralige, vielleicht sogar letztendlich rein zyklische zu sein scheint, die ich deswegen auch gerne spiralzyklisch nenne. **
Können Sie sein Modell für Marktvorhersagen und - vor allem - seine Meinung über den Kollaps des römischen Geldsystems beschreiben?
Danke. Gerade aus wirtschafts- und kulturgeschichtlicher Sicht ist eine solche Betrachtungsweise sehr sinnvoll. Ich habe übrigens auf einer meiner Seiten, die ich Kommentar zu Mersch (**) genannt habe, mir die Bemerkung erlaubt, daß Mersch diese Ableitungen gar nicht hätte vornehmen müssen, weil seine Theorie ohne sie auskommen kann. Trotzdem halte ich ihn für einen sehr guten Wirtschaftstheoretiker, auch und vor allem deshalb, weil er ein ausgezeichneter Mathematiker ist, was dafür spricht, daß er zumindest ein in mathematisch ausgezeichneter Logiker ist, denn die Mathematik ist ja ein Teilgebiet der Logik. Ich bin bei ihm, wenn es darum geht, zu sagen, daß Darwins natürliche Selektion und ihre Prinzipien falsch sind, jedenfalls dann, wenn sie auf Menschen angewendet werden. Die Aufregung darüber seitens der Darwin-Lobby ist scheinheilig und zeugt von religiösem Dogmatismus, außerdem widerspricht sie eindeutig einer anderen Lobby, die uns ständig durch Zensur so etwas wie Politkorrektheit einhämmern will, wozu selbstverständlich auch Anti-Faschismus (Stichwort; Antifa), Anti-Nationalsozialismus, also auch Anti-Sozialdarwinismus gehören und deswegen aber auch Anti-Darwinismus gehören müßte (!), denn der Darwinismus ist ja seit seinem Anfang auch Sozialdarwinismus (!).Auch Darwinisten geht es nicht um Wissenschaft, nicht um Erkenntnis, nicht um Wahrheit, sondern um Kompetenzerhalt, um Interessen, um Macht.
Geht man davon aus, daß Lebewesen autopoietische, selbsterhaltende Systeme sind, dann sollte man auch die jeweils größeren und größten solcher Systeme so bezeichnen. Mit anderen Worten: Eine Zelle in einem Organismus dient ihm nicht einfach nur, weil er eine Ansammlung von Zellen ist, sondern auch und besonders, weil er ein Selbsterhaltungssystem ist, und zwar auf einer höheren Ebene als der der Zelle selbst. Ähnlich zu deuten ist dies, wenn ein Mensch in einem großen Unternhemen (wie z.B. Siemens) - als eine Zelle dieses großen Unternehmens sozusagen - zu dessen Selbsterhaltung beiträgt.
Richtig. Außerdem wären hier z.B. zu nennen: Staaten, Organisationssysteme wie die EU, die UNO usw..
Herwig Birg wird hier aber nur diejenigen Menschen gemeint haben, auf die eben diese Anforderungen zutreffen: die Leistungsträger, wie ich sie nenne (Peter Sloterdijk übrigens auch). Die meisten Menschen sind aber keine Leistungsträger. Die Leistungsträger - und nur sie - werden ausgebeutet. Schichtenspezifisch gesagt: Die Mittelschicht - und nur sie - wird ausgebeutet.
Man kann staatlicherseits aber zumindest etwas gegen diese Reproduktionskrise tun, ohne gleich eine Katastrophe zu bewirken. Augustus hatte nicht viel, aber immerhin doch ein wenig Erfolg damit, allerdings auch nur einen kurzfristigen. Keiner seiner Nachfolger knüpfte daran mehr an.
Woher haben Sie die Information oder Interpretation, daß Bolz eine DDR 2.0 in Betracht zieht?Die Grenzen waren ja bis vor dem Höhepunkt der islamischen Ein- und Überfälle schon lange nicht mehr existent (die völlige Abschaffung der Grenzkontrollen erfolgte am 04.09.2015). Man kann nur hoffen, daß endlich aus den katastrophischen Fehlern gelernt werden darf, kann und wird.Es sind auch für die Jungen in Deutschland nicht weniger, sondern mehr Arbeitsstellen als in anderen vergleichbaren Ländern vorhanden. Der Grund für gewisse Miseren ist der linke Sozialismus, der sich auf Kosten der Leistungsträger auf unmoralischste Weise immer wieder erzwungen wird.
Richtig. Zur Mittelklasse siehe oben: Mittelschicht. Adenauer hätte Schreibers Plan (**) von 1955, den Drei-Generationen-Vertrag (**), politisch umsetzen müssen statt zwei Jahre später den Zwei-Generationen-Vertrag aus Gründen der anstehenden Bundestagswahlen mit der Begründung Kinder haben die Leute sowieso durchzuboxen.
Ja, aber die Kinderlosen genießen derzeit noch den Vorteil, den wiederum der Staat verschuldet hat.Wir stecken in einer demographisch-ökonomischen Falle, die man auch das demographisch-ökonomische Paradoxon nennt. Je mehr Kinder Menschen sich leisten können, desto weniger haben sie - und umgekehrt: Je weniger Kinder Menschen sich leisten können, desto mehr haben sie (dies allerdings nur dann, wenn die Leistungsträger dies bezahlen, wie es bei uns der Fall ist). Die Produktivsten sind am unreproduktivsten, während die Reproduktivsten am unproduktivsten sind. Dies führt zu einer Rationalitätenfalle, die noch folgenreicher ist, als es die der Tragik der Allmende ohnehin schon ist, weil die Kollektivrationalität und die Individualrationalität im Konflikt miteinander sind. Hierbei mischt jeweils auch der Staat mit, indem er - die Regeln der Generationengerechtigkeit (**) verletzend - auf sozialistische und also letztlich korrupte Weise die eine Seite unterstützt und die andere auf ungerechte Weise zur Kasse bittet. Den Preis zahlen nämlich wiederum die Leistungsträger, sprich: die Mittelschicht.
Merschs Familienmanager-Konzept ist dennoch realistisch, wenn man davon ausgeht, daß unsere westliche Gesellschaft ihren Individualismus, ihren Feminismus und Genderismus, ihren Sozialismus und Soziologismus, ihren Globalismus und Universalismus nicht aufgeben will. Die abendländische Kultur ist eben dekadent.
Niemand hat uns Deutsche nach dem Euro gefragt, ja noch nicht einmal befragt, geschweige denn über ihn abstimmen lassen. Eine überwältigende Mehrheit hätte gegen den Euro gestimmt - wie zuvor schon gegen andere katastrophale Phänomene, über die abzustimmen dem Volk verboten wurde. Hier könnte ich jetzt auf die vielen Beispiele näher eingehen, aber ... das lasse ich lieber ....Freundliche Grüße |
898) Arminius, 12.07.2016, 01:10, 01:19, 01:32, 02:13, 03:04, 03:25, 03:54, 03:57, 04:03, 14:58, 15:06, 15:25, 15:39, 16:06, 16:38, 16:49, 18:12, 18:22, 18:53, 19:05, 21:30, 23:42 (4809-4830)
Hahaha wrote:
You do not have to apologize, my friend, Everything is fine. When I used the preposition he, I did not mean you. I only meant you, when I used the preposition you. I was talking to you by using the correct prepositons.Hahaha wrote:
Yes. That is right.Hahaha wrote:
I was merely talking about the necessity of the differentiation between the human nature and the human culture (including civilization) and between evolution and history.Hahaha wrote:
For example: decadence, the last men.You merely have to look around you and think about it a bit. And you will come to the right conclusion that there is a lot of decadence around you and probably also inside of you and that the people are almost willing to be the last men.I find that this can be diagnosed.I also refer to the opening post of this thread (**|**) and to what Ernst Nolte said in his book Historische Existenz (Historical Existence) about the historical existentials (**|**), because they must have vanished, if history has come to its end.Hahaha wrote:
3 excerpts as examples:1) Arminius wrote:
2) Arminius wrote:
3) Arminius wrote:
Hahaha wrote:
Culture is the successful or/and unsuccessful implementation of the trial to escape from nature.Hahaha wrote:
Learning by experiencing a catastrophe is one of the most effective kinds of learning, because this means an effect where human nature and human culture are again very close to each other at this moment of experiencing a catastrophe.
I can guarantee you, that, genetically resp. biologically, the birth of the I is the fertilization.
The reason for your dasein is the misery of other people. You live from the misery of other people. The misery of other people is the only thing that can and has to make you powerful. Shame on you. Have you ever worked in the sense of a real achievement?Factually you have no single argument but a lot of prejudgments. Most of what you are telling is nonsense. As I said: You do not know what you are talking about.
But that (**) is not what pantheism means. Pantheism means, for example, that nature could be or is God resp. that God could be or is nature. Either God or nature is reserved.
Copied part of a post in another thread.
One Liner wrote:
It does. Note that I said: genetically resp. biologically (**|**).
Martin Armstrong wrote:
Copied post in another thread.
Copied post in another thread.
There is not such a struggle of hegemony and not such a hard wired consciousness (**).By the way only one example of many others: What do you think about the so-called Vietnam War (the correct name is US War again)? Did the US start this war in your opinion?
Like I said: genetically resp. biologically (**|**|**|**). Yes.
I was not talking about my belief but about the definition of pantheism (**|**). So I was referring to, for example, Baruch Spinoza (cp. Deus sive natura) and other philosophers, for example some of the German Idealists and Romantics.
Your genetic code and program is your genetic code and program and only your genetic code and program.
Ierrellus wrote:
No. I am saying the genetic code is your genetic code, and you are saying your genetic code is the code of your parents, and that is false, because your parents have two different genetic codes, and your genetic code is even then your genetic code (namely because of the recombination), if your parents were twins. Genetically (biologically) there is indeed individuality. When the fertilization has happened, then the recombination takes place, and the result is never the same result that your parents got at their fertilizations. Your genetic code is indeed inidividual. Each genetic code is an indivdual one. That is what I am saying, and it is true.When you say to an geneticist (biologist) that your genetic code is not yours but that of your parents, then they will laugh at you. A recombined genetic code has it roots in two other genetic codes, that is right, but that does not mean that it is the same genetic code. It is a different one.You are confusing genetics/biology with sociology/psychology.Evolution is based on variation (mutation included), reproduction, and reproduction interest (formerly known as selection). No genetic code is the gentic code of the parents, othrwise there would be no eveolution.
The French started the so-called Indochina War (the correct name is French War again), but the other war, the war of the US in Vietnam was a different one, because it was a war of the US interest and not of the French interest who had already lost this war (they lost almost all wars). The US were the aggressor and started their war.It is easy to find a scapegoat. But when you look at, for example, the First World War, then you will not find one causer but merely many causers on both sides. Those who are blamed by victor's justice are often innocent. But in the case of the US wars the US were the aggressor, faked, and started their wars. So they are to blame, they are not innocent, but they were not occupied, so that nobody could tell them by victor's justice that they and only they are to blame.For the US it is time to become self-critical finally.
And I remind you of somethingwe already talked about:The Holy Roman Empire of German Nation existed for more than 1000 years.Arminius wrote:
Jerkey wrote:
Almost all of them were German countries.Jerkey wrote:
Vienna was the capital when the Habsburgs ruled the Reich. There were many capitals. And in the beginning of this Reich the capitals even changed, because the Kaiser travelled through his country (so the Saxon, the Frankish-Salian, and the Staufian Kaiser, for example).Jerkey wrote:
No. It was more than that. It was in the interest of the US and their money givers.Jerkey wrote:
Again: It was more than filling a vacuum. This war was an US war, because
it was in the interest of the US and their money givers.
|
4826 |
So my parents did not pass on any genes to me and I began as a blank slate? **
4827 |
Homosapiens are animals just more delusional, inventive, and innovative kind of animal.
How human beings treat each other, other animals, and the natural environment only shows an inherent viciousness of human nature which of course Thomas Hobbes elaborated quite well. His solution or ideal containment of human nature not so much by comparison...
When I think of human nature I think of words like viciousness, savagery, inequality, hyper -competitive, selfishness, egotistical, malicious, duplicitous, hypocritical, vanity, narcissism, myopic, insatiable-desire, power-driven, dangerous, dominating, and arrogance. I do not sugar coat human nature as a bunch of naive idealists and simpletons make the habit of doing the world over. **
4828 |
4829 |
4830 |
899) Arminius, 13.07.2016, 01:01, 01:13, 01:27, 02:30, 14:10, 14:49, 17:02, 17:09, 17:15, 18:05, 20:10, 20:27, 21:35, 22:23, 22:51, 22:59, 23:10, 23:31 (4831-4848)
|
4832 |
4833 |
4834 |
4835 |
The barefaced hypocrisy of the conservative media campaigns, comparing the »stronger together« line of the Scottish referendum with the »fight for sovereignty!« exhortations of Brexit, was astonishing. And given that a significant argument of Scotland staying was that a future in the EU was uncertain if they devolved, they have every right to hold a second referendum. Northern Ireland is a very much more complex kettle of fish; I think in the event there ever is a real Brexit, one of the most pressing issues for the UK (or England/Wales) will be to sort out the Next Ireland Question. **
4836 |
4837 |
4838 |
4839 |
4840 |
I define a religion a little differently. A religion, to be not merely a philosophy, must sustain dogma - assertions to believe without evidence or question. Science has become that in the West at least even though originally it was a more simple philosophy.
Originally, Science got its footing and definition through independent empirical demonstration. The fact that it was independent allowed for it to not be a dogma because anyone with sufficient skills could question any part of it and discover for themselves. Of course, very many question were not answered. And today many questions are not answered, but not because they can't be, but rather because they are not allowed to be answered.
Today, the level of skill requirement is surpassed by the requirement of equipment, supplies, and money. Due to the such requirements, what is accomplished as science is now dictated, not discovered. Fortunately there is still the issue of Logic restricting what can be dictated else there would be absolutely nothing to restrain science from declaring absolute godhood in dictating anything they chose for it to dictate.
Even in this day of the greatest deceit, Logic still restrains the passions of Godwannabes. **
4841 |
Apparently I have misunderstood you .... **
I'm a carbon copy of my mother. **
Some of this is due to environment, which does not rule out the possibility of inherited patterns of behavior. I inherited her depression as well as her ability to create poetry and art. Environment alone does not explain our similarity. **
4842 |
Martin Luther was a very intelligent person. (By the way: I am not Protestant but Catholic.) Now the average global intelligence is shrinking. Thus: such an intelligent reformation or even another reformation will probably not take place in the near future or in the future at all. Individualism has to do (although not only) with intelligence, intellectualism in the right sense. This means that we are facing an authoritarian social form of anti-individualism, anti-intelligence, and anti-intellectualism. Unfortunately. They will preach the »we« more than the »I«. The »we« is important, yes, but the »I« is important as well. ** **
4843 |
4844 |
4845 |
4846 |
4847 |
4848 |
900) Arminius, 14.07.2016, 01:51, 02:10, 02:25, 02:45, 03:20, 13:49, 14:17, 14:30, 17:33, 19:47, 19:52, 21:19, 21:47, 21:54, 22:02, 22:37, 23:19, 23:22, 23:30 (4849-4867)
Why do you (**) want to have your world order? What is your justification or rationale?
Try to reason / justify your statement (**).
Pandora wrote:
Probably. However. It leads to a relatively strong uniformity.
The following map shows pipelines in Europe, including cross-border, international pipelines which originate or end in European countries. You can click the map to see an enlarged version. On the map and table, pipeline label codes are colored green for oil, red for gas and blue for products, such as gasoline and ethylene. The diameter, length and capacity of the pipelines, if known, are shown on the tables. |
4853 |
4854 |
4855 |
I'm aware that Martin Luther challenged the we of church dogma in favor of the I of individual salvation. All I'm saying is that the we and the I are equally important. **
The »we« is important, yes, but the »I« is important as well. ** **
4856 |
However, in our generation, I'd say the I takes precedence over the we. **
4857 |
4858 |
Some rich people want to kill us all and replace us with machines, but that's not good, even for them, because they'd atrophy, biologically and culturally.
Machines doing all the work, and allowing us either to be really hedonistic and materialistic, or really lazy, is a curse, not a blessing.
You can have too much of a good thing, everything in moderation, including technology.
4859 |
I'm a member of the working class, so I'm not going to advocate the destruction of the working and middle classes. **
Furthermore, you can't kill the working and middle classes, even if you wanted too, there's too many of us, you can reduce our numbers with soft kill, however, which is what they may be doing.
The rich are no better than us, perhaps a little more intelligent, but also more decadent.
Some rich people want to kill us all and replace us with machines, but that's not good, even for them, because they'd atrophy, biologically and culturally.
Machines doing all the work, and allowing us either to be really hedonistic and materialistic, or really lazy, is a curse, not a blessing.
You can have too much of a good thing, everything in moderation, including technology. **
4860 |
The cluster (gathering) of the noise is the particle. A crowd is not people, but rather a gathering of people. A human body is not chemicals, but rather a gathering of chemicals (in a particular order). **
4861 |
4862 |
Furthermore, you can't kill the working and middle classes, even if you wanted too, there's too many of us, you can reduce our numbers with soft kill, however, which is what they may be doing. **
4863 |
Hahaha wrote:
»It's quite elementary everyone, the rich and wealthy will be allowed to keep their twenty acre Mcmansions while the unemployed or poor proles will be herded up like animals in deeply urbanized buildings that resemble a Japanese capsule hotel. Isn't progress grand?
« **
Those rooms are far too spacious. **
4864 |
Arminius wrote:
»But we should - nevertheless - not overestimate the effects of the Law of Jante. I have visited Scandinavia several times. The Scandinavians are effected by something that could be called Law of Jante, yes, but its effects should not be overestimated, although they minister to a relatively strong uniformity or/and to something like being terrified of losing control, not knowing what to do, dealing with difference, having to be critical with words ... and so on.
I have experienced something similar in Germany as well. I'll give an example to illustrate this point. It was an early Sunday morning and I was walking around a small town. Everything was still closed and the streets were empty and quiet. I was about to cross a small street and I stopped at the light. A young man with a baby stroller came up behind me. The red light was taking forever and because there were no cars around, I crossed the street. The man stayed behind but apparently got upset and started yelling »Nein! Nein!« after me. So I take it as type of peer pressure or psychology of social conformism. This kind of thinking lacks discernment outside of prescribed rules (thinking in the box mentality). **
Arminius wrote:
»Probably. However. It leads to a relatively strong uniformity.«
Okay, and what result do you get with that psychology? **
What is the quality of that which you preserve? **
Is the goal to preserve a herd of beautiful fluffy white sheep? **
4865 |
4866 |
4867 |
==>
|