1041) Arminius, 11.09.2017, 20:06, 20:15, 20:28, 22:22, 22:33; Alf, 11.09.2017, 23:17, 23:22 (6310-6316)

Alf wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Now, look at the typical architecture of the current phase:

« ** **

Form follows fantasy.

More.“ ** **

The deconstructivists deduced the slogan „form follows fantasy“ from Louis Sullivan’s slogan „form follows function“.

A deconstruktivist architect is not somebody who dismantles buildings, but somebody who localizes inherent „problems“ to the buildings. The deconstruktivist architect treats the pure forms of the architectural tradition like a „psychiatrist“ his „patients“  –  he ascertains the „symptoms of a suppressed impurity“, as Philip Johnson und Mark Wigley wrote in 1988 (cf. „Deconstructivist Architecture“, p. 11). It is just the same old megalomaniac architecture.

Pilgrim Tom wrote:

„Arminius ... cool graphic ... and interesting data point.

The Qin Dynasty illustrates once again that »conquest« is the easy step ... finding a »glue« to hold it all together post conquest is the hard part. Empirical evidence frequently confirms that the shelf life of »conquest« is short ... the Qin dynasty lasted a mere 15 years.

OTH the Han Dynasty which followed the Qin lasted 400+ years. Seems state adoption of Confucian thought ... which was not new ... was a decent »glue«.

The kernel of the message of Christ is also a decent »glue« ... love. Unfortunately, neither state or church embraced it ... both have consistently been mostly militaristic and greedy ... particularly near the top of the hierarchies.

Compelling arguments can be made that virtual Global Conquest was achieved twice in the past 72 years ... and both were squandered ... ergo ... they failed to find a »glue« to hold it all together.“ **

Economic interests, especially monetary interests have become dominant. So politics is dominated by monetary interests. Actually, we do not have national politics or European politics, we only have globalistic politics, and this politics is monetary politics, because it is determined by monetary interests.

Why do we - for example - have such a global immigration into Western countries?

1)	The globalists are interested in a great crisis with a great war, because they gain from it very much.	Result: They become more powerful.
2)	The large companies are interested in cheap workers.	Result: They become more powerful.
3)	The immigrants are interested in using their children as demographic weapons for the conquest of all Western countries and in becoming as wealthy as the Westerners.	Result: They become more powerful.
4)	The politicians of the Western countries are interested in continuance in their offices; so they have to support the other three main interests (see: 1), 2), 3)).	Result: They remain as powerful as they are.

The first two (see: 1), 2)) are super organisms.
The last two (see: 3), 4)) are organisms and „organs like puppets on a string“ of the first two (see: 1), 2)).

Alf wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Maybe we will get the European unification after a civil war as it has taken place in the Ancient Roman times. So we will get ›Marius‹, a ›Sulla‹, a ›Ceasar‹ and at last an ›Augustus‹.

›The Crisis of the Roman Republic - an extended period of political instability and social unrest, from about 133 BC to 30 BC.
Social War (91–88 BC), between Rome and many of its Italian allies - Roman victory.
Sulla's first civil war (88–87 BC), between Lucius Cornelius Sulla's supporters and Gaius Marius' forces - Sullan victory.
Sertorian War (83–72 BC ), between Rome and the provinces of Hispania under the leadership of Quintus Sertorius, a supporter of Gaius Marius - Sullan victory.
Sulla's second civil war (82–81 BC), between Sulla and Marius' supporters - Sullan victory.
Lepidus' rebellion (77 BC), when Lepidus rebelled against the Sullan regime.
Catiline Conspiracy (63–62 BC), between the Senate and the dissatisfied followers of Catiline - Senatorial victory.
Caesar's Civil War (49–45 BC), between Julius Caesar and the Optimates initially led by Pompey - Caesarean victory.
Post-Caesarian civil war (44–43 BC), between the Senate's army (led first by Cicero and then by Octavius) and the army of Antony, Lepidus, and their colleagues - Truce results in union of forces.
Liberators' civil war (44–42 BC), between the Second Triumvirate and the Liberators (Brutus and Cassius, Caesar's assassins) - Triumvirate victory.
Sicilian revolt (44–36 BC), between the Second Triumvirate (particularly Octavius and Agrippa) and Sextus Pompey, the son of Pompey - Triumvirate victory.
Perusine War (41–40 BC), between the forces of Octavius against Lucius Antonius and Fulvia (the younger brother and wife of Mark Antony) - Octavius victory.
Final War of the Roman Republic (32–31 BC), between Octavius and his friend and general Agrippa against Mark Antony and Cleopatra - Octavius victory.‹ **

Blood, sweat and tears.« ** **

Our Crisis as an extended period of political instability and social unrest has already begun.“ ** **

Actually, they are, yes. But are Donald Trump and Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus really comparable?

Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus
Donald John Trump

Copied post in another thread.

Copied post in another thread.

Arminius wrote:

„Alf wrote:

»Form follows fantasy.

More.« ** **

The deconstructivists deduced the slogan „form follows fantasy“ from Louis Sullivan’s slogan „form follows function“.

A deconstructivist architect is not somebody who dismantles buildings, but somebody who localizes inherent »problems« to the buildings. The deconstructivist architect treats the pure forms of the architectural tradition like a »psychiatrist« his »patients«  –  he ascertains the »symptoms of a suppressed impurity«, as Philip Johnson und Mark Wigley wrote in 1988 (cf. »Deconstructivist Architecture«, p. 11). It is just the same old megalomaniac architecture.“ ** **

Do you think that we are living in a very especially megalomaniac period?

„Arminius wrote:

„Alf wrote:

»Our Crisis as an extended period of political instability and social unrest has already begun.« ** **

Actually, they are, yes. But are Donald Trump and Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus really comparable?

Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus
Donald John Trump

“ ** **

It’s the betray that makes them comparable.

Seemingly, the new nickname for Donald Trump is „Benedict Arnold“ (**).

1042) Arminius, 12.09.2017, 01:11, 02:33; Alf, 12.09.2017, 04:19; Arminius, 12.09.2017, 14:50; Alf, 12.09.2017, 15:54, 16:26, 20:40, 21:12, 21:34, 21:50, 22:00; Arminius, 12.09.2017, 22:08, 22:11; Alf, 12.09.2017, 22:20, 22:40; Kathrina, 12.09.2017, 22:51, 23:06, 23:25; Arminius, 12.09.2017, 23:42, 23:54, 23:59 (6317-6337)

Alf wrote:

„Do you think that we are living in a very especially megalomaniac period?“ ** **

Megalomania is typical for the human species, although this merely means that some humans are megalomaniac and some not. Now we are living in a very especially megalomaniac period, yes, and I think that this phase will show us even more megalomaniac humans in the future.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Surreptitious 57 wrote:

»Can you show me where I am amazingly wrong for simply asserting it is not good enough. Evidence must be physical and real and not just an abstract concept which is all logic is.« **

Realize that computers know only logic, no empirical anything. Every time a computer is used by science, logic is being used. Every time mathematics is used, logic is used. For example:

One proposes that if random noise is added to an equal amount of random noise, the result will be merely the same degree of noise as the original. In order to test the hypothesis, a computer is used to create two arrays of random numbers. The arrays are then thoroughly examined for statistic variations and pattern. Then the arrays are added. The result is also examined. The computer repeats the process 10,000 times. If the results show that the degree of randomness did not vary between the original arrays and the resultant arrays, it can be concluded that the hypothesis was right.

That is an entirely, 100% logic process. Yet is yields evidence concerning physical reality.

Every time anyone measures anything and compares it with anything, it is only logic that reveals the »evidence«. Data without logic is entirely meaningless. And at times, pure logic, with no physical demonstration, is sufficient evidence.

The truth is that without logic, there is no »evidence« of any kind at all.

Logic is merely the consistency of thought and language.“ **

Yup. Yep.

Faust wrote:

„Alf wrote:

»There is no contradiction between being a poor and being a well educated white. Either you (a) are too dumb to know the facts (and correct premises), or you (b) use bogus arguments - rhetorically or not rhetorically (see: a).« ** **

I am not claiming there is a contradiction. That's just the wrong word. Absent mental illness, a physical disability or some behavior that both costs money and prevents the earning of money, it's unusual for any american who has an education to be truly poor. This is more especially so for white people than for most minorities. Hippies, who are not very common, don't care about money, so shouldn't be complaining.

So far, you have offered no clues to my question. Although you are not who I asked.

What's it all about, Alfie?“ **

Why are you, for example, „curious to know why any educated person, especially a white one, can be chronically poor“ (**)? Why do you not know this? If you really know that there isn’t a contradiction between being a poor and being a well educated white, why are you asking all this and saying that you „don’t know, which is why“ (**) you are „asking“ (**)?

Pilgrim Tom wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Economic interests, especially monetary interests have become dominant. So politics is dominated by monetary interests. Actually, we do not have national politics or European politics, we only have globalistic politics, and this politics is monetary politics, because it is determined by monetary interests.

Why do we - for example - have such a global immigration into Western countries?

1)	The globalists are interested in a great crisis with a great war, because they gain from it very much.	Result: They become more powerful.
2)	The large companies are interested in cheap workers.	Result: They become more powerful.
3)	The immigrants are interested in using their children as demographic weapons for the conquest of all Western countries and in becoming as wealthy as the Westerners.	Result: They become more powerful.
4)	The politicians of the Western countries are interested in continuance in their offices; so they have to support the other three main interests (see: 1), 2), 3)).	Result: They remain as powerful as they are.

The first two (see: 1), 2)) are super organisms.
The last two (see: 3), 4)) are organisms and ›organs like puppets on a string‹ of the first two (see: 1), 2)).« ** **

Arminius ... interesting meta imagery ... let me add this ...

The »super organisms« draw their power from the »well« of »organisms« ... having always used money as the agency ... the bucket if you will. If the efficacy of money as agency ever diminishes the entire paradigm will collapse.

Ever increasing human consciousness points to ---> Eventually conscience will trump money.

We may be closer to this threshold than we want to believe.  “ **

Yes.

Should there be a global prohibition on interest, Pilgrim Tom?

POVERTY almost everywhere IN THE USA ....

MAKE IT GREAT AGAIN?

The earliest human cave painting is about 40000 years old. And the human internet picture I posted above is about 4 days old.

== 40000 years ==>

From „Cave Painting“ to „Portable Network Graphics“.

Wendy Darling wrote:

„I was told that as a European-American I cannot apply for citizenship in most European countries by blood or soil rights, but citizenships are available to all non-European refugees.“ **

If it is true that European-Amercicans are not allowed to go back to Europe, then I have some questions:
1) Are African-Americans allowed to go back to Africa?
2) Are Aisan-Americans allowed to go back to Asia?
3) Are Mexicans allowed to go back to Mexico?
....

Wendy Darling wrote:

„Faust wrote:

»Wendy, most americans are not poor.« **

What USA are you from? People buy Chinese socks because they cannot afford $10+ for a pair of socks. If you are in Vermont, that is a white, affluent, snobby state...so what the hell do you know in your insulated bubble of BS? I know I'm wasting my time discussing common sense stuff for that is not your forte...like the reality that 50% of the folks earn under $35,000 and once the baby boomers (who make more collecting retirement pensions and social security pay than full-time workers now) die the 50% will jump to 80%. Ask yourself, why the poverty level on our tax forms hasn't risen since the 1990's or possibly even before then? The poverty level on the tax forms is what $25,000 and it's been that way for at least 30 years because Congress can't raise that figure or the government will eliminate a huge portion of their tax revenue. It took 30 years for the minimum wage to double, but the cost of living has risen three times that rate.

My favorite are the people who live off of their credit cards to make ends meet as they fall into poverty. They do not earn enough to cover the rising expenses so they subsidize with the good intentions of paying back those credit cards, but the payback portion never happens.

Your work experiences decades ago don't count Faust 'cuz times have changed or haven't you taken the time to honestly notice?“ **

He hasn't. All this so-called „liberals“ or „leftists“ are living in a fantasy world and denying reality.

Wendy Darling wrote:

„Faust wrote:

»BTW, household income is a much better measure of poverty, for what I hope to be obvious reasons. The median HH income is in the $55,000 range.« **

My parents (bachelor degree holders) earned more than that back in the 1980's, so thirty years ago that was a decent, middle-class hh income. Now it's more like $110,000 needed to remain middle-class, but more than 50% of hh incomes fall way short of that. What's sad is that many poor people believe that they are actually middle-class.“ **

That's really sad. Those who believe that they are actually middle-class are mostly ex middle class. Having been middle class, they know the habit of lying without shame. Beyond an income of „x“, almost everyone is cynical and denies reality, partly or absolutely.

Arminius wrote:

„Economic interests, especially monetary interests have become dominant. So politics is dominated by monetary interests. Actually, we do not have national politics or European politics, we only have globalistic politics, and this politics is monetary politics, because it is determined by monetary interests.

Why do we - for example - have such a global immigration into Western countries?

1)	The globalists are interested in a great crisis with a great war, because they gain from it very much.	Result: They become more powerful.
2)	The large companies are interested in cheap workers.	Result: They become more powerful.
3)	The immigrants are interested in using their children as demographic weapons for the conquest of all Western countries and in becoming as wealthy as the Westerners.	Result: They become more powerful.
4)	The politicians of the Western countries are interested in continuance in their offices; so they have to support the other three main interests (see: 1), 2), 3)).	Result: They remain as powerful as they are.

The first two (see: 1), 2)) are super organisms.
The last two (see: 3), 4)) are organisms and »organs like puppets on a string« of the first two (see: 1), 2)).“ ** **

So the losers of this four groups are the politicians of the western countries (=> 4)).

Surreptitious 75 wrote:

„An infinite is not a number or quantity or place either but also just something unimaginably large.“ **

It can also be unimaginably small (infinitesimal).

Gib wrote:

„What I meant by rationality is overrated is that we seem to think that we have to be rational, that if we aren't that's something to be ashamed of. It's like we live in a culture where rationality rules over us rather than we ruling over our rationality (I wonder if this goes all the way back to the Greeks). I tried to argue in this thread that being irrational can have its advantages, and one should not be afraid to be irrational if it seems effective sometimes.“ **

Please, give an example, Gib.

Alf wrote:

„The earliest human cave painting is about 40000 years old. And the human internet picture I posted above is about 4 days old.

== 40000 years ==>

From »Cave Painting« to »Portable Network Graphics«.

“ ** **

Are you suggesting that this devolopment of fourty thousand years has only been a degeneration?

Yes and no.

I mean there has been a good development, but not always. There has been both progress like sunrise and regress like sunset.

Arminius wrote:

Alf wrote:

„Do you think that we are living in a very especially megalomaniac period?“ ** **

Megalomania is typical for the human species, although this merely means that some humans are megalomaniac and some not. Now we are living in a very especially megalomaniac period, yes, and I think that this phase will show us even more megalomaniac humans in the future.“ ** **

Produced by the globalists?

Wendy Darling wrote:

„Being deeply loved by family is a privilege that I am indebted to.

Wise words.“ **

Irrationality is the absence of rationality.

If you are thinking in a wrong way, you aren’'t necessarily thinking in an irrational way.

So irrationality doesn’t mean wrong thinking. It means „not thinking“ but „bringing some instinctive or emotional drives into thinking“.

Alf wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Economic interests, especially monetary interests have become dominant. So politics is dominated by monetary interests. Actually, we do not have national politics or European politics, we only have globalistic politics, and this politics is monetary politics, because it is determined by monetary interests.

Why do we - for example - have such a global immigration into Western countries?

1)	The globalists are interested in a great crisis with a great war, because they gain from it very much.	Result: They become more powerful.
2)	The large companies are interested in cheap workers.	Result: They become more powerful.
3)	The immigrants are interested in using their children as demographic weapons for the conquest of all Western countries and in becoming as wealthy as the Westerners.	Result: They become more powerful.
4)	The politicians of the Western countries are interested in continuance in their offices; so they have to support the other three main interests (see: 1), 2), 3)).	Result: They remain as powerful as they are.

The first two (see: 1), 2)) are super organisms.
The last two (see: 3), 4)) are organisms and »organs like puppets on a string« of the first two (see: 1), 2)).« ** **

So the losers of this four groups are the politicians of the western countries (=> 4)).“ ** **

And the only thing these „losers“ can do is to obey and to discriminate and fight against the people who originally come from western countries and have elected this „losers“.

Alf wrote:

„Arminius wrote

»Alf wrote:

›The earliest human cave painting is about 40000 years old. And the human internet picture I posted above is about 4 days old.

== 40000 years ==>

From ›Cave Painting‹ to ›Portable Network Graphics‹.

‹ ** **

Are you suggesting that this devolopment of fourty thousand years has only been a degeneration?« ** **

Yes and no.

I mean there has been a good development, but not always. There has been both progress like sunrise and regress like sunset.“ ** **

You are speaking of a cycle.

Alf wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Megalomania is typical for the human species, although this merely means that some humans are megalomaniac and some not. Now we are living in a very especially megalomaniac period, yes, and I think that this phase will show us even more megalomaniac humans in the future.« ** **

Produced by the globalists?“ ** **

Yes, by them and their functionaries.

Alf wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Economic interests, especially monetary interests have become dominant. So politics is dominated by monetary interests. Actually, we do not have national politics or European politics, we only have globalistic politics, and this politics is monetary politics, because it is determined by monetary interests.

Why do we - for example - have such a global immigration into Western countries?

1)	The globalists are interested in a great crisis with a great war, because they gain from it very much.	Result: They become more powerful.
2)	The large companies are interested in cheap workers.	Result: They become more powerful.
3)	The immigrants are interested in using their children as demographic weapons for the conquest of all Western countries and in becoming as wealthy as the Westerners.	Result: They become more powerful.
4)	The politicians of the Western countries are interested in continuance in their offices; so they have to support the other three main interests (see: 1), 2), 3)).	Result: They remain as powerful as they are.

The first two (see: 1), 2)) are super organisms.
The last two (see: 3), 4)) are organisms and »organs like puppets on a string« of the first two (see: 1), 2)).« ** **

So the losers of this four groups are the politicians of the western countries (=> 4)).“ ** **

Yes.

Kathrina wrote:

„And the only thing these »losers« can do is to obey and to discriminate and fight against the people who originally come from western countries and have elected this »losers«.“ ** **

They and the people who elected them obey their globalists. So almost all of the western people obey their globalists - except those who offer resistance, of course.

1043) Arminius, 13.09.2017, 01:09, 02:50, 03:07; Alf, 13.09.2017, 16:48; Arminius, 13.09.2017, 16:53; Alf, 13.09.2017, 17:17, 17:39, 17:48; Arminius, 13.09.2017, 19:30, 19:53, 22:51, 23:17; Alf, 13.09.2017, 23:59 (6338-6350)

Alf wrote:

„POVERTY almost everywhere IN THE USA ....

MAKE IT GREAT AGAIN?“ ** **

1% of all US people has 40% of all the nation’s wealth (**). And the poorest 80% of all US people have merely 7% of all the nation’s wealth (**).

Watch the video (**) Serendipper posted (especially 4:42–4:54):

Arminius wrote:

„Serendipper wrote:

»....

Wealth Inequality in the USA.

Thought experiment: Is there anything that one human can do 400X better than another human? Can someone be 400X smarter? Even if the dumbest guy had an iq of 1, a 400 iq is off the chart. Can someone lift 400X more weight? 1000lb is the record bench press, so the weakest person would have to only bench 2.5lbs for a 400X differential. What could possibly justify someone making 400X more money than the AVERAGE person? Being 400X more sleazy I reckon.« **

According to your video (**) the richest 20% of the US have more than 80% of all the US wealth (**), the richest 1% of the US have 40% all the US wealth (**), the poorest 80% of the US have more merely 7% of all the US wealth (**).

Maybe I will have to change my thoughts about the wealth inequality in the USA.

Arminius wrote:

»Do you know the term ›Brazilianization of the World‹ (›Brasilianisierung der Welt‹ - Ulrich Beck; cp. also Franz Josef Radermacher)?

This means that all nations of the world tend to have the same distribution of wealth that Brazil has.

Here are some real examples from 2006:

The richest Finnish 20% have 35% of the Finnish income (GNP).
The poorest Finnish 80% have 65% of the Finnish income (GNP).
The richest German 20% have 40% of the German income (GNP).
The poorest German 80% have 60% of the German income (GNP).
The richest US 20% have 47% of the US income (GNP).
The poorest US 80% have 53% of the US income (GNP).
The richest Brazilian 20% have 65% of the Brazilian income (GNP).
The poorest Brazilian 80% have 35% of the Brazilian income (GNP).

Maybe that the richest Brazilian 20% have already 80% of the Brazilian income (GNP). So at last we will possibly see the following scenario in the world: 20% of all humans have 80% of the global income. So 80% of all humans have merely 20% of the global income. (Cp. Pareto distribution.)« ** **

“ ** **

Gib wrote:

„Playing with your kids.“ **

You are not rational when you are playing with your kids?

„Surreptitious 75 wrote:

„The world was way more megalomaniac in the past than it is now and more so the further back in history that one goes. It might seem worse now simply because we are living through it but it is nothing at all compared to what came before.“ **

Well, it depends on the values that are selected - or not selcted, if they are destroyed.

We are talking about a cycle. Sometimes there is much megalomania and sometimes not.

But wait and see. Like I said: „this phase will show us even more megalomaniac humans in the future“ (**|**). Think of the many problems we already have currently: 7.45 billion humans, a polluted planet, injustice almost everywhere, a lot of wars and of any kind, terrorism ... and so on and so forth. And now there are plenty of so-called „experts“ who want to live according to their megalomania (as if they were gods) and want to tell you how you should live.

Faust wrote:

„Alf? What about you?“ **

I am saying that you are probably mentally ill. In any case, you are not too strong on logic, which also means that you are too stupid for knowing the facts and for concluding from this facts.

Faust wrote:

„The fact is that almost all immigrant groups assimilate. In a generation or maybe two at the most.“ **

Q.E.D..

Faust wrote:

„The fact is that almost all immigrant groups assimilate. In a generation or maybe two at the most.“ **

The fact is exactly the other way around.

Immigrant groups don’t assimilate, and it is well known that just the second or (more likely) the third generation doesn’t assimilate at all and does just the opposite.

You are always ignoring reality. Like I said:

Alf wrote:

„In any case, you are not too strong on logic, which also means that you are too stupid for knowing the facts and for concluding from this facts.“ ** **

Faust, you are ignoring the fact of white poverty, you are ignoring the fact of failed immigration, you are ignoring any conclusion that follows from this facts.

You are too dumb.

Faust wrote:

„Let's get real, here.“ **

Said by the one who denies reality.

Is Yde Opn wrote:

„The fact is that the children of immigrants and the following generation is less assimilated than their parents.
There are probably several factors at work here, for one, the genetic regression to the mean - While the first generation of immigrants (at that time and place) consisted of those immigrants who were among their people the most willing and open to adapt to an alien culture for often economic reasons, their children, are inevitably a regression to the ethnic group's genetic mean which consists on average of less open minded individuals.
A second reason for this is likely that with greater numbers of a certain ethnic or racial group in the country, there is less need to integrate and there is a possibility to create a preferred parallel culture and society within the host country - the opportunity to do so is being used.“ **

And at last all are poor and dump, equally poor and equally dumb. That’s the goal of egalitarianism what these liberals or leftists are working for, and many of them don’t even know this fact.

Gib wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Please, give an example, Gib.« ** **

Playing with your kids.“ **

You are playing with Arminius’ kids?

Arminius wrote:

„Gib wrote:

»Playing with your kids.« **

You are not rational when you are playing with your kids?“ ** **

He is playing without using his brain - with your kids, Arminius.

Is Yde Opn wrote:

„It’s true, social dysfunction is on the rise and this rise in dysfunction is due to changes in society which in turn is facilitated also through immigration.
It’s not like there have been studies on the destructive effects of diversity on social well being of those exposed to it.
The solution for the death cult is to import fresh blood for “Moloch”.

The modern liberal cannot meaningfully address the decay in White communities beyond snark and appeals to self-responsibility which in their mind means not standing up for yourself or organising as a group against this decay. Perhaps they expect a more positive message, not to be anti-immigrants but to be pro-White, but for some reason I think they would object to this with accusations of muh racism and tactical nihilism in the form of questioning what is White, what is European, what is American.
He cannot address it because right now it goes against his political platform which is anti-White but let’s not exclude the Republican establishment which is on board with it as well.

Importing these new people is not gonna fix social dysfunction but that’s not the objective here anyway.
The objective is to disempower Europeans and immigrants are a tool for achieving this end.“ **

Yes.

Arminius wrote:

„Otto West wrote:

»I am looking forward to the collapse of the American empire at this point, it is the only thing to be hopeful for. There is no reforming or salvaging this decadent corrupt government.« **

The ticking time bomb is the demographic development - which is negative on the White side and positive on the Non-White side.

And we know that all the immigration to Europe is kicked off and organized by the USA as the main state vassal of the globalists and by certain non-governmental organizations as the main non-state vassals of the globalists.

The enemy is Germany (again; two world wars are obviously not enough; cf.: »Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam« - Cato the Elder), regardless whether it is a member of the same military alliance or not. They try to weaken Germany and to drive a wedge between Germany and the other EU members. The EU itself is such a wedge. The Euro too. They want the German wealth, the German money, the Germoney. This war is a huge economical war and the globalists and their US politicians do not care about the fact that Germany is a member of the NATO. Quite the contrary: Germany and Russia as a possible alliance has always been has always been being the globalists’ and their US politicians’ fear, at least according to George Friedman ([**] Note the title: »Stratfor: The US Main Interest is to Stop Alliance Between Russia and Germany«. To STOP? To stop WHAT? An »Alliance Between Russia and Germany«? There is not such an »alliance«! There is only the absolutely unfounded »fear« of it!  –  And by the way: It would be very much more understandable if the Germans had the fear of an alliance between USA and Russia! There was such an alliance in both the first and the second world war!  –  Again: Remember what Cato the Elder [234-149] said before the third Punic war [149-146]: »Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam« (»Besides, I am of the opinion that Carthage must be destroyed«). There was no real »reason«, no »alliance«, but only the Romans’ absolutely unfounded »fear« of Carthage!  –  But then [146 B.C.] .... [**|**]).

** **

EVERYTHING GEORGE SOROS DOESN'T WANT YOU TO KNOW

„The rumor is about Antifa (** [»More proof that Antifa is a paid terrorist group, more then they are a protest group. A video tweet posted by Beverley Hills Antifa has been quoted and shows Antifa members demanding payments for their services.«] **).“ **

I have been saying it for a long time: Antifa, even the Russian Antifa, is a paid terrorist group.

And I still wonder how many ILP members are paid trolls.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Imagine that the situation in the USA has become unbearable and someone says to you: „Go back to Europe, since you can do it, because you are of European origin!“

1) Would you agree?
2) Would you go?

For comparison.“ ** **

Alf wrote:

„Faust wrote:

»The fact is that almost all immigrant groups assimilate. In a generation or maybe two at the most.« **

The fact is exactly the other way around.

Immigrant groups don't assimilate, and it is well known that just the second or (more likely) the third generation doesn't assimilate at all and does just the opposite.

You are always ignoring reality. Like I said:

„Alf wrote:

»In any case, you are not too strong on logic, which also means that you are too stupid for knowing the facts and for concluding from this facts.« ** **

Faust, you are ignoring the fact of white poverty, you are ignoring the fact of failed immigration, you are ignoring any conclusion that follows from this facts.

You are just too dumb.

Faust wrote:

»Let's get real, here.« **

Said by the one who denies reality.“ ** **

Alf wrote:

„Is Yde Opn wrote:

»Faust wrote:

›The fact is that almost all immigrant groups assimilate. In a generation or maybe two at the most. But they also bring with them their culture. What do you want? Just a bunch of Englishmen? Great at rock music, horrible cooks.«

Let's get real, here.‹ **

The fact is that the children of immigrants and the following generation is less assimilated than their parents.
There are probably several factors at work here, for one, the genetic regression to the mean - While the first generation of immigrants (at that time and place) consisted of those immigrants who were among their people the most willing and open to adapt to an alien culture for often economic reasons, their children, are inevitably a regression to the ethnic group's genetic mean which consists on average of less open minded individuals.
A second reason for this is likely that with greater numbers of a certain ethnic or racial group in the country, there is less need to integrate and there is a possibility to create a preferred parallel culture and society within the host country - the opportunity to do so is being used.« **

And at last all are poor, equally poor. That's egalitarianism what these liberals or leftists are working for, and many of them don't even know this fact.“ ** **

Yes.

Is Yde Opn wrote:

„They are not gonna make people equal. The conclusion will either be an uprising of those who are being displaced or their replacement.

Gentile lefties do believe that equality is possible and desirable, conservatives believe that making people equal is possible but not desirable.“ **

These „conservatives“ are no real conservatives. There is staging, and there is rhetoric, but there is no real and clear position like being conservative.

Is Yde Opn wrote:

„I think you don't make people equal, to make them equal would require to erase their genetic distinctiveness, in other words to destroy them physically, either slowly over generations or to erase them directly.

I don't know, the POC faction of the Democrats is already aware what fighting White privilege actually is about. I suspect some pampered Whites still haven't put it all together and live in some 1990s diversity consumer commercial fantasy of a world view. Those are the ones who can potentially be reached because they are mostly not shitty people but merely indoctrinated with one sided anti-White talking points.“ **

They need to equalize all people in order to weaken Europeans / Whites. This equalization as an idealstic goal can never be achieved, but it is rhetorically useful. They have almost all non-Whites on their side. You can probably imagine how many these are and will be because of the demographic situation.

Alf wrote:

„Gib wrote:

»Arminius wrote:

›Please, give an example, Gib.‹ ** **

Playing with your kids.« **

You are playing with Arminius’ kids?

Arminius wrote:

»Gib wrote:

›Playing with your kids.‹ **

You are not rational when you are playing with your kids?« ** **

He is playing without using his brain - with your kids, Arminius.  “ ** **

Quick! Take your sister (Kathrina) and come home!

Arminius wrote:

„Alf wrote:

»Arminius wrote

›Alf wrote:

'The earliest human cave painting is about 40000 years old. And the human internet picture I posted above is about 4 days old.

== 40000 years ==>

From ›Cave Painting‹ to ›Portable Network Graphics‹.

' ** **

Are you suggesting that this devolopment of fourty thousand years has only been a degeneration?‹ ** **

Yes and no.

I mean there has been a good development, but not always. There has been both progress like sunrise and regress like sunset.« ** **

You are speaking of a cycle.“ ** **

Yes, if you want.

1044) Alf, 14.09.2017, 00:35, 01:09, 01:41, 01:50; Arminius, 14.09.2017, 16:28, 16:36, 16:36, 17:34, 18:15, 18:24, Alf, 14.09.2017, 18:31; Arminius, 14.09.2017, 18:36, 18:57, 22:40, 23:28, 23:28, 23:36, Alf, 14.09.2017, 23:57 (6351-6368)

Is Yde Opn wrote:

„I don't know, the POC faction of the Democrats is already aware what fighting White privilege actually is about. I suspect some pampered Whites still haven't put it all together and live in some 1990s diversity consumer commercial fantasy of a world view. Those are the ones who can potentially be reached because they are mostly not shitty people but merely indoctrinated with one sided anti-White talking points.“ **

You mean that they can potentially be reached by the Pro-Whites?

Arminius wrote:

„Alf wrote:

»Arminius wrote:

›Megalomania is typical for the human species, although this merely means that some humans are megalomaniac and some not. Now we are living in a very especially megalomaniac period, yes, and I think that this phase will show us even more megalomaniac humans in the future.‹ ** **

Produced by the globalists?« ** **

Yes, by them and their functionaries.“ ** **

So megalomaniac people produce even more megalomaniac people.

But when and how will this story end?

I mean, if you look at the following two pictures again and think about art history:

Alf wrote:

„The earliest human cave painting is about 40000 years old. And the human internet picture I posted above is about 4 days old.

== 40000 years ==>

From »Cave Painting« to »Portable Network Graphics«.

“ ** **

You will probably find very artful times and nearly artless times between them, won’t you?

And now, think of the question of this thread (again):

Alf wrote:

„Where does art come from?“ ** **

Faust wrote:

„Mr. Reasonable wrote:

»I think mainly the midwest. Like Kansas and Missouri.« **

Mr. Reasonable - you mean that in the midwest, immigrants don't assimilate like they do everywhere else? Or that midwestern mexicans don't?“ **

He said: „I think mainly the midwest. Like Kansas and Missouri“!

Alf wrote:

„So megalomaniac people produce even more megalomaniac people.

But when and how will this story end?“ ** **

The globalistic phase will end in this or in the next century, I guess, and before its end there will be a lot of terror attacks, a lot of civil wars, wars with atom bomb explosions and other disasters.

The fact is that philosophy and art are not the same, regardless whether one of them is subordianted or superordinated to the other.

Faust wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Faust wrote:

›Mr. Reasonable wrote:

'I think mainly the midwest. Like Kansas and Missouri.' **

Mr. Reasonable - you mean that in the midwest, immigrants don't assimilate like they do everywhere else? Or that midwestern mexicans don't?‹ **

He said: „I think mainly the midwest. Like Kansas and Missouri“!« ** **

But mainly in the midwest what?“ **

You do not know that Kansas and Missouri are part of the midwest of the USA?

Unbelievable!

Faust wrote:

„I identify as an american.“ **

Even more unbelievable then, because you do not know that Kansas and Missouri are part of the midwest of the USA!

Is Yde Opn wrote:

„Perhaps Faust sees no problem because he doesn’t identify as a White European and culturally he’s also not particularly European or American-European.
He identifies himself as an immigrant or as the partial descendant of a non-European? immigrant.“ **

Yes. But his ancestors were of European origin, as he also said:

Faust wrote:

„In fact, my paternal grandparents were born in Italy and my maternal grandparents were born in the U.S. of English and Manx stock. My mother's side of the family has american roots that go back for centuries, according to an historian uncle of mine who did the research.“ **

But maybe, Italian and English people are no Europopeans anymore.

Is Yde Opn wrote:

„The positions he holds make sense, it’s just that the name he has chosen as a moniker is easily misinterpreted in regards to where his allegiances lie.“ **

Yes.

You (**) are wrong.

Saying that an US citizen has ancestors of European origin is a personal attack?
Europeans founded the USA!

Philosophy and art are not the same. Faust, you are wrong (**).

Gib wrote:

„That's me after gashing my head open on the side of a swimming pool.

What a little Photoshop magic won't do.

“ **

Did you not say that you made this little magic for your kids?
And if you made it for your kids: Did you use rationality when you were making it?

Philosophers are bad artists, artists are bad philosophers. Is that what you (**) mean actually?

Kant and Hegel were good philosophers, if not the best philosophers of all times, whereas Nietzsche and Camus were bad philosophers, especially Camus, but good philosophic artists.

If that is what you mean, then I agree.

Philosophy does not ought to be art.

I have read Kant and Hegel more intensively than you (**), because I have read them in their original language German. Yes, it is sometimes difficult to read them, especially Hegel, but that just does not make them „terrible philosophers“. That is just what a philosopher does not need to be: an artist. And an artist does not need to be a philosopher. That is just what I am saying.

If you want to read art, then read art.

....

You do not know their original language.

....

You are writing nonsense.

Have you not read what I replied?

Arminius wrote:

„Philosophers are bad artists, artists are bad philosophers. Is that what you (**) mean actually?“ ** **

If you prefer art, then be honest and just say it.

By the way:
Have you ever read mathematics books?
Have you ever read logic books?

I was talking about historical facts.

When the United States of America were founded, there were (1) Europeans, (2) Africans as slaves, (3) Indians. Not more. And the Africans and Indians did not found the United States of America.

1045) Alf, 15.09.2017, 01:01, 01:24, 02:04; Arminius, 15.09.2017, 02:31; Alf, 15.09.2017, 02:50; Arminius, 15.09.2017, 02:55; Alf, 15.09.2017, 14:39, 15:30, 15:40, 20:30; Arminius, 15.09.2017, 21:29, 22:52, 23:59 (6369-6381)

Wendy Darling wrote:

„The Africans were in the USA before the Europeans?“ **

No! I said: „When the United States of America were founded, there were (1) Europeans, (2) Africans as slaves, (3) Indians“ (**|**), and the United States of America were founded by the constitution in 1788, but earlier, the first Africans were brought from Africa to the country which later became the United States of America. So the first of this three were the Indians, the second of this three were the Europeans, and the third of this three were the Africans. But all thess three races were already there before 1788.

Wendy Darling wrote:

„Initially, it was roaming Indian tribes and Europeans, no African slaves.

The Indians were nomads spanning large swaths of the US who didn't have permanent settlements to my knowledge.“ **

Yes.

Isn’t it basically the same discussion about a pseudo dualistic problem here on ILP: „Logic versus Ethics“, „Rationality versus Irrationality“, „Kant or Hegel versus Schopenhauer or Nietzsche“, and so on and so forth? To me, these dualisms are pseudo dualisms, not like real dualisms, for instance: „Ideality versus Reality“, „Subjectivity versus Objectivity“.

And never forget how mightful irrationality can be.

Alf wrote:

„Isn’t it basically the same discussion about a pseudo dualistic problem here on ILP: »Logic versus Ethics«, »Rationality versus Irrationality«, »Kant or Hegel versus Schopenhauer or Nietzsche«, and so on and so forth? To me, these dualisms are pseudo dualisms, not like real dualisms, for instance: »Ideality versus Reality«, »Subjectivity versus Objectivity«.“ ** **

And a further example: „Spirit versus Nature“.

But also, don’t forget this:

Alf wrote:

„Isn’t it basically the same discussion about a pseudo dualistic problem here on ILP: »Logic versus Ethics«, »Rationality versus Irrationality«, »Kant or Hegel versus Schopenhauer or Nietzsche«, and so on and so forth? To me, these dualisms are pseudo dualisms, not like real dualisms, for instance: »Ideality versus Reality«, »Subjectivity versus Objectivity«.“ ** **

Wendy Darling wrote:

„In this thread, I'm discussing reality.“ **

That’s a good topic of a thread.

Couldn’t we subsume the both dualisms „Spirit versus Nature“ (**|**) and „Ideality versus Reality“ (**|**) under one dualism?

In the future, the liberal offspring will say (no, there will be no liberal offspring anymore), the offspring will say: „once, evil humans lived on this planet, they had white skin, the sign of evil“.

How I can know this? Just listen to what the current „liberals“ or „leftists“ as the anti-whites are saying. They are the real racists, the real discriminators, the real personal attackers.

Kathrina wrote:

„

- Patrick Hernandez, Born to Be Alive, 1979.

“ ** **

That one isn’t the best.

Johann Sebastian Bach’s music is the best.

For example: ** ** ** **

More: **

Intelligence is correlated with genetics (thus: biology), with climate (thus: geology and geography), with politics and education (thus: culture), with demography, with economy ....

Arminius wrote:

„In the following video (**), Helmuth Nyborg (**) points out the clear relationship between distance from the equator and both brain size and intelligence. At or close to the equator, the average IQ is 69, whereas at a latitude of 54 degrees the average IQ is 98. Nyborg observes that races could logically be classified as »eco-types« (**), since their traits reflect the ecological niches in which they evolved. He also notes that unlike the North/South gradient in IQ there is no East/West gradient, virtually proving that it is the challenges of a cold climate that have forced northern peoples to evolve higher intelligence and a greater capacity for cooperation. He points out that e.g. Arabs have lower-than-expected IQs relative to the latitudes in which they evolved, probably due to the dysgenic effects of frequent cousin marriages.

Two forces could destroy the Western Civilization. One is a social system that taxes the competent to subsidize the proliferation of the incompetent. As Nyborg notes, »the welfare-state debases what created high civilization in the first place - this is the first time in history that the less fit are reproducing more than the more fit« (**). At the same time, lower-IQ non-Europeans are pouring into the continent, bringing with them alien practices and religions. Nyborg concludes with a warning: Unless Europeans are able to reverse these two trends, »the result could be the undoing of the Enlightenment - we may be on the precipice of a new dark era« (**).

Arminius wrote:

»According to Helmuth Nyborg and many others before him (and only few others - I am among them - after him) intelligence is mainly based on genetics and on the landscape, the environment, more exactly said: on the regional climate and some of its consequences. One can say that the northern humans (humans of regions with a moderate and especially a cold climate) are averagely much more intelligent than the southern humans (humans of regions with a warm and especially a hot climate). And indeed, this has already been proven, although some other aspects must be and have been taken in account as well.

Now, if a northern human correctly says ›I am more intelligent than the southern humans‹, then this northern human will immediately be called a ›racist‹ or an ›IQ racist‹. But if a southern human correctly says ›I am more athletic and have a larger penis than the northern humans‹, then that southern human will immediately get agreement and praise from everyone, nobody will call that southern human a ›racist‹ or/and a ›sexist‹.

One can state with certainty: There are huge differences when it comes to intelligence. These differences were already proven in the 19th century. But since about the second half or the third third or at least the fifth fifth of the 20th century it has been forbidden to say anything about these differences, because they are mostly caused by genetics (averagely about 70% or even 80%), biology, climate, thus only little by sociology. So our rulers are not only against intelligence differences, they are also against genetics, against biology, against climatology. Probably they are also against intelligence itself.

Who are the more real racist: those who correctly say that they are more intelligent than others, or those who incorrectly say that those who say that they are more intelligent than others are incorrect or even racists?

If there are intelligence differences (and there are huge intelligence differences for sure!), then there are also people who correctly say that they are more intelligent than others.

Why is it forbidden to be intelligent? And especially: Why is it forbidden to be more intelligent than others? And specifically: Why is it forbidden to say this?

There is a huge interest in forbidding all this.

When liberalism and egalitarianism come together ›fraternally‹ (), they have to keep a peaceful distance between themselves: liberalism is for the few rich people, egalitarianism is for the many poor people; and if this peaceful distance is really kept by both of them, then it works like the current globalism works. What does this mean in the context of what I said above? That peaceful distance can only be kept, if there are artificially made differences (for example: ›racism‹, ›sexism‹ versus ›politically correctness‹) in order to hide the real differences (such as intelligence differences or the difference between eugenics and dysgenics), because this is one of the means which is used in order to control all humans on this planet - according to the established method and ruling principle: divide et impera.« ** **

»Europe and the USA will either stand together or be hanged separately« - Samuel Huntington (cp. in the video **).

Climate zones:

“ ** **

Flynn himself does not believe that the people become more intelligent in general. Cf. James Flynn / William Dickens, „Heritability Estimates Versus Large Environmental Effects“, 2001.

Alf wrote:

„Couldn’t we subsume the both dualisms »Spirit versus Nature« (**|**) and »Ideality versus Reality« (**|**) under one dualism?“ ** **

I would not.

And if I did, I would subsume both under the dualism „Subjectivity versus Objectivity“.

1046) Arminius, 16.09.2017, 01:01, 01:56; Kathrina, 16.09.2017, 02:58, 03:12, 03:37, 03:50, 04:02, 04:20, 04:47, 19:33, 20:06; Arminius, 16.09.2017, 20:16; Kathrina, 16.09.2017, 02:58; Alf, 16.09.2017, 22:16; Kathrina, 16.09.2017, 22:55, 23:02, 23:21; (6382-6399)

Gib wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Gib wrote

›That's me after gashing my head open on the side of a swimming pool.

What a little Photoshop magic won't do.

‹ **

Did you not say that you made this little magic for your kids?
And if you made it for your kids: Did you use rationality when you were making it?

No, I don't believe I ever said I made that for my kids.

I might have used a *bit* of rationality: it would be funny to photoshop this, therefore photoshop this.“ **

Okay.

Humans program themselves, but need to be programmed as well by others. Education is not possible without using rationality. Children use rationality as well and start educating others already very early.

So, what I have written in this thread so far has to do with the impossibility to be absolutely irrational, except cases of certain kinds of illness.

Pilgrim Tom wrote:

„The current conditions of the planet ... the ECO system ... human relationships ... including human relationships with nature ... are sub-optimal.“ **

Yes.

Pilgrim Tom wrote:

„This circumstance is largely the consequence of human constructs ... in the broadest sense.

IMHO it's unrealistic to expect changes to human constructs will improve the situation ... a more likely outcome is things will get worse.

My SWAG on this issue is non-human event(s) will trigger the necessary changes ... http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.ph ... 9#p2679449

For those readers unfamiliar with the acronym SWAG ... Scientific Wild Ass Guess.  “ **

What do you mean by „SWAG“ exactly?

Alf wrote:

„Many ILP members post no or a few posts, and a few ILP members post many posts.

Look:

5009 ILP members (69.10%) have posted no or less than 10 posts. Not more than 1435 ILP members (19.80%) have posted 10-99 posts. But merely 805 ILP members (11.10%) have posted 100 or more than 100 posts.

That's interesting, isn’t it?

I’d like to know what you think about it.“ ** **

Most of those who have posted a few posts use these few posts as „sock puppets“.

Alf wrote:

„Kathrina wrote:

»

- Patrick Hernandez, Born to Be Alive, 1979.

« ** **

That one isn’t the best.“ ** **

Maybe. The topic is: IS MUSIC THE BEST? (**|**).

Music in general.

The Guardian wrote:

„Donald Trump has said »all options are on the table« after North Korea launched a missile designed to carry a nuclear payload over Japan, and vowed the US and Tokyo were committed to increasing pressure on Pyongyang.“ **

Where do you (**) live?

Wendy Darling wrote.

„Now that I have Joker to cook for I am becoming a grocery shopoholic. ....“ **

Or you are just becoming a helper of the economy.

James S. Saint was talking about logic in the sense of the software, not about physics in the sense of the hardware.

People without accountability and without conscience have become more and more. So you (**) should be afraid of those people.

Gib wrote:

„Kathrina wrote:

»So irrationality doesn’t mean wrong thinking. It means ›not thinking‹ but ›bringing some instinctive or emotional drives into thinking‹.« ** **

I'd say it can (sometimes) be effective.“ **

Okay. I can live with that.

The United States of America want the case of „Pearl Harbor“ again.

Carleas wrote:

„Does the market select for stupidity?“ **

Sometimes it doesn’t, sometimes it does.

Also, music is therapy.

I’m not poor, I’m not very rich.

Many former middle class people have become lower class people. The middle class has decreased, the lower class has increased.

The United States have one of the developed world's largest income gap between rich and poor.

„Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy.“ - Ludwig v. Beethoven.

Art comes from the soul.

Phyllo wrote:

„Alf wrote:

»I’m not poor, I’m not very rich.

Many former middle class people have become lower class people. The middle class has decreased, the lower class has increased.

The United States have one of the developed world's largest income gap between rich and poor.« ** **

That's certainly a cause for discontent.“ **

That’s a reason for riots!

1047) Kathrina, 17.09.2017, 01:30; Arminius, 17.09.2017, 01:44, 01:46; Alf, 17.09.2017, 02:12, 02:24; Arminius, 17.09.2017, 03:23; Alf, 17.09.2017, 04:02; Kathrina, 17.09.2017, 14:38 Arminius, 17.09.2017, 14:49; Kathrina, 17.09.2017, 15:06; Alf, 17.09.2017, 20:31; Arminius, 17.09.2017, 21:55; Kathrina, 17.09.2017, 23:00 (6399-6410)

Kathrina wrote:

„Phyllo wrote:

»Alf wrote:

›I’m not poor, I’m not very rich.

Many former middle class people have become lower class people. The middle class has decreased, the lower class has increased.

The United States have one of the developed world's largest income gap between rich and poor.‹ ** **

That's certainly a cause for discontent.« **

That’s a reason for riots!“ ** **

I think that riots are no solution. They are not more than the antithesis in a Hegelian dialectic sense.

So the injustice goes on, the gap between rich and poor will increase.

Arminius wrote:

„Alf wrote:

»POVERTY almost everywhere IN THE USA ....

MAKE IT GREAT AGAIN?“ ** **

1% of all US people has 40% of all the nation’s wealth (**). And the poorest 80% of all US people have merely 7% of all the nation’s wealth (**).

Watch the video (**) Serendipper posted (especially 4:42–4:54):

Arminius wrote:

»Serendipper wrote:

›....

Wealth Inequality in the USA.

Thought experiment: Is there anything that one human can do 400X better than another human? Can someone be 400X smarter? Even if the dumbest guy had an iq of 1, a 400 iq is off the chart. Can someone lift 400X more weight? 1000lb is the record bench press, so the weakest person would have to only bench 2.5lbs for a 400X differential. What could possibly justify someone making 400X more money than the AVERAGE person? Being 400X more sleazy I reckon.‹ **

According to your video (**) the richest 20% of the US have more than 80% of all the US wealth (**), the richest 1% of the US have 40% all the US wealth (**), the poorest 80% of the US have more merely 7% of all the US wealth (**).

Maybe I will have to change my thoughts about the wealth inequality in the USA.

Arminius wrote:

›Do you know the term 'Brazilianization of the World' ('Brasilianisierung der Welt' - Ulrich Beck; cp. also Franz Josef Radermacher)?

This means that all nations of the world tend to have the same distribution of wealth that Brazil has.

Here are some real examples from 2006:

The richest Finnish 20% have 35% of the Finnish income (GNP).
The poorest Finnish 80% have 65% of the Finnish income (GNP).
The richest German 20% have 40% of the German income (GNP).
The poorest German 80% have 60% of the German income (GNP).
The richest US 20% have 47% of the US income (GNP).
The poorest US 80% have 53% of the US income (GNP).
The richest Brazilian 20% have 65% of the Brazilian income (GNP).
The poorest Brazilian 80% have 35% of the Brazilian income (GNP).

Maybe that the richest Brazilian 20% have already 80% of the Brazilian income (GNP). So at last we will possibly see the following scenario in the world: 20% of all humans have 80% of the global income. So 80% of all humans have merely 20% of the global income. (Cp. Pareto distribution.)‹ ** **

« ** **

“ ** **

Kathrina wrote:

„Art comes from the soul.“ ** **

Do you mean a culture soul?

Please, don’t forget that I wrote this:.

Alf wrote:

„But also, don’t forget this:

Alf wrote:

»Isn’t it basically the same discussion about a pseudo dualistic problem here on ILP: ›Logic versus Ethics‹, ›Rationality versus Irrationality‹, ›Kant or Hegel versus Schopenhauer or Nietzsche‹, and so on and so forth? To me, these dualisms are pseudo dualisms, not like real dualisms, for instance: ›Ideality versus Reality‹, ›Subjectivity versus Objectivity‹.« ** **

“ ** **

So, is it reality that the United States of America are the newest third world country?

And if you answer in the affirmative, is it objectively true that the United States of America are the newest third world country?

Alf wrote:

„Isn’t it basically the same discussion about a pseudo dualistic problem here on ILP: »Logic versus Ethics«, »Rationality versus Irrationality«, »Kant or Hegel versus Schopenhauer or Nietzsche«, and so on and so forth? To me, these dualisms are pseudo dualisms, not like real dualisms, for instance: »Ideality versus Reality«, »Subjectivity versus Objectivity«.“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„And a further example: »Spirit versus Nature«.“ ** **

Alf wrote:

„Couldn’t we subsume the both dualisms »Spirit versus Nature« (**|**) and »Ideality versus Reality« (**|**) under one dualism?“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„I would not.

And if I did, I would subsume both under the dualism »Subjectivity versus Objectivity«.“ ** **

Kathrina wrote:

„Phyllo wrote:

»Alf wrote:

›I’m not poor, I’m not very rich.

Many former middle class people have become lower class people. The middle class has decreased, the lower class has increased.

The United States have one of the developed world's largest income gap between rich and poor.‹ ** **

That's certainly a cause for discontent.« **

That’s a reason for riots!“ ** **

I know that catastrophes bring new starts. But in the case of our globalism, the catastophe needs to be a global one, highly likely.

Playing such games is pure happiness?

The Federal Reserve Bank was founded in 1913.

All other countries of the first world (developed countries) have a more equitable distribution of wealth than the United States of America have.

You (**) obviously have not or not carefully read those posts you are talking about.

A catastrophe is a solution. It's no good solution, I know, but it is a solution. Ask geologists, if you don't believe me.

Alf wrote:

„Kathrina wrote:

»Phyllo wrote:

›Alf wrote:

'I’m not poor, I’m not very rich.

Many former middle class people have become lower class people. The middle class has decreased, the lower class has increased.

The United States have one of the developed world's largest income gap between rich and poor.' ** **

That's certainly a cause for discontent.‹ **

That’s a reason for riots!« ** **

I know that catastrophes bring new starts. But in the case of our globalism, the catastophe needs to be a global one, highly likely.“ ** **

I am not saying that I prefer a catastrophe as a solution. I am only saying that a catastrophe is a solution. You have asked for solutions, I have answered with an example. Now, stop bitching, moaning, complaining, whining.

Also: Where are your promised solutions? Do you have any solution at all?

In the posted video (**|**) certain people had to say what the ideal situation of wealth distribution in the United States should be (**). 92% of them said that for instance the richest 20% should have 30% and the poorest 20% should have 10% of the nation’s wealth. This is not even the case in Finland, one of the nations that have a much fairer distribution than the United States have.

Arminius wrote:

„.... 2006:

The richest Finnish 20% have 35% of the Finnish income (GNP).“ ** **

In that posted video (**|**) is said that 1% of all US people has 40% of all the nation’s wealth (**) and that the poorest 80% of all US people have merely 7% of all the nation’s wealth (**), so that the richest 20% of all US people have 93% of all the nation’s wealth, wheras for instance the richest Finnish 20% have 35% and the poorest Finnish 80% have 65% of the Finnish nation’'s wealth (**|**).

In other words: 92% of the US people who have been asked answered that they wish to have a distribution of the nation’s wealth that is even a bit better than - for example - the Finnish one, which is one of the best on this planet.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Because you believe in such massive national and global economies, the most stable wealth distribution will always be:

W = 1 / 1 + x²

Not a great deal different than the current global economy.

Money is a crude measure of affluence, which is a social term for Affectance. Need more be said?

The »solution« - stop forming such massive economies (of course nothing is a solution if never applied).“ **

Those who formed, form and will form such massive economies, didn’t, don’t and won’t stop forming them.

1048) Kathrina, 18.09.2017, 01:17; Arminius, 18.09.2017, 02:00, 02:21; Alf, 18.09.2017, 03:57, 04:14; Kathrina, 18.09.2017, 18:09, 18:21; Arminius, 18.09.2017, 19:29; Kathrina, 18.09.2017, 20:21, 20:28, 20:36, 20:48, 21:02, 21:12; Alf, 18.09.2017, 21:46; Kathrina, 18.09.2017, 22:20, 22:57; Arminius, 18.09.2017, 23:33; Kathrina, 18.09.2017, 23:42; Alf, 18.09.2017, 23:58 (6410-6429)

Surreptitious 75 wrote:

„It comes from ... the soul [the non metaphysical type].“ **

I mean the metaphysical type.

Pilgrim Tom wrote:

„It's all in the „G“ ... the word „Guess“ ... add as many adjectives as you like ... doesn't change anything ... when one talks about the „unknown“... one is guessing.  “ **

Yea.

Arminius wrote:

„For someone who knows the Mendel’s laws and the resulting statistical distributions, the following hypothesis forces itself: Suppose the peak IQ occupational group would be homozygous for a Mendelian allele M1, thus genotype M1M1, the unskilled workers would be M2M2, the professional workers would be heterozygous, thus M1M2. People with a genotypic IQ over 123 should be homozygous M1M1, those with an IQ 105-123 should be heterozygous M1M2, and those with an IQ under 105 should be homozygous M2M2. In reality, the thresholds IQ 105 and IQ 123 mark no sharp boundaries but the average stripline of the overlapping zones of the phenotypes of the tested IQ. So mor lively worded, there are three types of modern humans: (1) those very few (with an IQ >= 124) who invent machines, (2) those (with an IQ 105-123) who repair machines, and (3) those great many (with an IQ <= 104) who serve machines.

Now, guess whether machines are capable of replacing all three types of humans.“ ** **

Since machines have become capable of serving and repairing machines, less humans are needed. And in future machines will probably even be capable of inventing machines, then no human will be needed. But will the humans have to be intelligent then (provided that they will still be there)?

Kathrina wrote:

„Surreptitious 75 wrote:

»It comes from ... the soul [the non metaphysical type].« **

I mean the metaphysical type.“ ** **

Do you think that this metaphysical type is the motor not only for art as one cultural appearance, but also for all other cultural appearances?

He (**) was a warrior.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Kathrina wrote:

»Those who formed, form and will form such massive economies, didn't, don't and won't stop forming them.« ** **

Then don't ask them to. What happens is the combination of what is and what you cause. When asking doesn't cause what you wish, stop asking.“ **

But I didn’t, don't and won't ask them.

Alf wrote:

„Kathrina wrote:

»Surreptitious 75 wrote:

›It comes from ... the soul [the non metaphysical type].‹ **

I mean the metaphysical type.« ** **

Do you think that this metaphysical type is the motor not only for art as one cultural appearance, but also for all other cultural appearances?“ ** **

Yes. The metaphysical soul is just one of the reasons why I joined ILP.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Just a hint (again):
»As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.«

You suffer from hidden judgments, choices, and manipulations (largely that of mass hypnosis).“ **

It is also a bit comparable with the ILP situation.

Arcturus Descending wrote:

„Kathrina wrote:

„Surreptitious 75 wrote:

»It comes from ... the soul [the non metaphysical type].« **

I mean the metaphysical type.“ ** **

What is the *other* type of soul - you mentioned the »metaphysical type«?“ **

There is no other type. So, I didn’t mention that there was one. Surreptitious did. So, ask him.

The soul isn’t physical; the soul is metaphysical. Exclusively.

Wendy Darling wrote:

„An interesting little quiz (**) that takes five minutes and doesn't require any commitment beyond quick answers. No personal info required.“ **

The results of such quizzes don’t say much about one’s soul.

Arcturus Descending wrote:

„Kathrina wrote:

»Arcturus Descending wrote:

›Kathrina wrote:

'Surreptitious 75 wrote:

`It comes from ... the soul [the non metaphysical type].´ **

I mean the metaphysical type.' ** **

What is the *other* type of soul - you mentioned the 'metaphysical type'?‹ **

There is no other type. So, I didn’t mention that there was one. Surreptitious did. So, ask him.« ** **

You saying »I mean the metaphysical type« suggests that you see another type.

If you used the word *psyche* belonging to all aspects of the human being or Self, then I might agree with you that art can come from that soul.
But that isn't necessarily eternal.“ **

I don’t see another type.

Again:

Ask Surreptitious.

I mean the metaphysical type.

Arcturus Descending wrote:

„Kathrina wrote:

»Wendy Darling wrote:

›An interesting little quiz (**) that takes five minutes and doesn't require any commitment beyond quick answers. No personal info required.‹ **

The results of such quizzes don’t say much about one’s soul.« ** **

I agree. That quiz points more to one's personality or even character.“ **

If one can call the psyche the soul, one would have to dig a lot deeper, much deeper to define the soul.
One has to dig a lot deeper to find what »soul« could be. So even after that very deep digging, one will not be sure, but one will be more satisfied than before that very deep digging, So, one has to dig even deeper and deeper.

Faust wrote:

„We also have to acknowledge that yesterday's middle class may be today's poor class not only because of government policy, or tax laws, but because relative affluence is a moving target. Does anyone know how many poor households have air conditioning, a car and an iPhone?“ **

Just look at some buildings ....

Also:

Alf wrote:

„I’m not poor, I’m not very rich.

Many former middle class people have become lower class people. The middle class has decreased, the lower class has increased.

The United States have one of the developed world's largest income gap between rich and poor.“ ** **

Whatever human beings may look for „when they say »soul«“ (**), it is not the point. The point is that they believe in the soul.

Violence is always an option, though riots and revolutions are mostly no real solution..

I'm not saying that it is my option, but that it is always an option.

It depends on the extend and on the quality of the kind of change whether nothing or something changes.

Would it have been better, if the people of the posterior United States of America had defeated their colonial masters?

Do you (**) want to live in a colony?

Arcturus Descending wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Philosophers are bad artists, artists are bad philosophers.« ** **

Are you speaking exclusively of painted canvases and sculptures when you use the term *artists*?

Would you also include writers and poets within Art? Theirs is also Art.

Philosophers might make bad artists insofar as an artist's canvas or sculpture goes since it does take a lot of talent to do what a good or great artist does ...some might not even be able to color within the lines...

BUT I might suggest that the artist himself; namely, the one who is also the writer or poet, along with the painter of canvases, might also be a good philosopher.

Would you agree that an artist is one who does or tries to show the reality of life in both the concrete and the abstract?
The one who reaches below the surface of things to reveal what nature is and does and defines truth and meaning.
The one who shows us, gives us another interpretation or perception insofar as how we can look at something?

Isn't this ALSO what the philosopher does, Arminius?
But perhaps some are just not capable of seeing how both can flow through and harmonize with each other.

As I have already said, writers and poets are artists too.

Artists do not always and/or not entirely show the reality (think of certain surrealists for exxample), but they actually should.

Philosophers and artists have similarities, as I have already said too, but they are not the same.“ **

Arcturus Descending wrote:

„Kathrina wrote:

»Whatever human beings may look for ›when they say 'soul'‹, it is not the point. The point is that they believe in the soul.« ** **

This is where it ends? With belief? I would say that belief is the beginning of the story.
Examine the belief. Examine what soul actually means.“ **

Belief is never an end.

Salvador Dali himself said once that his art only shows how expensive it is.

1049) Arminius, 19.09.2017, 01:01; 01:41, 02:08, 02:35; Alf, 19.09.2017, 02:54, 03:13, 03:26, 03:46, 04:12; Arminius, 19.09.2017, 18:53, 19:40, 21:36, 21:56, 22:50, 23:58 (6431-6446)

Faust wrote:

„Alf - Your pics illustrate my point, to a degree. That 50's middle class house doesn't represent a middle class house today, in many markets. I will say this - my house is about that size, yet i am solidly middle class. The middle class has decreased in recent years, but is lately making a comeback.“ **

No. A comeback is still not in sight. The opposite is true: the middle class seems to vanish.

Faust wrote:

„This depends upon just what kind of income you call middle class, of course. There is no universally accepted definition of that term.“ **

There is a definition. This definition changes from time to time. The class affiliation can be measured by the income and the buying power. So that is no problem.

Faust wrote:

„By most measures, more have moved up than down.“ **

No. More have moved down than up.

Almost all people know this fact.

The richest 20% have moved up, all others (80%) have moved down. Exponentially! The increase of the gap between rich and poor is an accelerating one!

What Salvador Dali also said is this: „Surrealim is destructive, but it destroys only what it considers to be shackles limiting our vision.“

But the posterior destructivism destroys more than the previous surrealism did.

Architecture for example:

Arminius wrote:

„A deconstructivist architect is not somebody who dismantles buildings, but somebody who localizes inherent »problems« to the buildings. The deconstructivist architect treats the pure forms of the architectural tradition like a »psychiatrist« his »patients« – he ascertains the »symptoms of a suppressed impurity«, as Philip Johnson und Mark Wigley wrote in 1988 (cf. "Deconstructivist Architecture", p. 11). It is just the same old megalomaniac architecture.“ ** **

Lump wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»The similarities between philosophy and art are not caused by an accident.

What do you think about the similarities, the analogies?« ** **

Not at all.“ **

?

Lump wrote:

„Philosophy means »love of wisdom« so things has to make sense, and serve a potential/purpose. Art doesn't have to be useful or sever any purpose ....“ **

That is what I am saying.

So, okay, then. Alf’s question must be answered now. Right?

Art belongs to culture.
Culture is based on a soul.
Thus art is also based on a soul.

Alf’s question:

Alf wrote:

„Where does art come from?“ ** **

The answer:

„Art comes from a soul“.

Is that right, Alf?

Faust wrote:

„Alf - Your pics illustrate my point, to a degree. That 50's middle class house doesn't represent a middle class house today, in many markets. I will say this - my house is about that size, yet i am solidly middle class. The middle class has decreased in recent years, but is lately making a comeback. This depends upon just what kind of income you call middle class, of course. There is no universally accepted definition of that term. By most measures, more have moved up than down.“ **

That’s not true.

And where is Otto West (seriously)?

Philosophy must be very spiritual, since it has almost only to do with thinking, which means: logic.
Art is different from that.
So both are not the same, but have similarities.

Arminius wrote:

„So, okay, then. Alf’s question must be answered now. Right?

Art belongs to culture.
Culture is based on a soul.
Thus art is also based on a soul.

Alf’s question:

Alf wrote:

»Where does art come from?« ** **

The answer:

»Art comes from a soul«.

Is that right, Alf?“ ** **

Yes, it is.

Now, you can restart the discussion „metaphysics versus physics“, also known as „spirit versus nature“.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Carleas lives in an imaginary world built from the left over stories and dreams of the original USA. He specializes in believing only what might be possibly true to his ideals and preference, excusing and ignoring all else.“ **

Yes. And not only Carleas loves to deny the reality. Denying the reality seems to be a popular „sport“ on ILP. But he is „merely“ the „president“ of that „sports club“. Guess who its „managers“ and „trainers“ are?

James S. Saint wrote:

„Carleas wrote:

»Here's an idea: demographic changes in the proportion of humanity of various races is driven in large part by birth rates, which have fallen in the (mostly white) first world and remained high in the (mostly non-white) developing world. There is strong evidence from Europe and the US that birth rates for a given population fall as wealth rises. So if we want to equalize birth rates, and thus slow the current demographic trends, all we have to do is raise the average wealth among non-whites to the level of wealth among whites, by helping the developing world and reducing racial inequality domestically.

Turns out equality, redistribution, and social justice are the best ways to preserve whites (with the added benefit that once you get on board with those, the only group you really care about preserving is humanity).« **

Yeah right. Just MAKE EVERYONE RICH, then they will forget all about the propaganda to hate whites. Sounds like PK (Peter Kropotkin ist gemeint).“ **

Denying reality is a very popular „sport“ on ILP (**|**).
___________________________________________________

Some facts:

The Non-European (Non-White) communities exist merely in Old-Europe, thus not in the whole Europe. Slavic and Baltic countries as well as the Hungarian country and the Romanian country do not have Non-European (Non-White) communities, as far as I know.

According to the majority of the Non-Europeans, „trying to make Non-Europeans rich“ means „trying to make Europeans out of Non-Europeans“, thus: „trying to insult Non-Europeans“. They want money, yes, but they know how to get it without being insulted. They do not want any advice coming from Europeans (Whites). And this fact increases the more, the more Non Europeans and especially the more generations of Non-Europeans Europe has.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Brando wrote:

»It is often stated, that Logical description in Panlogism determines natural processes.« **

I can verify that. In that regard, Hegel was right.“ **

Yes.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Brando wrote:

»This is a way of abstraction instantiated in nature. Is it possible, that Nietzsches thought of the eternal return of the given is a consequent of this hypothesis? In so far as the same is measured through this abstraction, so Change signifies the same in a Abstract manner? So Spartacus is via abstraction the same as the Pariser Community?« **

I have no idea ..., even of what you said.“ **

I guess he means how or why Nietzsche came to his concept of the eternal return. It was because he had read some interesting books about physics, especially about thermodynamics.

Brando, what is your first language?

Maybe I can better understand you if you say what you mean in your first language (depending on which it is).

Carleas wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»According to the majority of the Non-Europeans, »trying to make Non-Europeans rich« means »trying to make Europeans out of Non-Europeans« ....“ ** **

I don't think this is true. Japan and, more recently, China and India have embraced western capitalism and lifted millions of non-Europeans out of poverty, without being turned into Europeans.“ **

You seem to have no idea of what has happened and still happens in Europe, especially in Old-Europe. We are talking about Europeans and islamic people from Africa and West Asia. This has nothing to do with East Asians. Also, China and India are very, very, very young capitalistic countries. Your comparision is absurd.

Also and in this case, please quote my whole sentence or even, if necessary, the whole text and not only a part of a scentence. One of the main points of my above text again:

Arminius wrote:

„According to the majority of the Non-Europeans, »trying to make Non-Europeans rich« means »trying to make Europeans out of Non-Europeans«, thus: »trying to insult Non-Europeans«. They want money, yes, but they know how to get it without being insulted. They do not want any advice coming from Europeans (Whites). And this fact increases the more, the more Non Europeans and especially the more generations of Non-Europeans Europe has.“ ** **

Africans and West Asians are not like East Asians. Here, in this thread, we are talking about „European preservation policies“ (see the topic of this thread **), and, when it comes to immigration, about islamic people from Africa and West Asia, not about East Asians.

Tentative wrote:

„Immigrants came to North America, killed off as much of the native population as possible, and took over. They now call it Canada and the U.S. Think it couldn't happen again? You wanna play might makes right, look out. If you have what they want ....“ **

So you are saying that Europeans should be killed off by immigrants? Why? Why are you such an anti-white or anti-European racist? If you a North American citizen of European origin, then why do you not know any historical fact about Europeans?

Tentative wrote:

„I'm reading a heavily distorted view of history here.“ **

So you are admitting that you are reading your own heavily distorted view of history here (see above [**|**]).

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»I guess he means how or why Nietzsche came to his concept of the eternal return. It was because he had read some interesting books about physics, especially about thermodynamics.

Brando, what is your first language?

Maybe I can better understand you if you say what you mean in your first language (depending on which it is).« ** **

I'm pretty sure that would be English. The problem that I have is with his presumptuous sentence structure - too many taken-for-granted inferences, such as, "a way of abstraction instantiated in nature". I could read that in a variety of ways, but it would be nice to know which one he intended.“ **

Yes.

James S. Saint wrote:

„And when he says »determines«, is he really referring to »causing« or »distinguishing«? Without that, I don't really know what »hypothesis« he intends.“ **

I guess, he means „a way of abstraction instantiated in nature“.
If so, then we would have to go back to this:

James S. Saint wrote:

„The problem that I have is with his presumptuous sentence structure - too many taken-for-granted inferences, such as, "a way of abstraction instantiated in nature". I could read that in a variety of ways, but it would be nice to know which one he intended.“ **

James S. Saint wrote:

„And then there is, »In so far as the same is measured through this abstraction«. Emmm ... the »same« what? I assume by »this abstraction«, he is referring to Logic or Panlogic.

Then the question: »Change signifies the same in a Abstract manner? So Spartacus is via abstraction the same as the Pariser Community?« Appears to be a complete non-sequitur to me. How did »change« get into this?“ **

Yes, basically, I can only guess too. But look at the word „Pariser“ again.

1050) Arminius, 20.09.2017, 01:13; Alf, 20.09.2017, 02:34; Arminius, 20.09.2017, 02:34; 04:07, 15:21, 16:36, 16:55; Alf, 20.09.2017, 23:07, 23:27, 23:31, 23:34 (6447-6457)

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»James S. Saint wrote:

›Then the question: 'Change signifies the same in a Abstract manner? So Spartacus is via abstraction the same as the Pariser Community?' Appears to be a complete non-sequitur to me. How did 'change' get into this?‹ **

Yes, basically, I can only guess too. But look at the word »Pariser« again.« ** **

I assumed he meant a »Parisian community« being analogous to Sparta or perhaps Spartacus, but ... still doesn't assimilate.“ **

He meant the Parisian community, and he meant Spartacus.

But the word „Pariser“ is German.

And I do not think that he made a real typing error in that case. It was more something like a lapsus linguae.

Or the one behind „Brando“ uses this username as a sock puppet and wants to set us on the wrong track.

Who knows?

I am pretty sure that the one behind „Brando“ is not the unmanly one with no real supporters and therefore dozens of ILP accounts.

He certainly has only one ILP account.

And you may be right, Arminius, that his first language is German.

Brando wrote:

„Logic is discussed in this Forum in a canonical way: Argument, truth tables, conditionals etc.. I want deliver a more excentric way to see logic:
a) first, what is logic to the law of the excluded third following Gotthard Günther?
b) logic seems to be an abstraction: If I say the for Loop and the while are equivalent, you can state, although you do not know what this is, the Logical description: from a for Loop follows a while.
c) Husserl sets the genealogic way of speeking of logic: so the given in experience allows a Standard of fulfillment which is a prerequisite to Logical sentences
d) what about marking in Spencer-Brown

What relation have this observations to logic, as we know it conventionaly?“ **

Brando wrote:

„Günther's work was based upon Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Martin Heidegger and Oswald Spengler. He developed a trans-Aristotelian logical approach (omitting the tertium non datur). Günther's transclassical logic was the attempt to combine improved results of modern dialectic with formal logic. His focus on the philosophical problem of the „Du“ („You“/„Thou“) was trailblazing.

From Wikipedia. For Spencer-Brown see the entry in Laws of Form in the Wikipedia. I am not writing a work on it. I just read Luhmann, and there this concepts are mentioned but in a sociological context. So reentry of Laws of Form is exemplified by the quest of ecology of an Enterprise after the distinction System and Environment. But I am not sure if I understand it mathematically! So this post is just a try, perhaps somebody does understand this concepts. Günther is present in Luhmann as a logic of polycontextualities: A value is not just restricted to one branch, but to many with different expressional value.“ **

Peter Sloterdijk and Norbert Bolz have not seldom written about Gotthard Günther (1900-1984) and even oftener about Niklas Luhmann (1927-1998). As far as I remember this has often had to do with Günther’s concept of „Rejektion“ (also: „Rejektionsfunktion“, „Rejektionswert“) and with Luhmann’s concept of „Kommunikation“ and of „Zwangskonsensualismus“.

„Zu Habermas’ aussichtsloser Position vgl. Gotthard Günther, Beiträge zur Grundlegung einer operationsfähigen Dialektik, 2. Band, 1979, S. 169: »Habermas steht in einer ehrwürdigen, aber unwiderruflich dem Verfall preisgegebenen Tradition, die nur dort ihr Leben fristet, wo sie mit längst veralteten Denkweisen arbeiten kann.« Peter Sloterdijk meint, daß ein solcher Prozeß eine Falle ist, »in die der solchermaßen verflüssigte Heilige Geist nicht nicht gehen kann. Er geruht jedesmal, im Ergebnis eines Prozesses zu wehen, ganz so, als wehte er nicht länger, wo er will, sondern wo das Verfahren es erlaubt«. Außerdem, so folgert Sloterdijk, garantiere der prozedurale Filter ja, daß »keine Scheinheiligen auftreten und uns diabolische Simulakren erspart bleiben, genauso wie man bei Kommunikationen gemäß Habermas’schen Spielregeln die Gewißheit genießen darf, daß nach der Endausscheidung kein Dissenstheoretiker, kein Pluralist, kein Konstruktivist und vor allem kein Künstler im Kreis der wahrhaft vernünftig Kommunizierenden mehr dabei sein kann.« (Vgl. Peter Sloterdijk, Nicht gerettet, 2001, S. 86 und 87). An dieser Stelle verweist Sloterdijk auf Luhmann und seine Kritik an der Kritischen Theorie und ihrem unvermeidlichen »Zwangskonsensualismus«. (Vgl. Niklas Luhmann, Ich sehe was, was du nicht siehst, in: Ders., Soziologische Aufklärung - Konstruktivistische Perspektiven, 1993, S. 228-234). Schon lange vor der „Sloterdijk-Debatte“ genannten „Habermas-Debatte“ war klar: „Die Kritische Theorie ist tot.“ (Peter Sloterdijk, in: Die Zeit, 09.09.1999, S. 35). - Hubert Brune, Diskursdiktatur, 2001 ff. (**).

Because I am much interested in the history of machines, I thankfully can say that Gotthard Günther also wrote: „Das Bewußtsein der Maschinen“, 1960 („The Consciousness of Machines“, 1960).

Kathrina wrote:

„Also, music is therapy.“ ** **

Also, dolphins are good for therapy:

- Manfred Mann’s Earth Band (Mann, Thompson, Pattenden, Slade), Singing the Dolphin through, 1976 -

Surreptitious 75 wrote:

„The optimum distance of Earth from the Sun was a random event and more evidence our existence was not guaranteed.
The fact that liquid water can exist under ice which allowed life to develop within oceans before it could adapt to land.
We can also only exist in a universe with three spatial dimensions and so anything else and we would simply not be here.“ **

That is the interpretation of the mainstream, yes. But questions about, for instance, the „anthropic principle“ or about the „first cause“ should not be answered by scientists, but by philosophers or theologians, because „die Wissenschaft denkt nicht“ („science does not think“), as Heidegger once said, so scientists are not really capable of answering philosophical or theological questions.

You can measure the distance between the Sun and the Earth, but this does not necessarily mean that this distance is random; and you can know how the system of the Sun and its planets has developed since its beginning (Kant has given a theory that is still valid), but that does not necessarily mean that you can answer all philosophical or theological questions. And the anthropic principle for instance is a metaphysical (thus: a philosophical or theological) issue, although or even because it is deduced from physics (thus: science). When physicists try to answer a metaphysical question like the question whether their physical constants (natural constants) are „caused by randomness“ or not, then they are already metaphysicians (the more proper word is „metaphysicists“). The natural constants (physical constants) do not have to be caused by randomness, they can also be caused by a „spiritual machinist“, a creator, a God or a principle which is not random. Physicists do not know either anything about the „events before the big bang“, if there was a big bang at all, or about an existence beyond our universe, if there is one at all.

Brando wrote:

„Yes I am from Germany.“ **

Willkommen.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Surreptitious75 wrote:

»The optimum distance of Earth from the Sun was a random event and more evidence our existence was not guaranteed« **

The distance was certainly not »random«. It had a cause. But the point to the anthropic principle is that if, for example, the Earth had been too close to the Sun for life to grow on it, life would instead be growing on some other planet ....“ **

Venus and Mars were habitable planets. But it became too hot on Venus (perhaps because of something like a „greenhouse effect“), and Mars had and still has a too weak atmosphere in order to have higher living beings.

The anthropic principle is physically or cosmologically related to our planet Earth, our Moon, our Jupiter, our Sun, our Milky Way ... and so on. It means metaphysically that all this physical constants (natural constants) are as if someone has set them consciously.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Perhaps in a different galaxy and those people would be having this (rather silly) discussion instead, asking the same questions and wondering why life on their planet just happened to "randomly" be exactly perfect for them.

When you think about it, it is kind of silly to argue with the anthropic principle. And it has nothing to do with randomness, rather quite the opposite. It is because everything has a cause (thus not random) that life can only grow in very specific places and that those places are the places where life is found.

To support the idea of randomness of life generation, one would have to find hundreds of planets that are chemically and environmentally ideal for life generation yet only one actually has life on it. Of course if everything was random, you would be finding life on planets where the environment was not ideal or even good for life generation because life would be independent of causation, ie "random".

Even without knowing what the causes are, it is still obvious that life generation is not random.“ **

Agreed. A strong argument would be that this „cosmos“ literally requires life.

Wendy Darling wrote:

„Bob Unruh wrote:

»The ›no-go zones‹ in some Western nations, where law enforcement has lost control because of the influence of Islamic law, are coming to America.

That’s according to several Islam experts interviewed by WND who believe the kind of Muslim enclaves that have developed in Europe due to a lack of assimilation will eventually arise in the U.S. as the Muslim population grows.

The contention that ›no-go‹ zones exist is controversial, as evidenced by the widespread ridicule that arose when an analyst said in a Fox News interview shortly after the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack in Paris that the major English city of Birmingham was a “no-go” zone itself.

The analyst apologized, but only for exaggerating his point, not for asserting “no-go” zones exist.

As WND reported, the government of France has identified 751 Zones Urbaines Sensibles, or Sensitive Urban Zones, that the state does not fully control, citing Middle East foreign policy expert Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum.

The zones are enclaves where Muslim immigrants have chosen not to assimilate, and law enforcement has lost some degree of control.

Republican Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal recently told Fox News interviewer Neil Cavuto that the zones are inevitable in America if the country doesn’t insist that immigrant Muslims assimilate.« **

The report was done in 2015 since then the USA has NO GO ZONES.

Lauren Richardsen wrote:

»In the U.S., Dearborn, Michigan: Over 100,000 Muslims, 45% of the city has settled into their first ‘no-go’ zone. The city and police officials have been sued in many cases that allege discrimination “against Christians” effectively by the authorities applying Sharia law. Dearborn-Dar-al-Islam, (a place governed by Islamic Sharia law). The new idea of ‘no-go’ and ‘no-entry’ is significant, and shockingly being upheld. They provide weapons and guards and government officials in their own societies. They build what they want on their compounds. They have schools inside that their kids are educated in. They are taught their religion in school. No separation of Church (mosque) and State.« **

Michigan is not the only state, there are I believe four others. Why is the US allowing this to happen? Muslims are literally buying up lands and converting it into compounds that are dangerous for non-muslims to enter and they have armed guards that monitor who tries to enter. Public roads become private roads ... it's insane.“ **

The United States are only one of the nearly pseudo governments working for the globalists and has even less to ay than non-governmental organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Trilateral Commission (TC), the UNO and the EU for example, because they are the institutions of the globalists, whereas governments of states (nations) range on second or even third place (level).

Food for thought or for illustration.

Do you think that a picture can be thought?
Do you think that a thought can be illustrated?

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Brando wrote:

›Yes I am from Germany.« **

Willkommen.« ** **

»Welcome in«.
“ **

Ah, yes.

Well, I come in.

Sorry, Branko.

Willkommen!

==>