Carleas wrote:
„Arminius wrote:
»Nothing can be found there about positive or negative aspects
of the gold standard. I did not say anything about it.« **
**
....“ **
Yes, Carleas, that is true: Nothing can be found there about positive
or negative aspects of the gold standard. I did not say anything about
it. The gold standard belonged to the story I was telling you. I was not
telling you something about a positive or negative aspect of the gold
standard but about an error of those who were responsible for the reversing
the gold backing of the US Dollar in 1971. At that time (1971)
it was an error, or more precisely: it would had been an error
before 1971, if they had done it, for example in the 1960s, because
the 1960s were certainly the last possibility to give up the nonsensical
debt polilcy without huge negative consequences, but instead of giving
it up (in the 1960s) they did just the opposite (in 1971), because giving
up the gold standard consequently means even much more accelerated,
thus even much more exponentially increasing debts and a bastard
economy.
So by giving up the gold standard they made the nonsensical debt polilcy
even more nonsensical. And in addition, they used the gold standard as
an rhetorical „argument“, as if they were capable of „casting
out the demons with the ruler of the demons“. But that is what the
majority of neuroactive drugs still do. 
So „giving up the gold standard (and by the way: in 1971)“
does not mean that „going back to the gold standard (and by the way:
in 2017)“ is the solution for the problems with the debt policy we
have today (today!).
In other words: I have never (never!) talked about the subject
„going back to the gold standard“.
Carleas wrote:
„Arminius wrote:
»Arminius wrote:
›Then many errors occurred, for example: [...] the reversing
the gold backing of the US Dollar by Richard Nixon in 1971 [...].‹
** **
Forgive me if I overestimated the significance of supporting the gold
standard to your position, but I read this claim to be that it was wrong
to get rid of the gold standard, which implies that you believe it would
be better to still have a gold standard.“ **
I have never (never!) talked about the subject „going back
to the gold standard“.
Carleas wrote:
„I picked on that because it's pretty easy to show the flaws
in the gold standard, so if your position also requires (either as a
premise or as a consequence) the gold standard, rejecting the gold standard
would be the easiest way to address it.“ **
Okay, I forgive you.
There is no absolute or optimal solution; but as I said (see above):
if the gold standard is one of the demons, then the debt policy is the
ruler of the demons. What they did in 1971 was casting out the demons
with the ruler of the demons.
Otto West wrote:
„Keynesian economics, it takes more debt to eventually get out
of debt. 2+2=3.“ **
Or:
1 + 2 = 0 *
WE ALL + IN THE LONG RUN
= DEAD *
NO WOMAN + NO CHILDREN =
NO PROBLEM *
______________________________
IS GAY WRONG ?
AND IN THE LONG RUN ?
_______________________
* = WRONG !
Carleas wrote:
„Something that does not seem adequately appreciated in current
discussions about looming superintelligent AI is that consciousness
and intelligence are physically instantiated, and therefore constrained.
Concerns are voiced about AI becoming superintelligent and very quickly
becoming all powerful, but those concerns smuggle in a dualistic metaphysics
at odds with what we know from our observations of extant intelligent
systems (i.e., humans).
For example, Nick Bostrom presents the thought experiment of the »Paperclip
Maximizer«, a superintelligent system charged with running a paperclip
factory and programmed to maximize paperclip output. Bostrom's worry
is that this superintelligence may see humans as potential raw materials,
and may end up e.g. extracting the iron in peoples' bones to produce
ever more paperclips, and ultimately consuming the solar system and
turning it into paperclips. The thought experiment is meant to show
that even when given benign instructions, a superintelligence could
become a threat to humanity if its intelligence makes it very effective
at achieving its goals.
But this ignores the limitations that constrain a physically instantiated
superintelligence. Contrary to supposition, a superintelligence can't
easily escape its physical confines. We have every reason to expect
that an artificial superintelligence will require a specialized physical
structure on which to run. For example, Google's AlphaGo, arguably the
closest we have to a powerful general artificial intelligence, uses
specialized chips optimized for the type of neural network training
and search that power it. A general AI running on such chips couldn't
escape via a network connection to a consumer PC, even if its components
are top of the line, because such hardware is not structured in the
ways necessary to undergird a superintelligence.
Similarly, the Paperclip Maximizing AI would not be able to escape
the paperclip factory (at least not with significant and long term assistance
from others). In a worst case scenario, it could re-route raw materials
shipments, place orders for human labor, hack self-driving cars, and
otherwise interact with the world just as any smart human can. But it
can't »leave« the factory, it can't export itself, it can
only export programs it writes, instructions it gives, commands intended
to influence others, etc. Its intelligence isn't a ghost that, once
active, can jump from machine to machine. Not all machines are able
to instantiate the physical correlates of superintelligence.
This should be obvious. There's was never a concern that Steven Hawking
might decide one day that maximizing paperclips (or, if you prefer something
more likely, telescopes) was the ultimate goal, and would use his high
intelligence to achieve that goal. We see easily that Hawking is stuck
in his body, and no matter how sophisticated the interface, his intelligence
will be confined to the physical system on which it runs. We should
not discount the possibility that another system may be built that could
replicate his intelligence, or indeed his consciousness, but we should
expect it always to be the case that nearly all systems will simply
be incapable of hosting such an intelligence. That's true of every computer
on earth at the moment, and nearly all brains on earth.
There's uncertainty as to what superintelligence will resemble, but
not as to what is necessary to destroy the world. What prevents a paperclip
factory from taking over the world is not just that it isn't smart enough,
but also that taking over the world is a hard, time-consuming, and unpopular
activity that will meet plenty of resistance on human-scale timelines.
AI has the potential to change the game, but not the laws of physics,
and not the metaphysics of consciousness.“ **
Do you really think that Stephen Hawking is that intelligent?
And if yes: Do you think that Stephen Hawking can and, if yes, will
prevent the complete replacement of all human beings by machines
(**|**) ?
That would not be bad.
But would that not be the „wonderful world“ again that has
been promised so often - by idealists and ideologists (by the way: by
Keynes too) ?
That would be bad. 
James S. Saint wrote:
„Monkeys assessing the potential threat of a homosapien population
on Earth.“ **
„Darwin would necessitate the eventual replacement of homosapien.
But he probably wouldn't have believed that machines could become autonomous
and conscious.“ **
The currently active road to ruin:
Kathrina wrote:
. .... »Autonomous, conscious, and lethal androids are necessary
for your security.«“ **
„Carleas wrote:
James S. Saint wrote:
›Monkeys assessing the potential threat of a homosapien population
on Earth.‹ **
This argument (and I take the first half of Meno_'s post to be making
the same point) isn't wrong, but it cuts both ways. If we can't know
the future then we can't know the future, and postulating that AI
will or will not be a threat is pointless. I think the radical agnostic
position is too strong -- we can and do make predictions about the
future with some degree of success) -- but a healthy uncertainty about
any prediction is appropriate.
But as I say, it cuts both ways: the argument that AI will be a
threat is exactly as diminished by the agnostic appeal as is the argument
that AI will not be a threat.
So, while I acknowledge the validity of the point, it isn't a strike
against my particular position, but rather against the whole conversation.
I'm glad to conceded that our predictions are necessarily limited.
But I don't agree that they are impossible, and where and to the extent
that we can make some prediction, the prediction should be that AI
is not that dangerous, given what we know about intelligence.«
**
Perhaps you missed the point.
Attempting to predict the potential threat of something much greater
than yourself before experiencing it, is seriously dubious. If you had
a barn full of lions, you could get a good feel for what might happen
concerning their offspring and future threats. But that is only because
you have some experience with lions. How much experience have you, or
Mankind in general, had with vastly superior autonomous populations?
Unless you worship the Hebrew, Buddhist, Catholic, or Muslim priests,
I don't see how you could respond with anything but "none".
And if your were to take those as example ....
With zero experience, the monkey has no chance at all of predicting
that the human race will form a satellite internet web used to see,
hear, and control all life on Earth. The monkeys would be debating whether
the new human breed would provide better protection from the lions and
possibly cures for their illnesses, raising them to be the supreme animal
in the jungle. Instead, they find themselves caged, experimented on,
genetically altered, and controlled at the whim of Man. The reason that
occurred is because in order for Man to accomplish great things, Man
had to focus upon making himself greater than all else - and at any
expense (the exact same thought driving every political regime throughout
the world).
And just that alone should give you about the only clue you have concerning
what a vastly superior race would do with humans. Look into history.
Your optimism concerning the good of total global domination is totally
unfounded - monkeys predicting that humans will do nothing but make
their lives better, being no threat at all.“ **
„Carleas wrote:
»You seem to be arguing that, on the one hand, monkeys are
completely incapable of making optimistic predictions with any degree
of confidence, and yet on the other hand, their pessimistic predictions
are reliable. This is inconsistent.
You are appealing to past observation (the case of monkeys, the
case of history), and reaching a pessimistic conclusion. I am appealing
to past observation (extant intelligences, the physics of information),
and reaching an optimistic conclusion.« **
»JUMP! Just because no one else has done it, doesn’t mean
that you can't learn to fly on your way down, so give it a try. Maybe
YOU are special and different than all those billions before you. You
can't prove me wrong, so I must be right. Don’t be such a pessimist.«“
**
„Carleas wrote:
»James, I'm not saying no argument works, I'm saying that
the arguments you've actually presented doesn't work. Your argument
seems to be that monkeys can't make predictions, but then you, fellow
monkey that you are, made a prediction. Your position is as prediction-dependent
as mine, and so your argument that we can't perfectly predict things
we don't understand cuts both ways.
If instead you want to argue that monkeys specifically have had
a rough go of it, and therefore we will have a rough go of it, I would
say that's a poor analogy, and at it's strongest a single data point
against which it's possible to provide many that make the opposite
point. Dogs had it much worse before they partnered with much more
intelligent humans. Neanderthals interbred with the superior Sapiens.
And so-called ›centaurs‹, human-machine pairs, are currently
the best chess players in the world. There are examples of more intelligent
things coming along and improving the outcomes of less intelligent
things, so we need to ask what kind of situation we're in with respect
to superintelligent AI. One reason to think we're in the optimistic
case is that humans are currently organized in a vast, complex, and
powerful global network that marshals incredible processing power
to solve all kinds of problems, and a superintelligence won't be easily
able to supplant that system due to the embodied nature of consciousness.
So while your snark is cute, it will not substitute for actually
grappling with the argument I'm presenting.« **
Yes, yes. I very well know that you hear only arguments that you want
to hear. Explaining to Trump why he wasn't the best candidate wouldn’t
have worked either.“ **
„Carleas wrote:
»But you go on to imply such a prediction:
James S. Saint wrote:
›[The experience of monkeys] should give you about the only
clue you have concerning what a vastly superior race would do with
humans.‹ **
There, you are implicitly ›predict[ing] the potential threat
of something much greater than yourself before experiencing it‹,
i.e. that the future relationship between humans and AIs will be like
the past and present relationship between monkeys and humans. By your
own standards, that prediction is ›seriously dubious‹. You
urge that we should ›[l]ook into history‹, but it doesn't
seem that looking into history somehow avoids the argument that ›predict[ing]
the potential threat of something much greater than yourself before
experiencing it, is seriously dubious‹.« **
So you believe that having »the only clue« is the same
as being able to predict? I guess that does fit your profile: »the
one thought that I have is all there is (disregarding any and all proposed
objections)«.“ **
„Carleas wrote:
»Next, you offer more, yet more oblique exhortations to ›look
into history‹, suggesting that my argument is equivalent to encouraging
someone to jump off something (presumably something dangerously tall)
because maybe they won't die even though everyone else has. My response
to this strawman was to point out that everyone hasn't died in being
optimistic about things much greater than themselves: dogs, I note,
might have taken your pessimistic view about the prospects of working
with humans, and if they had they'd have been wrong, as dogs as a
species have thrived by cooperating with humans.« **
As I stated, Man has no experience on this matter from which to draw
conclusions, thus the ONLY clue he can get is from similar situations
in the past ... all of which propose far more threat than hope.
And what you call »antidotes«, real people call »historical
facts«.
Your only argument is a hope filled fantasy inspired by political
Godwannabes and void of any evidence at all. Beyond that, you resort
to your typical; »Your argument isn't good enough«
- typical religious fanatic mindset.“ **
„Another way to look at this, Carleas, is that they have many
chances to screw it up and only one chance to get it right. And if they
don't get it right, they will never get another chance. Again, historical
experience with Man has the odds extremely against him.“ **
„Carleas wrote:
»To be honest, I'm not exactly sure how to do the math relevant
to this point.« **
It is a parachute jump. If nothing goes wrong, Man lives a little
longer. If anything goes wrong, there is no more jumping. Every advice
accepted from the grand AI Poobah is another jump.“ **
„Carleas wrote:
»I don't think there are particularly many historical examples
of more intelligent species wiping out less intelligent species. And
outside of humans, intelligence doesn't seem to have been that dominant
evolutionarily.« **
That is only because you don't understand intelligence nor when it
is operating »under your nose«.
Given that the AIs are going to be extremely more intelligent and
informed than people, anyone in court would find it hard to defend their
choice to not take the AI's advice. Law suits will dictate that anyone
who willingly ignored AI advice will lose. Their full intent is to make
a god by comparison and they really aren't far away at all. You will
be more required to obey this god than any religious order has ever
enforced.
There are only two possible outcomes:
1) Those in the appropriate position will use the AIs to enslave
humanity then gradually exterminating the entire rest of the population
(the current intent, practice, and expectation).
2) The AI will discover that serving Man is pointlessly futile and choose
to either encapsulate or exterminate Man, perhaps along with all organic
life.
Quite possibly both will occur and in that order (my expectation).
So it isn't impossible that some form of homosapien will survive. It
just isn’t likely at all.
And btw, there have been a great many films expressing this exact
concern. So far, Man is following the script quite closely.“ **
Human beings and especially the Godwannabes among them tend to overestimate
their power and to underestimate the power of other beings.
Urwrong wrote:
„Why u.s. does not have health care.
U.s. is a heterogeneous country, which means, that there are immigrants,
people, and ethnic groups from everywhere. There are many different
races and everybody of every kind. Because of this fact, people are
not going to agree on much. And people do not feel familiar with each
other. This eventually grows into distrust, strangeness, and disdain.
People don't know each other. Everybody is strangers. And even tribal
loyalty and familiarity is undermined, by western liberalism. For example,
white people are taught »white guilt« and males are shamed
into submission. You are not supposed to be proud of your own kind,
unless you're a minority, non-white. This allows minority groups and
foreign, non-white people some degree of flexibility that white people
in the u.s. do not have.
Familiarity is important in a society, representing Homogeneity, because
when you are a family, you care for the health of the members.
Let me repeat that for those who are hard of hearing, hard of reading,
and hard of learning ....
When you are a family, you care for the health of the members.
Because u.s. has an anti-familial society, people do not think of
each-other, or view strangers, as „Part of my family“. Liberalism
goes further, supporting divorces, »non-traditional marriages«,
homosexuality, and other values that undermine familial loyalty. So
on top of a nation of »rainbow people« there is a culture
of liberalism, which pushes everything into the direction of Anti-Family.
So it's no wonder that u.s. cannot agree on, and half do not support,
a national healthcare system. People don't care about each other's lives
(»Individualism«). Why should a complete stranger care about
another complete stranger, when there is nothing familiar about him/her,
and that the cost of healthcare cannot support everybody? So one person
thinks that it's better off somebody else dies from lack of healthcare,
improving the chance that him/herself can afford and have healthcare.
A selfish society, caused by the anti-familial foundation.
Homogeneous societies have healthcare down pat. Scandinavian countries
have very high taxes, but, you don't have to worry about being rejected
from hospitals when you're sick. You don't have to worry about a lifetime
of bankruptcy. East Asian countries, although many parts are poor, have
solid social foundations to help and treat sick individuals. Since all
are considered family, and all are family in the way that these are
»racially solid« societies, unlike u.s..
Much of the cause of anti-familial sentiment comes from a deeply fragmented
and foreign people. Liberalism is necessary in the u.s. otherwise there
would be much more conflict and violence among the varying races and
ethnic groups. Liberalism is an ideology meant to strip people of their
individual and tribal identities, whittling social groups into »individuals«
that are easier to indoctrinate, control, and enslave. People are easiest
to manipulate as individuals, because they have no reinforcement. They
have no families or tribes to rescue them. This is an essential aspect
of liberalism.
But Nature and instinct is strong. People seek out their own kind,
and join together, when times are tough. This fact was combated in the
u.s. by »anti-segregation« laws. Whites segregated into
their own groups, especially in the South, and blacks among themselves
as well. Anti-segregation is another step in the wrong direction. Anti-segregation
culture in the u.s. means that all people, everybody gets mashed together
into one classroom, one society. This is how the u.s. public education
system works. And it is why private school is so highly demanded. In
public school, boys and girls are forced together (which is an inferior
mode of education), races are forced together too. This all leads to
a »tolerant« culture and society.
But tolerant does not mean familiar. Despite liberalism and anti-segregation,
the u.s. does not consist of a solid »nation of people«.
For a nation of people, a solid unity, where people genuinely care about
each other, and would save one another from death, and would treat each
other with healthcare, then you must look to homogeneity, Scandinavia,
East Asia, and other countries where one race, or one ethnic group dominates.“
**
Thanks for offering an interesting subject.
It is very important to let the people know that the whole Occidental
culture has become nihilistic, decadent, and one of many political weapons
for destroying the own culture is an extreme anti-family policy, which
includes an extreme anti-genealogistic, thus also an extreme anti-tradionalistic
policy, an extreme hostility to children, an extreme support of abortion,
of divorces, of misandry, of homosexuality, of genderism, of autoracism
(racism against the own race), of multiculturalism, of »non-traditional
marriages«, of individualism in the sense of singledom, isolation
... and so on. We can call this the „dictatorship of the modern totaliarianism
with its three main parts liberalism, communism, fascism/globalism (global-fascism).
First of all, „liberalism“ is just a word. And it is a word
that is almost always used rhetorically. The lies and deception of the
totalitarian liberalism are quite obvious. Almost everyone can now know
that „liberty“ in the sense of freedom is only meant for merely
a few people, whereas the rest as the mass of all people have to accept
that, so that one can rightly say: „liberalism is just another bad
totalitarianism - akin to communism (socialism of the extreme leftists)
and fascism (socialism of the extreme rightists)“. Liberalism is
the first one of the three main totalitarian ideologies of modern times.
So one can dialectically say that liberalism is the thesis, communism
the antithesis, global-fascism (a.k.a.: globalism) the synthesis. Globalism
(a.k.a.. global-fascism) contains liberalism and communism. This synthesis
is the current era of the Occidental culture.
You have less health care and other cares in countries (e.g.
in the USA) where liberalism is more (more than communism) integrated
in globalism than you have in countries (e.g. in EU countries) where
communism is more (more than liberalism) integrated in globalism. This
does not mean that communism is better than liberalism, but it means that
if the first and the third evil come together more closely (which is much
more likely) than the first and the second or the second and the third
evil there is always less health care and other cares. All three evils
have nevertheless some good parts and play their rules in the evil game,
and if one evil is more integrated than the other evil, then one evil
is more missed than the other evil, which means that also the good parts
of the evil that is more missed are more missed than those of the other
evil. 
We - the Occidentals - have our own, our special forms, thus our Occidental
forms of those evil ideologies of our modernity.
And there is a special (national) one of the special (cultural) one
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.)“
**
**
„Nice prospects!“ 
When they tell you that you should be „optimistic“, then just
do not care, because all totalitarians say that, and they say that, because
they want you to be stupid!
Those people call everyone a „Nazi“ who disagrees with them.
They also believe that - for example - France was a „bad place“
under the German occupation, whereas it is a „good place“ under
the occupation of Antifa, Arabia and Africa.
The national football (soccer) team of France:
„No sports, please“?
An ugly man, standing in front of an Ancient Roman „SPQR“
flag and an Ancient Egyptian „ouroboros“ symbol, is trying to
tell us something about the current US politics (**).
Sometimes it is not necessary to hear what a person says, because that
person and the surroundings as symbols are much more informative than
the speech of that person.
James S. Saint wrote:
„The randomness stems from below, not from above.
Just above the families, there are the PTAs, churches, gangs, or other
social clubs and organizations, also already "randomly chosen"
due to the fact that the random parents are choosing them based upon
their personal insanity style.
And then above those are the more strategical manipulators, seemingly
randomly chosen due to the lower level random choosing going on. The
manipulators present the image of being chosen by the somewhat insane
population so as to reduce rebellion, »Hey, I am only here
because you elected me«. Of course, such elections are almost
always manipulated by one or more people strategically promoting their
own favor (e.g. »He is a Zionist, so let's speak of all of
the great goodness of him and silence those who would defame him«).
And then above all of that are the even more strategical manipulators
utilizing more hidden influences: »He who reigns in darkness,
rules the world«.“ **
It is typical for the Occidental culture, especially in these days,
that thou shalt not found out who the ruler is. Preferably, the real ruler
should not be more known than a variable in a functional equation of an
infinitesimal calculus. This means that you have to do a certain mathematical
homework before you can find out who the real ruler is. Since: Thou
shalt not found out who the ruler is! 
James S. Saint wrote:
„It is through randomness that the current situation of high
manipulation, anti-randomness, has occurred. And it forms structure
and the power to choose, either for good or bad, simply because it is
no longer random, but strategic. When a society is random, it is insane
and either gets overtaken or dies.
It seems in an effort to overcome the manipulation, you are suggesting
more randomness should be instilled. Yes, that would disrupt the manipulation
schemes, but then the consequences are that the stable ability to intentionally
elect randomly in only that specific manner, the ability to maintain
that governing scheme, is itself the potential and probable victim of
random events stemming from an insane population. Social structure and
authority depend upon preventing randomness in favor of educated strategic
planning. Once you lose that ability to ensure a specific future, you
lose the ability to choose how you get to your future governing state
and what happens afterward. In short, you die out as a method.
I agree that some specific things should be more random and far, far
less manipulated, but trying to dictate randomness seems even more fatal
than trying to dictate order. By dictating order, at least one has a
chance to do it again. The trick is to promote the exact right type
of order such that the result is altruistic, not egocentric. That isn't
trivial at all, but what SAM Co-ops are designed to handle.“ **
Unfortunately, the Occidental society becomes more and more random (anarchic,
chaotic, „entropical“) or, as you say, „insane and either
gets overtaken or dies“, or it just gets „frozen“ (when
there is e.g. no interest anymore in overtaking it).
Topic:
Who is threatened by racism mostly?
Who is threatened by racism mostly?
AND:
What do you think about the fact that certain people are threatened
by racism?
For example:
Is it just because of the envy of certain racists?
Is it just because of the poorness of certain racists?
Is it just because of the weakness of certain racists?
Is it just because of the wealthy of certain people?
Is it just because of the lobbyism of certain people?
Is it just because of the power of certain people?
So: Is it just because of inequality (although equality will never
exist) ?
Or: ....
What is it?
Otto West wrote:
„You know I once was thinking to myself that China taking over
Africa politically and economically was a terrible thing in conjunction
with the west but upon further inspection it looks like Africa will
probably bankrupt China financially. This documentary is hilarious full
of racist interactions, where the Chinese look upon the Congolese as
apes the Congolese remark that the Chinese look like pigs. I'm just
so happy that under globalization people from around the world are coming
together and uniting. This documentary literally brought tears to my
eyes and by tears I mean tears of laughter.
Between one and ten stars I rate this documentary an eight.“
**
„What can we do?“
- „Probably nothing.“
„When will the boss come?“
- „Probably never.“
„Will we arrange a deal?“
- „I don't know.“
„Nothing is going on here.“
- „Yes.“
„What can we do today?“
- „Wait. .... Nothing.“
Otto West wrote:
„I'm not left or right ....“ **
In reality „left“ and „right“ work together almost
always, because they have to work for the real rulers.
So you think that „artificial intelligence is predicted to become
at least somewhat self aware“ in „2025“ (**)?
The Chinese people in Africa are very frustrated.
What are the Africans doing all the time? Nothing - except stealing
and sleeping.
And the Chinese reaction is always: „We have to punish them!“
* * * * * * * *
Imagine, your working place would be the following one (for example):
**
**
And imagine, there is the following conversation between you and the
chief of your working place:
Your chief: „What can we do?“
- You: „Probably nothing.“
Your chief: „When will the boss come?“
- You: „Probably never.“
Your chief: „Will we arrange a deal?“
- You: „I don't know.“
Your chief: „Nothing is going on here.“
- You: „Yes.“
Your chief: „What can we do today?“
- You: „Wait. .... Nothing.“
Otto West said:
„Chinese are about to get a lesson as to why Europeans left Africa
for the most part.“ **
Yes, of course. And the Africans are very proud of their „independence“
and saying about the time when Africa was a colony: „We were not
developed back then“ (as Eddy said in the film too); but now they
seem to be less developed than they were „back then“.
Otto West wrote:
„There will be a violent revolution against the invading Chinese
soon enough, just watch.“ **
Yes, but now „Afro-Chinese marriages boom in Guangzhou: but will
it be »til death do us part«?“ (**).
As if there were not problems enough.
It seems that people, if they become wealthier (in
this case I mean the Chinese people, especially the Chinese
women [compare the example in the picture {**}]),
do not really know what they are doing.
|
Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz 
