Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz  Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz  Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180

<= [1011][1012][1013][1014][1015][1016][1017][1018][1019][1020] =>

Jahr  S. E. 
 2001 *  1
 2002 *  1
 2003 *  1
 2004 *  3
 2005 *  2
 2006 *  2
2007 2
2008 2
2009 0  
2010 56
2011 80
2012 150
2013 80
2014 230
2015 239
2016 141
2017 160
2018 30
2019 18
2020 202
2021 210
2022 40
2023 40
P. Z.
S.E. (S.)
T. (S.)
P. Z.
S. E.
 K. (S.) 
S.E. (S.)
K. (S.)
T. (S.)
* Von 2001 bis 2006 nur Gästebuch, erst ab 2007 auch Webforen und Weblogs.

NACH OBEN 1011) Arminius, 10.07.2017, 01:03, 01:07, 01:09, 03:01, 03:05, 03:31, 14:18, 14:25, 14:32, 14:43, 21:19, 21:37, 22:03, 22:39, 23:01, 23:24 (5988-6003)


That video (**) is a fake.

I visited Hamburg yesterday.


The demonstrations against G7 or G20 are demonstrations against the globalism. And they are violent in every Western country.

If you want to see burning suburbs without any G7 or G20 demonstration, then go to France where suburbs burn every day.

G7 or G20 events are no argument at all for saying „the end of ...“.

And by the way: It is more likely that the end of the Western world will come slowly.

Everything that has become is fading. Our Western plutocracy too. It is already fading. According to Oswald A. G. Spengler the plutocrats and its supporters - the democrats - will be defeated by the Caesars. And if our Western culture will not have any Caesar, then the plutocrats themselves will become the Caesars. The Caesarism is unavoidable according to Spengler. So the only alternative to that is the „sudden death“ (by a huge catastrophe for example) of the whole culture. But are you seeing that catastrophe at the moment?


Sorry for my late answer. I have been busy.

Perhaps (perhaps!) the U.S. people voted more against Hillary Clinton than for Donald Trump. .

You asked „what has happend in Hamburg?“ See here (**|**).

Globalism is the synthesis of capitalism (thesis) and communism (antithesis). So if you are a globalist, then you can also switch between capitalism and communism.


Kathrina wrote:

How to get rid of humans?** **

That is an informative video.


If a perfect human simulation is not a living being, then it should not be called „man“ or „human being“.


No (**).

I think you do not know the place of that said demonstration.


If there will be „perfect simulations“ (**), then they will still know that these perfect simulations are simulations.


As long as human beings can distinguish themselves from machines, however (by knowing the development or by knowing the design ... a.s.o.), they should call a machine „machine“ and a man „man“.


If something is not biological, then it is not a living being. A human being is a living being. But a machine is not a living being.


Regardless whether we like it or not: Every living being is violent. Human beings are living beings. Thus: Every human being is violent.

Violence is always an option.


What I want to say is:

If you can switch between any thesis and any antithesis, then you are near the position Hegel described with „der absolute Geist“. Then you are almost like God. There is no or almost no chance for a real opposition.


The most powerfull man of the world is not a politician. So Trump may be the most powerful politician of the world , but he is not the most powerful man of the world.


According to my counter machine (**) I have posted 5077 posts, but according to my section „user's posts“ (**) I have posted 5081 posts. So the counter machine has not always done its job perfectly. If it had done its job perfectly, it would have shown me the number „5081“. In reality I have posted even more than 5081 posts, but those more posts have been deleted accidently by a moderator.


Meno wrote:

„OK, let's leave that for now, and go back to an earlier point You made of Hegel's use of the word: aufgehoben. The meaning of the word has several references in usage: lift up, abolish, cancel, suspend, sublate, preserve, transcend, annul, rescind, neutralize, balance out; in reference to Hegel's use.“ **

I think that the words „cancel“ and „annul“ do not fit here.

Meno wrote:

„It's apropo and ironic simultaneously to hold an etymological disparity of one word, while holding to the unification of disparate political systems, which seems to validate in this way a congruency, which underlies Your proposition.

Does this somehow, in a far flung manner possibly demonstrate the geometrical, or spatial logic underlying this seeming unity of both: the linguistic contradictory derivative, with the societal , familial process that is also mentioned above?“ **

Yes, if you mean the following sentence:

Arminius wrote:

„And by the way:

When it comes to the obfuscation of familial, genealogical and successful filiations (especially if they are the basics for the premises of a so-called »social life«) the alleged »enemies« capitalism/liberalism and communism/socialism are the best friends.“ ** **

That is merely one of many examples.


I remind you of the following two posts:

Meno wrote:

„There is method to the madness.“ **

Arminius wrote:

„Yes, and those few who have enough power to make use of that method have an advantage over the many others.“ ** **


Most of all ILP members have one post, as Alf has pointed out:

Alf wrote:

Many, many post no or a few posts, and a few post many posts.

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



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.“ ** **

The more posts I have, the more errors the counter machine makes.

Arminius wrote:

„According to my counter machine (**) I have posted 5077 posts, but according to my section „user's posts“ (**) I have posted 5081 posts. So the counter machine has not always done its job perfectly. If it had done its job perfectly, it would have shown me the number „5081“. In reality I have posted even more than 5081 posts, but those more posts have been deleted accidently by a moderator.“ ** **

And now: According to my counter machine (**) I have posted 5078 posts, but according to my section „user's posts“ (**) I have posted 5084 posts. So the counter machine has not always done its job perfectly. If it had done its job perfectly, it would have shown me the number „5084“. In reality I have posted even more than 5084 posts, but those more posts have been deleted accidently by a moderator.

That is funny.


NACH OBEN 1012) Arminius, 11.07.2017, 15:36, 15:46, 16:17 (6004-6006)


Should you be loyal to your country?
If no: Why not?
If yes: Why?
And: In any case?


Carleas wrote:

„I believe the post counter does not count posts in certain forums (perhaps including the Meta forum, and almost certainly including Rant).“ **

What I know for sure is that the subforum „Chamber of Debate“ is one of those „problematic“ subforums for the post counter.


Ierrellus wrote:

„37 weeks without tobacco, 41 weeks without alcohol.“ **


Ierrellus wrote:

„Looking forward to my first year of abstaining.“ **

You can do it! I am sure.


NACH OBEN 1013) Arminius, 12.07.2017, 15:28, 15:53, 16:02, 16:20 (6007-6010)


Do you agree?


Absolutely (**). He (**) does not know what he is talking about.


I did not say that „we should care about our country“ (**). I asked whether you should do it or not (**|**).


The question was whether humans can be distinguished from machines even then, if the machines have already become almost indistinguishable. I think that in that case it is only possible to distinguish them biologically.


NACH OBEN 1014) Arminius, 13.07.2017, 21:55, 22:36, 23:03, 23:27 (6011-6014)


In other words: When human beings have alraedy come „back to nature“ (!), in this case: back to apes!


The more exercises you do, the more fear disapears from you. And Fabio Wibmer has done his extreme exercises very well (**).


There are examples in history and also in the present that show people who hate their country (really or not really - this is often not clear). So it is possible. And everything that is possible can become real.


Information, yes, but if „we all seek to influence each other“ (**), as you said, then this can be reduced to Hegel’s „desire to get recognition (appreciation)“ or to Nietzsche’s „will to power“.

I think that Hegel’s „desire to get recognition (appreciation)“ is the basis, thus also the basis of te following examples:

James S. Saint wrote:

useful information
ego support
yearning for a life
social influence
sense of social acceptance“ **


NACH OBEN 1015) Arminius, 19.07.2017, 19:58, 20:07, 20:37, 21:32, 21:46, 21:50, 22:42, 22:51, 22:59, 23:34 (6015-6024)


I prefer the word „Faustians“ to describe what Occidentals really are. The words „Europeans“ and „Westerners“ tell us more about geographical aspects than about what this people really are. Faustians have the absolute will, are absloutely dynamic (energetic), very intelligent, they are by far the best technicians, inventers, designers, scientists, geniuses, artists, poets and thinkers ... and so on; but they are all this in the negative way too, which means, for example, that they can get a very bad conscience, if correspondending circumstances are given: so, for example, in the case of decadence (nihilism) they use their absolute will, their absolute dynamics (energy), their high intelligence and all their other high features against themselves.

So the Faustians are very successful people - by far the most successful people of all times (see above) -, but they are very tragic people too. Maybe that success and tragedy correlate with each other, at least in the long run. It is very likely that the end of this tragedy will really be that the Faustians will have sacrificed themselves.


Yes, but note that it is merely propaganda of the extreme left-wingers in Europe, and the extreme left-wingers are paid by the EU. The European extreme left-wingers are the Cheka (TscheKa) of the EU.



Are you really serious or just cynical when you state that you „don't think the national debt is a bad thing“ (**)?

Debt is a bad thing. Of course. It is bad, wrongful, unfair, unjust, especially when it comes to the following generations.

If you want to have a sustainable development (which also means a development of fairness, justice, goodness, rightness!), then debt must be a taboo.


It is possible, that there will be no human culture anymore but only a machine culture. So that the humans will only have a chance if they will coexist in the sense of an adaptation to the machines (and not the other way around).


Do some (and if yes: how many) of the U.S. citizens hate their country, for example because of the unjustice in the world? Many haters of this kind argue in this way, I think, but I do not know for sure, and that is the reason why I want to ask an U.S. citizen, for example you (or are you not an U.S. citizen?).


Follow this link (**|**), please!


In an economical sense, the „Industrial Revolution“ means this: Human beings are needed in order to replace them by machines till the time when they will not be needed.

So the „Industrial Revolution“ seems to be a paradox when it comes to the general development of human beings.

Economization as a rationalization seems to contradict the evolution of human beings.

This paradox or contradiction can only be solved, if we interpret our machines as something that can dominate us.

What shall we do?

It is unlikely that we will be able to get before the „Industrial Revolution“, unless we will have a global dictatorship that will forbid machines or a natural catastrophe will lead to the extinction of all intelligent machines and the survival of a few human beings.

Shall we accept that machines will dominate us?


Sorry, but what you are saying here (**) has (almost) nothing to do with fairness, goodness, rightness, justice, especially generational justice.


Every nation or common must guarantee a sustainable development (the German word „Nachhaltigkeit“ should better be used here), which includes just fairness, goodness, rightness, justice, especially generational justice; otherwise it will experience the „tragedy of the commons“.


Debt is just the opposite of generational justice (a.k.a.: intergenerational justice). We should also have in the case of money what we should have in the case of all products and goods coming from nature: Nachhaltigkeit („sustainable development“).

Debt has definetely to do with the future. Nobody can deny that.

So if you burden the generations of the future with debts and/or a dirty natural (and probably also social) environment, then you are not fair, not just, not good, not right.


NACH OBEN 1016) Arminius, 20.07.2017, 01:08, 01:19, 01:31, 01:49, 20:45, 23:12 (6025-6030)


Yes (**). Historically said: it would have been quite alright, if they had stopped their debt policy in the 1960s (and not later!); but what they did was just the opposite and more, which means even much more accelerated, thus even much more exponentially increasing debts and a bastard economy.

Arminius wrote:

„Moreno wrote:

»Arminius wrote:

›Increasingly states, companies and private households reach the point, from which on the credit no longer opens but blocks the future: Growing debt services saps ever larger parts of current income - until the line is exceeded, beyond which older debts only be postponed by a cascade of new debts in a permanently paralyzed tomorrow. This situation deserves to be called „post-historical“: It completely fulfills Arnold Gehlen's classic definition of the posthistoire as a state of high „mobility above the stationary bases“ - while one would like to replace the word „stationary“ by the word „untenable“. (**).‹ ** **

The ways to make money that produce nothing are increasing.« **

Yes, and this has been becoming a dictatorship of inflationism, especially since the 15th of August 1971 when the US president Richard Nixon reversed the gold backing. This is just a bastard economy.“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„If you ask me, then I answer you that the said financial system of Bretton Woods ended 1971, exactly on 15 August 1971 when Nixon relinquished the gold backing of the US Dollar. (And by the way: Keynes said during the Bretton Woods monetary conference that he wanted to relinquish the gold backing, but he meant the gold backing of the British Pound [ ], and had no success, because the USA dominated the Bretton Woods monetary conference, so the gold standard was set at $ 35.00 an ounce, as you can see it on the table above.) Since the 15th of August 1971 the gold price and a phantom system of expectations of expectations have been exploding. Of course: it is an instable financial system, probably the most instable financial system of all times.

Note: The 15 August is also a Christian holiday, a Christian holy day: Assumption of Mary.** **

Arminius wrote:

„An example: In the 1950’s and largely also in the 1960’s there was full employment in Europe as well as in the US and in Canada. Then many errors occurred, for example: (1.) the exponentially increasing debts; (2.) the reversing the gold backing of the US Dollar by Richard Nixon in 1971 (which means even much more accelerated, thus even much more exponentially increasing debts and a bastard economy); (3.) the increasing number of unemployed native men, especially the first unemployment of young men (the first youth unemployment started) because of the increasing number of immigrants and female wageworkers. I am not judging here, I am only talking about facts. And if it is right what politicians always and mantra-like claim, namely that full employment, thus the prevention of unemployment, is the main goal, then these said decisions and actions (see: 1., 2., 3.) are very extreme errors.


** **


Yes (**), or they start or let others start a war, so that they can say after that war: „we need to start with a new economy, a new currency, a new law of this and of that“ and so on (blablabla - always the same).


The question remains: „Do some (and if yes: how many) of the U.S. citizens hate their country, for example because of the unjustice in the world?“ ** **

My assumption is: yes; but I don’t know the percentage. All European countries and the countries with people of European origin have such haters.


Urwrong wrote:

„Oh there are plenty of »solutions« to the problems dominating u.s. and other western countries.

Main problem is, most people, and the baby-boomers too, will not like those solutions, at all.

I’m with Arminius. The national debt needs to be confronted squarely before anything else can be done.“ **

And in spite of the fact that the debt proponents do not like it.

This subject is just too important.



The debt problem we are talking about is 73 years old, if the basis is the 1944 starting system of Bretton Woods, or 46 years old, if the basis is the 1971 starting system of the bastard economy, of the reversing the gold backing of the US Dollar, of the dictatorship of the inflationism, of the exponentially increasing debts.

Keynes said in the 1930s that the government should contract debts in order to kick-start, to stimulate economy. When somebody critizised that this would lead to increasing debts and asked Keynes what should be done in the long run, Keynes answered cynically: „In the long run we are all dead“. With that cynical statement he admitted to know the evil consequences of his theory.

By the way: Keynes had no children.

Now, 73 years after 1944 (see above) and 46 years after 1971 (see above) there are generations who had already huge debts when they were born, not to mention the generations of the future who will be born with even huger debts. We all know that if debts will not be paid back by money, they will be paid back by blood, by death. Certain generations will have to pay back the debts in the uncertain future (whenever that will be - perhaps tomorrow).

Do you have children?


Why are you (**) so slightly off-topic? You shirk my arguments. I was not talking about the positive or negative aspects of the gold standard here. I was talking about debts, and debts are bad, evil, especially in the long run. So debts are the nonsensical policy, regardless whether the gold standard is a nonsensical policy too or not.

Here are my posts of this thread again, so that you can read them (again):

Copied post.

Copied post.

Copied post.

Copied post.

Copied post.

Copied post.

Copied post.

Copied post.

Nothing can be found there about positive or negative aspects of the gold standard. I did not say anything about it.

So you are slightly off-topic. You shirk my arguments.


NACH OBEN 1017) Arminius, 30.07.2017, 01:04, 01:09, 01:12, 01:48, 01:55, 01:57, 02:06, 02:06, 02:10, 02:15, 02:28, 02:36, 02:42, 02:53, 03:33, 14:11, 14:25, 14:34, 14:52, 23:20, 23:39, 23:57 (6031-6051)


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.“ **


1 + 2 = 0 *

John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946)





* = 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:

»How to get rid of humans?« ** **

. .... »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.


- Udo Lindenberg (U. Lindenberg, K. Allaut, K-G. Stephan, P. Backhausen, G. Böttger, T. Kukuck), Rudi Ratlos, 1974.


- Haindling (H.-J. Buchner, H.-J. Braun, M. Braun, P. Enderlein, R. Kürvers, R. Raschner), Du Depp, 1983.


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.

How much richer are the richest 20 percent than the poorest 20 percent?

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!


- Can (Schmidt, Liebezeit, Czukay, Karoli, Suzuki), Mother Sky, 1970.


- Joachim Witt (Witt, Liebezeit, Großkopf, Gutowski, Tinner), Der goldene Reiter, 1980 -

- Joachim Witt (Witt, Liebezeit, Großkopf, Gutowski, Tinner), Sonne hat sie gesagt, 1980 -

- Joachim Witt, Der goldene Reiter, live, 2015 -


Those people call everyone a „Nazi“ who disagrees with them.

The Guide to Political Rhetoric

Antifa Political Compass

Political Spectrum Chart

If you disagree with me, I will compare you to Hitler !

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“?

Frontpage MAG, „Muslim Gang Rapists in France: »The French are all Sons of Whores«“, 22.04.2014.


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).


- Kraftwerk (Hütter, Schneider, Flür, Bartlos), Europa endlos, 1977.

- Cover version of the Spanish band (39 years after the first release of Kraftwerk).


Topic: Who is threatened by racism mostly?

Who is threatened by racism mostly?


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.


NACH OBEN 1018) Arminius, 04.08.2017, 01:11, 01:12, 01:12, 01:14, 01:15, 01:16, 01:16, 01:17, 01:18, 01:18, 01:19, 01:25, 01:28, 01:31, 01:34, 01:38 , 20:34, 21:18, 23:00 (6052-6070)


In some same and some other words: The „people developing these machines are“ (**) too stupid when it comes to the subject „machines / artificial intelligence“.


What is your point, mostly?


Otto West wrote:

„At this point I'm a firm supporter of organized crime like a power structure reminiscent to the mafia.“ **

But ...:

Autsider wrote:

„At a fundamental level there isn’t much difference between organized crime and the government.

Gangster - Hierarchie


Otto West wrote:

„I don't identify with any politics or government really, I only identify with my own self interests and survival. I do support hierarchy but only one that I benefit from. As a general rule I don't support anything that doesn't benefit me which can be said of a lot of things in the world. (New belief of mine contrasting to older anarchist ideals I use to cling to, not anymore.) This is my highest aspiring ideal for what it is worth.“ **

This reminds me of Max Stirner (Johann Kaspar Schmidt) and his book that was published in 1844: „Der Einzelne und sein Eigentum“ (translated English title: „The Ego and its Own“; although the righter translation is: „The Individual and His Property“).

Otto West wrote:

„(Probably not much for you.)

Nonetheless I am no fan of the eradication of the west or white European people. This we can both agree on.“ **

But I am just asking myself whether one can be „a firm supporter of organized crime“ (Otto West) who does not „identify with any politics or government really“ (Otto West), although „there isn’t much difference between organized crime and the government“ (Autsider).


Otto West wrote:

„In capitalism everybody is renters where private ownership is a grand illusion for the gullible, under socialism all so called private property in reality is state property. (Under capitalism there is the illusion of private property, under socialism there is not even the illusion.)

In capitalism you rent from corporate and banking fiefdoms that practically own the government, under socialism you rent from the state or government that owns everything and everybody. Notice in both the appeasement to central authoritarianism that only differ slightly from each other.“ **

Right, but the problem is that Non-continental-Europeans almost always think that „socialism“ means „communism“ in the sense of (for example) Sovietism, and that is not true, because examples of other socialisms (the Roman Catholic Montanism, the German [especially Prussian] Socialism, the German National Socialism) are also known and experienced (more or less), and they have never been communistic, on the contrary: they have been anti-communistic - not seldom even more anti-communistic than capitalism has ever been - and by far less anti-capitalistic than communism has ever been.


Is Ide Opn wrote:

„All I can say is that Republicans are proud to be the better leftists.
So many of them have been successfully reconstructed into leftists after having been deconstructed for decades.“ **

That is true. Although besides rhetoric and its practical consequences, left and right do not really exist.


Here you can see the practice of the negative side of democracy: ochlocracy (**|**).

The Canadians have already learned a lot of ochlocratic skills.

Hats off!


1.) You are saying that I „have no actual critiques“ (**).

2.) You are saying that I „critique it“ (**).

So again: You do not know what you are talking about. As usual.

Additionally, you are a very humorless guy.

But I agree when it comes to the paranoia on the left, adding that there is also paranoia on the right. There is almost no difference between the left and the right. Both are working for the same real rulers.


Although, it (**) is more like the way to the ghetto inversion.


„Meaning“ is the central concept of semantics which is one of the most important subdiscipline of linguistics. The semantical research can be done in a synchronic and in a diachronic (etymological) way. So meaning has a history too. Animals do not reall know that a certain phenomenenon has a meaning; but they know the meaning of some phenomenons, because they have experienced them. So one has to have something like the human language in which one can analyse sound (phonemes) and the smalles forms with a meaning (morphemes), then words, sentences, texts.

Just observe little children when they learn the language of their parents or family. They learn that certain speech-forms, thus lingusitic forms, have certain meanings, either inward or outward. If these meanings are inward, then they are part of the language itself; and if they are outward, then they are part of both the language and the environment. So meanings can change (see also above: diachronic [etymological]), are in permanent contact with the environment of any language. The inward located meanings have a more subjective or „individual“ character, and the outward located meanings have a more objective character, and both are in permanent contact.


Otto, you know that that dreamer (**) does not know what we are talking about and does not even know what he is talking about.

Forgive him his nonsense: he needs a scapegoat (and we all know why).

He is scapegoating - as usual. His inflammatory agitation shows who he really is. He is full of envy, hate, resentment.

And drugs.


Ever heard of „collaboration“?

Those soldiers in the picture above (**|**) are soldiers of the German Wehrmacht - not SS.

Ernst Jünger was one of those German soldiers - as an occupation officer.

Maybe France was already dead at that time - maybe it died already in 1814, but if it really did, how would one call the current situation then?

This is the current, his „lovely“ Paris:


Paris Paris

Welcome to France your Muslims:

Welcome to France ?

But the Fed and other global banks are richer than ever before. That’s a coincidence, isn’t it?

We want a better France (or the old France back, although it is probably not possible anymore), but he does not! He wants a France that has never existed.

His motto is: „wash it but do not get it wet“ - that is his motto. The result is always „oil for a fire“.

The following text was written in April 2014 (thus: before the last huge wave of immigration):

Daniel Greenfield wrote:

„Muslim Gang Rapists in France: »The French are all Sons of Whores«.
»They would not have touched the girl if she had been a Turk«.
April 22, 2014
Daniel Greenfield

Muslim colonialism. It’s everywhere you don’t want to be.

An eighteen-year-old girl got off the regional rail at Évry station, and made a call on her cell phone. Four individuals jumped on her, and dragged her to a near-by park. They stripped her of everything, then they undressed her and raped her, taking turns. An indescribable rape of barbaric cruelty. The gang of four tortured her for more than two hours before leaving her, bleeding. A driver in a passing car took her and called for help. She had enough strength to file a complaint.

Thanks to her detailed description and the video surveillance images, the police arrested the four suspects in less than twenty-four hours, and their DNA confirmed their guilt. The questioning began on March 31 in the afternoon. The four rapists are minors: two of them are thirteen, one fifteen, and one seventeen. Three Turkish brothers, one Moroccan. Special facts: the eldest, seventeen, had been released six months earlier after serving two thirds of a two-year sentence for the rape of the son of a gendarme sub-officer. Released without surveillance. Now he is a repeat offender. Two of the others have already been arrested for armed robbery. Four criminals, three repeat offenders - all minors!

During the questioning, and from what we know about the investigation, the minors did not express the slightest remorse. On the contrary, they expressed their hatred: yes, they would not have touched the girl if she had been a Turk; yes, they attacked her because she was French and "the French are all sons of whores". The judge who jailed them indicted them for gang rape and barbarity, but also, and this is very rare, for racism.

This attitude is fairly typical as is the problem of repeat young offenders, which the article later addresses.

France has few useful responses to the decay of its society under the pressures of Islamic colonization. It can't impose the more brutal policing norms of the Muslim world and even in the Muslim world they don't suffice to protect Muslim women from violence. Rape and sexual harassment are endemic and they are curtailed only by chaperoning women or keeping them inside.

That's how broken Muslim culture is. And that breakage has spread to France.“ **

Written in April 2014.


Attano wrote:

„Germany can rest on an impeccable public administration, an engine that exerts every ounce of government's power on the state. As well as an excellent education system. (Both are not so different from the Netherlands' or Denmark's). But they have vision too, also because they are powerful enough to have it. They assess the options and then set the route - and they act. There is also a deep risk-aversion connaturated to Germany (Friederich II of Prussia was not really German, he was even anti-German [(FALSE - because you are confusing him with Fixed Merkel]; the German who thought to imitate him, Hitler [FALSE - because Hitler was Austrian], failed), and that can well explain overzealous efforts to prevent adverse situations, even if those look only remotely possible. Of course they too make sacrifices to their public opinion, and indeed 8 years of crisis were possible also with their substantial contribution to a ghastly credit crunch.
It's no surprise that the most powerful and quite healthy economy leads the game. And it's no surprise the German government aims at preserving and increasing this dominance. What else can they do? Their voters are in Germany, not in Greece or Portugal. (And, by the way, no one is innocent, PIGS are definitely not without blame, far from it).
As long as Germany leads in the EU (because it would still lead outside the EU), most of us will benefit from that in some way.“ **

Friederich II. (der Große) was Prussian, Adolf Hitler was Austrian. So both were German (thus: not „anti-German“, as you said).

Certain false values of the post-WW2-era do not count.

Europe as the EU exists only because Germany leads it. All other EU countries benefit from the EU because of the fact that Germany has been leading the EU since its beginning - that (and only that) is the reason why the EU still exists.

The non-German countries will never leave the EU as long as Germany will remain the leader of the EU. So you are right: „As long as Germany leads in the EU (because it would still lead outside the EU), most of us will benefit from that“ and thus not leave the EU.

I am more against than for the EU. So my appeal is: Exit or wait till the day when the EU will get a new leader: the Nothingness!


@ Otto West and Urwrong.

I find your last conversation here (see especially: page 7 of this thread) interesting, because it shows how important certain thoughts are and that most people do not care about them, although there is probably no clear solution of the question whether it is better to go back to nature or to go on with the nihilistic civilization. To me, it is pretty obvious that one day this Occidental civilization will either get overtaken or get „frozen“. So then and regardless which of the two possibilities will become reality, it will partly (thus: not absolutely) become more natural again - in other words: it will partly get overtaken by nature. But it is pretty probable too that going back to nature will be forbidden someday: about 99% of all people will have to live in ghettos - now known as „cities“. So the result of the so-called „New World Order“ will be either a new feudalism of a global kind or even two globally seperated human species (comparable with - for examle - the Morlocks and the Eloi).


When George W. Bush came to Europe, each gully cover (manhole cover) was cemented.

Autsider wrote:

„Voting only truly matters if it is restricted to a small portion of the population so that each individual vote has a reasonable influence on the outcome. Otherwise it's just a sham to keep people obedient and sheepish.“ **

Yes, and it is because of the support of the almost unknown real rulers having nothing to do with democracy.

Voting is only good for a small group - up to tribes (at the most!).

For example: The Ancient German or the Ancient Gallican tribes voted just because of the same interests they had as a small group. If the number of each of their tribes had not been as small as it had been, then the most votings would not work well or only work in the case of a same interest of something like a nation. Examples are (1) the unseccessful of almost all Gallican tribes under Vercingetorix against the Romans in the year 58 BC and (2) the successful war of almost all German tribes under Arminius against the Romans in the year 9. Almost all of those tribes were united for a relatively short time because they had a common interest, but the tribes - and thus: not the nation - had decided this by voting. If they had already been a real nation, then they would have decided like the current nations do today: according to the corruption.

But where do we have such tribes today? There are not really such tribes anymore (and „gangs“ are no tribes in the traditional sense). That is the problem too, namely of the whole world of today.


And when will they start the next world war?

The economical part (including e.g. a sociological part and a pyscholgical part) and the demographical part (**|**) of ww3 started alraedy a long time ago. It has not reached its peak yet. And, as I guess, when it will have, then the physical, chemical, biological parts of ww3 will follow.. Thus: yes, before 2050, probably even before 2030.

Oswald A. G. Spengler wrote:

„1. (1800-2000): Domination of money (»democracy«). Economic powers permeating the political forms and authorities.
2. (2000-2200): Formation of Caesarism. Victory of force-politics over money. Increasing primitiveness of political forms. Inward decline of the nations into a formless population, and constitution thereof as an imperium of gradually increasing crudity of despotism.
3. (after 2200): Maturing of the final form. Private and family policies of individual leaders. The world as spoil. Egypticism, mandarinism, Byzantinism. Historyless stiffening and enfeeblement even of the imperial machinery, against young peoples eager for spoil, or alien conquerors. Primitive human conditions slowly thrust up into the highly civilized mode of living.“ (*Source of the translation*) *Source of the original*

According to Spengler’s schedule (**), we are now in the beginning of the „formation of Caesarism“ (see: 2. (2000-2200)).


Hitler was no leftist and no rightist - Hitler was an Austrian !


Gib wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»They learn that certain speech-forms, thus lingusitic forms, have certain meanings, either inward or outward. If these meanings are inward, then they are part of the language itself; and if they are outward, then they are part of both the language and the environment.« ** **

Can you give an example of inward meaning and outward meaning? Is it the same difference as between mental and physical? Or is it that inward meaning is speech-forms that come packaged with the language itself (so to speak)--words like „and“ or „the“ or „because“ - whereas outward meaning is speech-forms that are subsumed into language to serve the function of denoting or identifying things in the environment - words like „chair“ or „cloud“ or „shoe“?“ **

Everything that is relevant to the one who is learning a language can be used as an example here. Thus: Everything. A tree for example becomes a semantical meaning as an inward meaning when the linguistic form „tree“ is internalized (learned).

By „inward meanings“ I mean here in my example the forms that have already been internalized by the child, either incorrectly, then the child has to learn more, or correctly, then the child can use them for the next steps of learning. By „outward meanings“ I mean here in my example the forms that are new for the child, thus have not already been internalized by the child, are just outwards in the environment of the child. So the linguistic forms and their meanings inside the body (brain) of the child become firmer and more and more (like an inventory of a company / corporation for example), whereas the linguistic forms and their meanings outside the body (brain) of the child (and still inside the bodies [brains] of the child’s parents for example) become less and less. At last, when the language is almost (almost!) acquired, the child (about 3 years old) could already go to school, if there was not the other language precondition that must be fulfilled: the language of writing / reading (which is a skill the child is not capable of before the age of 5 years).

What I wanted to say in my post above (**|**) is that there is already meaning in the language before one learns this meaning. So we learn a language that has already been learned by others. But if you observe a young child who is learning the parental language, then you can ascertain how pre-linguistic meanings become linguistic meanings. Everything becomes more and more abstract and spiritual (later even philosophical and mathematical). That is a huge advantage.


You (**) have written no single argument. But you have written a lot of nonsense and a lot of ad hominems !


Never an argument - but always a lot of ad hominems (**|**).

I doubt that you (**) know what a brain is. I mean a brain without drugs, hate, envy, resentment.


NACH OBEN 1019) Arminius, 11.08.2017, 17:51, 17:53, 17:54, 17:57, 17:59, 18:00, 18:07, 18:08, 18:19, 18:37, 18:39, 18:40, 20:36, 21:30, 21:52, 22:06, 23:52 (6071-6087)


Gloominary wrote:

„If industrial and postindustrial technology is more likely to destroy humanity and life on earth as we know it than save us and it, and that seems to be the case, than why're we in such a rush to further develop it?“ **

Because the Faustians will never rest as long as they will remain what they are.

Gloominary wrote:

„Why do we think more technology will solve the problems technology created?“ **

Because Faustians believe in it. Thinking in this way belongs to their real religion.

Gloominary wrote:

„If people can’t regulate themselves, than perhaps governments should either ban all new technologies, or selectively ban them.“ **

Do you think that a government is ethically better than the people that are governed?

Gloominary wrote:

„Inventors should have to prove their technologies are both essential to the health and well being of humanity, and not detrimental to the environment.“ **

That leads to more corruption and thus to more destruction.

Gloominary wrote:

„Convenience is not essential, and other in population growth, which we didn't need, convenience is all modern tech has been good for.
It's not even clear that modern tech as a whole has actually improved our health or lifespan, there's growing evidence in the alternative community suggesting it hasn't.
I'm not suggesting we go back to a pre-industrial society, but we should approach new technologies, especially revolutionary ones with far more cynicism, skepticism and apprehension, as individuals and a society, and we should begin working on eliminating technologies which have been demonstrated to be detrimental long term, even at the price of inconvenience, especially when our health and the health of the planet is at stake.“ **

Those suggestions are not new. Since the late 18th century, the German Romanticists have been suggesting what you are suggesting now.

The problem is that the legislating people are almost everywhere in the world part of the corruption. What are the „human rights“ for example? Are they meant for all humans? No. They are meant for about 1% of all humans.


Dan wrote:

„Thank you for your post (**|**) .

I equate meaning to core qualities.

The core is like the existential everything of a being.
It has all kinds of temporary and changing aspects,
as well as repeating or old aspects.
Meaning can be found in the mental aspect of the existential core.
Meaning is like an alchemical biproduct.
A biological rare chemical complex.

That is the closest thing to an accurate description that ive got.

It would be like a forest supporting the life of monkeys.
In this case, the man suppports the life of meanings as memes.

Do you see what i mean?“ **

Yes, I see what you mean. Thank you for your response, Dan.


Faust wrote:

„Was reading an article in the SEP and came upon this:

Ontology is the study of beings or their being — what is.
Epistemology is the study of knowledge — how we know.
Logic is the study of valid reasoning — how to reason.
Ethics is the study of right and wrong — how we should act.
Phenomenology is the study of our experience — how we experience.

Philosophers have sometimes argued that one of these fields is »first philosophy«, the most fundamental discipline, on which all philosophy or all knowledge or wisdom rests. Historically (it may be argued), Socrates and Plato put ethics first, then Aristotle put metaphysics or ontology first, then Descartes put epistemology first, then Russell put logic first, and then Husserl (in his later transcendental phase) put phenomenology first.“ **

Not Russel, but Friedrich Ludwig Gottlob Frege put logic first. The modern logic (logistic, analytic etc.) was founded by Frege. Frege was Russel’s mathematical, logical, philosophical father.


Faust wrote:

„Which one would you put first?“ **

I would put logic first.

Philosophy is primarily about logic. In other words: „Philosophy without logic“ is no philosophy. Even if you put other philosophical fields first: you have to always answer the question whether your thinking about them is logically right or false (wrong). If ontology, epistemology, phenomenology, ethics are not logically right, then they are almost nonsensical, without any philosophic and scientific basis; and ontology, epistemology, phenomenology even contain the word „logic“, so any comment is superfluous in those cases.


Magnus Anderson wrote:

„Logic/epistemology, which is the study of reasoning, is the most fundamental philosophy.
Betrand Russell sounds like a really cool guy.
I think that these Anglo-Saxon philosophers are underrated by their continental friends.“ **

They are not underrated by their continental friends. Gottlob Frege was German (thus: continental European) and Russel’s mathematical, logical, philosophical father. Frege founded the modern logic - both the modern mathematical logic and the modern philosophical logic - logistics, analytics etc..

Friedrich Ludwig Gottlob Frege influenced everyone, also Edmund Husserl who followed Frege especially by adopting his distinction between logic and psychology (cp. Frege’s „Sinn und Bedeutung“) which led Husserl to his kind of phenomenology.


Gib wrote

„I go for logic myself. Logic is the very skill of thinking. With that, all other branches of philosophy become a breeze.“ **

Yes. Logic comes before all other branches of philosophy. Just as „mathematics without logic“ is no mathematics at all, „philosophy without logic“ is no philosophy at all.

A child in a womb can already behave according to logic - but not according to ethics. Every child’s development shows clearly that logic comes before ethics. Also is behaving according to ethics earlier than knowing about ethics.


Dan wrote:

„Ethics is about how to live. Logic is about how to think.
But living comes before thinking.“ **

Living comes before thinking. That is absolutely right. But that does not mean that ethics comes before logic.

It goes like a circle. When living without ethics has reached thinking, then it has reached logic and starts going backwards: from logic to living, which is now a living with ethics.

Even the most primitive laws are based on ethics based on logic. So they are primarily based on logic. The reason of any taboo and any totem may be ethics, but reason is not cause. They are caused by logic (based on logic), because only logic can lead to ethics. Ethics without logic is not possible. Logic without ethics is possible. Even an anarchist has to argue logically when it comes to the elimination of laws.

Do bacteria have ethics? No, but they are behaving according to logic. Logic does not require ethics, but ethics requires logic (otherwise such „ethics“ would not really be ethics).

So if we are arguing according to development in general or evolution and history in particular, we have to put logic first. Logic was before ethics.

A child in a womb can already behave according to logic - but not according to ethics. Every child’s development shows clearly that logic comes before ethics. Also is behaving according to ethics earlier than knowing about ethics.

So again: You are absolutely right about the fact that living comes before thinking. But you should not confuse ethics with living, because ethics does not mean „living“ (but the philosophical [!] answer to the also philosophical [!] question: „what should we do?“). Living can but does not have to lead to thinking, and logic can but does not have to lead to ethics.


Otto West wrote:

„In the latest incidents with Donald Trump it seems like congress and the senate is trying to strip all executive power away from the president. It seems like congress and the senate is trying to become the new executive power of government making the presidency completely impotent to change anything at all politically. This is very strange and unprecedented concerning the usual corruption of American politics. In the past up to now traditionally every presidency has enjoyed levels of executive power or privilege, this current presidency not so much. What this amounts to is congress and the senate taking over the executive branch the only problem of course is both institutions have essentially been taken over by international interests for decades. The congress and senate hasn't been a representation of the majority of the population for many years.“ **

For more than one century!

James S. Saint wrote:

„The President has been allowed to be a king for too long. Obama stated that his primary job is to protect the people. Yet that was never the job of the President. The President's job is merely to enforce the dictates of Congress, most specifically to protect the borders. The Presidents should never have been making decisions concerning internal affairs nor starting wars. A grandfathered loophole in the Constitution allows for the President to be a king during a war, thus wars are regularly started (not to leave out the corporate benefits). Obama attempted to get Congress to pass an »Eternal War« state for the USA, making the President a permanent king, false-flag »terrorism« of course, being the eternal incentive (The Ahdam and Eve story all over again).

Although perhaps better to have done long before now, Congress taking back control of the President is a good thing. While the USA has been under this demonic possession initiated with WW1 and the FED, congressmen have become nothing more than slackers and serpents, so certainly suddenly gaining the control that was supposed to have always been there will lead to initial trouble. House cleaning will be a necessity soon after.“ **

That FED was founded in 1913 - the concrete beginning of the end.


Otto West wrote:

„Ethnic protectionism? Yes. Global ethnic interventionism as the likes of past imperial structures? No. The west cannot afford another global war or conflict, we do not have the population demographics to even support such an initiative.

Colonizing outer space? We don't even have the resources or technological capability to pursue that end. I remain heavily skeptical of all that. Rough scrutiny of international zionism? Yes, absolutely!“ **

The population demographics are merely one aspect, because there are some more aspects. We still have an advance in technology, economy, military, education ... etc. ... (see my next post).


Otto West wrote:

„The best we can hope for is massive civil war and domestic insurrection in the west when western nations finally collapse. Afterwards there will be a great rebuilding project.

Given the rest of the world's negative opinions of the west I doubt they’ll try to intervene in any of that letting us fight it out amongst ourselves. Global conflict or wars with other nations is simply not at option at this point of history, that should be shunned completely.

Western nations will fracture, splinter, and divide where new lines of territories will be made. Western territories will essentially become smaller where nations like the United States will probably split into five or six territorial segments. At this point we Europeans will never regain the whole or entirety of our former traditional nations ever again where we'll have to settle for much smaller homogenous territories to rebuild ourselves, that's a hard pill to swallow of course as there will be tremendous losses but it is better with that than nothing at all speaking purely of future possibilities. Sometimes less is better.“ **

Note: In the following I am going to use the word „Europeans“ for all those people who are of European origin (except those who are globalists), regardless where they currently live.

China started its protectionism politics about 2200 years ago by building the big wall. Why should the Europeans not start doing it today too? The answer is that the globalists do not want the Europeans to do it, and that all European politicians are the henchmen of the globalists.

During the so-called „cold war“ the peoples of the NATO-bloc were told that the NATO was a „military defense alliance“ - a lie. At the very latest since the 1990’s we have clearly experienced that the NATO is not a „military defense“ but a military offense alliance. The Europeans have to reform the NATO, so that it can be a real military defense alliance. This is possible without huge economical disadvantages, if they start doing this as soon as possible. The later they will start doing this, the more expensive their doing and the more likely their breakup or even extinction will become.

The demographic development is one point, but the huge economic and military power - both based on and correlative with the technological advance the Europeans still have - is the other point. As long as the said advance will remain, the Europeans will be capable of doing whatever they want, provided that this doing will serve real European interests. So we have two questions in this case: (1) Will the Europeans start defending themselves early enough? (2) How long will the said advance remain?

But I fear that the Europeans will further on serve the globalists. In that case, we can only hope that the globalists will some day get their senses back, get some common sense. The last chance for the Europeans in the case of remaining homogenous will be one country somewhere on this planet (or on the planet Mars or the moon Europa? ), but even then they will have to calculate on much resistance against them. In the long run, the globalists themselves will have no future either. After that globalistic era many solutions will be possible, also SAM or a reign of machines (AI).


James S. Saint wrote:

„I don't so easily forgive mass murderings out of sympathy for former oppression by former people trying to avoid the mass murderings. You are simply not aware of who has been murdering whom, in what manner, and on what scale.

Just one small recent example: USS Liberty Incident.

Controlling media and free speech does not erase murder.“ **

True. They increase murder significantly. And it is easy for them to do this, because they cover the murder facts with lies and misrepresentations of that facts.


Urwrong wrote:

„There's so much fake news these days, you basically strike gold when discovering »real news«.

Basically these days, everything is Sensationalism. 9 of 10 news websites and foundations are posting misleading and ridiculous titles, just to receive some clicks and attention. It's completely fake. Basically "news" agencies are resorting to outright lies and emotionalism, complete subjectivity, to retain any relevance in modern society.

That's why yahoo.com, for example, bashes Trump daily. They cater to their liberal-leftist foundation and readers. Without this constant bashing, subjectively driven, then very few people would even bother to read it. And that's true of most »news« agencies nowadays. They are catering to the expectations, the hidden values, of their bases.

Conservatives expect »conservative« slants. Liberals expect »liberal« slants. And if neither get it then the »news« agency risks losing what dwindling power it has, in terms of commercialism and sensationalism.

Imagine a day on earth, where there was »no news« but people just went about their day. All news canceled on one day. Wouldn't people breathe easier? Be happier? Probably. It's not like the world would miss much.

Except that would be a perfect opportunity for one country to invade another, I suppose.“ **

I think, we should distinguish between the news of the natural media or primitive cultural media and the news of the high cultural media or modern mass media.

If there was no news at all, nobody would win much, but everyone would lose much. So „no news at all“ is equivalent to „no life at all“.

Media is basically not more than an information processing system. All iving beings need news and are media too.

So the problem is not the media itself, the problem is the „modern mass media“.


Are you (**) talking to me?


But there is a hierarchy within philosophy.

Also, there are more than those five „fields“ (**) that are mentioned in the opening post of this thread.


The question was not only what the Romans had done for them (**).

The question was also and especially why the Romans were not at home (**).


It is not a „parallel development“ (**), precisely said. It is just the development that shows why logic is the first field of philosophy.

I know that in modern times ethics is the one that philosophically attracks more than the other philosophical fields. But that does not mean that ethics must or should be put first.


Copied part of a post.

Copied part of a post.

Copied post.


Sauwelios wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Philosophy is primarily about logic. In other words: ›Philosophy without logic‹ is no philosophy. Even if you put other philosophical fields first: you have to always answer the question whether your thinking about them is logically right or false (wrong).« ** **

„Wrong“, not „false“.

You are wrong.

Sauwelios wrote:

„Logic can only establish whether an argument is valid, not whether it is sound. That is to say, it can only determine that, if an argument's premisses are true, the conclusion must also be true; it cannot establish whether the premisses are true.

And even this holds only insofar as reality is logical--i.e., insofar as it corresponds to human reason.“ **

Logic can more than you think.

Sauwelios wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Do bacteria have ethics? No, but they are behaving according to logic.« ** **

You're confusing two things here (perhaps not in your mind, but certainly in your words).“ **

I am not confusing anything.

Sauwelios wrote:

„A bacterium need not behave according to logic; it may just seem to behave that way, because we cannot think otherwise than »according to logic« - i.e., to human logic.“ **

And you are the only one who knows that a bacterium behaves according to its „bacterium logic“?

We are talking about logic and ethics here!

A bacterium logic is logic too - by definition.

Sauwelios wrote:

„»We cease to think when we refuse to do so under the constraint of language [note: not necessarily of words]; we barely reach the doubt that sees this limitation as a limitation.
Rational thought is interpretation according to a scheme that we cannot throw off.« (Nietzsche, The Will to Power, section 522, Kaufmann translation.)“ **

Original (German) text:

„Wir hören auf zu denken, wenn wir es nicht in dem sprachlichen Zwange tun wollen, wir langen gerade noch bei dem Zweifel an, hier eine Grenze als Grenze zu sehn. Das vernünftige Denken ist ein Interpretieren nach einem Schema, welches wir nicht abwerfen können.“ - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, Der Wille zur Macht, 522, S. 358. **


Sauwelios wrote:

„»We are unable to affirm and to deny one and the same thing: this is a subjective empirical law, not the expression of any 'necessity' but only of an inability.
[...] Either [the law of contradiction] asserts something about actuality, about being, as if one already knew this from another source; that is, as if opposite attributes could not be ascribed to it. Or the proposition means: opposite attributes should not be ascribed to it. In that case, logic would be an imperative, not to know the true, but to posit and arrange a world that shall be called true by us.« (op.cit., section 516.)

»The earthly kingdom of desires out of which logic grew: the herd instinct in the background. The assumption of similar ["identical"] cases presupposes 'similar souls.' For the purpose of mutual agreement and dominion.« (op.cit., section 509.)

Thus ethics (herd morality) comes before logic.“ **

No. In order to have ethics logic is needed. The „herd morality“ and „ethics“ are concepts, created by language, by human language. Concepts must be defined, must be logical. So logic comes before ethics. Ethics depends on logic. There is no „herd morality“ without logic, regardless how romantic (beautiful) the counter „arguments“ are.


NACH OBEN 1020) Arminius, 11.08.2017, 18:18, 18:23, 18:26, 20:49, 21:52, 21:56, 22:30, 23:00, 23:14, 23:51, 23:53 (6088-6098)


Frege was already famous before Bertrand Russel was born. Back then, everyone of those Europeans who were interested in mathematics, logic, philosophy read Frege; even certain Americans (especially those who had studied in Germany) read Frege.


@ Sauwelios.

We already had the discussion about valid and sound arguments. We do not need to repeat it. James and I also discussed that subject.

And I doubt that a bacterium does not need to behave according to logic. We (the humans) are the interpreters - in any case, thus also in the case that you mentioned (that a bacterium does not need to behave according to logic). But you have not given any proof or evidence for your statement.

We (the humans) can only do what we can - not more.

Basically, we are talking about language, especially about words and very especially about lexemes, log(ic)emes. This may also be called „interpretation“. Even non-linguistic experiences or non-linguistic observations - summed up as non-linguistic empirism - have to be interpreted.

Nietzsche said: „Das vernünftige Denken ist ein Interpretieren nach einem Schema, welches wir nicht abwerfen können.“ (Translated into English: „Rational thought is interpretation according to a scheme that we cannot throw off.“) Wir können dieses Interpretieren nicht abwerfen! We cannot throw off this interpretation! We are the interpreters - in any case (see above).

When it comes to the „first-field-of-philosophy“-issue, I am arguing more historically or, more generally said, in a developmental way.

A young child can already argue logically before knowing anything about ethics or morality. This must have been the same during the early human evolution.

And during that early human evolution, there were no human „herds“ but merely human small groups, at least smaller than herds are per definitionem. Human herds occured a bit later.

Sauwelios wrote:

„Herd morality preceded the concept »herd morality«; it preceded human language as well.“ **

That is just a statement. There are no proofs or evidence for it.

So I repeat and will always repeat my statement: Language and logic preceded the concept „herd morality“.


James S. Saint wrote:

„The word »Logic« only applies to language and its reasoning or argumentation. It does not apply to people, animals, bacterium nor reality itself. Reasoning can be logical. People and anything alive can be rational. The universe itself or reality has nothing to do with logic nor rationality. The universe can neither be illogical nor logical, rational nor irrational. Only a living creature's reasoning and use of language can be logical. And only a living creature's behavior can be rational.“ **

Exactly. That is what I am saying too. It is our - the human - language that also preceded e.g. the logical concept „herd morality“ and not the other way around, as Sauwelios is suggesting. The concept „herd morality“ is based on an interpretation, on language, on thinking, on logic. Wether there was a „herd morality“ before it was invented logically by using language logically (philosophically) or not is a matter of the interpretation and changes during the time; but I have good reasons for saying that language preceded e.g. the logical concept „herd morality“, and I have given evidence for that. Try to teach a child of a certain developmental age what ethics is by using logic, and you will be successful; but try to teach a child of a certain developmental age what logic is by using ethics, and you will be unsuccessful.


Although or because (!) he had become a Roman citizen and officer, the German Arminius (18 B.C. - 21 A.D.) decided to fight against the Romans and to become a free German again.

In the year 12 B.C. Arminius’ homeland became a Roman province.

In the year 9 A.D. Arminius’ homeland became part of the free Germany (Germania Magna) again.



Better death than dishonor. Better being dead than enslaved.

This motto is also true when it comes to thinking and can be seen as the reason or motif for my username here.


James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Try to teach a child of a certain developmental age what ethics is by using logic, and you will be successful; but try to teach achild of a certain developmental age what logic is by using ethics, and you will be unsuccessful.« ** **

Great example.

Faust wrote:

»Ontology is the study of beings or their being — what is.
Epistemology is the study of knowledge — how we know.
Logic is the study of valid reasoning — how to reason.
Ethics is the study of right and wrong — how we should act.
Phenomenology is the study of our experience — how we experience.

Which one would you put first?« **

I consider that language, if not spoken, then language of mind (thinking), had to come before that entire list. Language void of consistency in use, isn't language. And since logic is merely the consistency of language, I would have to put logic as »First« on that list.

Studying anything on that list, including logic itself, requires logic to already be engaged, although perhaps poorly so.“ **

I agree.


Otto West wrote:

„Arminius, by tradition of the German side of my family it is said it can be traced all the way back to the ancient Alemanni.“ **




Do you (**) know the names of those ancient ancestors?


Are you (**) joking?


Some historical maps for you (**):



Can you (**) start with that?


Or are you (**) just joking?