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

<= [1631][1632][1633][1634][1635][1636][1637][1638][1639][1640] =>

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
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 1631) Sleyor Wellhuxwell, 11.10.2022, 01:05, 11:11, 11:55, 13:45, 15:57, 23:19, 23:41 (8730-8736)


„Philosophy dissolves into independent sciences. They are called: logistics, semantics, psychology, anthropology, sociology, political science, poetology, technology. Simultaneously with the dissolution into the sciences, philosophy is replaced by a new kind of unification of all sciences. The overpowering of the sciences by a basic trait that rules in them takes place in the emergence of what tries to expand under the title cybernetics. This process is promoted and accelerated by the fact that modern science itself meets it according to its basic character.

Nietzsche has expressed this basic feature of the modern science in the year before his collapse (1888) with a single sentence. It reads: »It is not the victory of science that distinguishes our 19th century, but the victory of scientific method over science.« The Will to Power, n. 466 (**). - Method is conceived here as no more than the instrument by means of which scientific research processes its already determined objects. The method constitutes the representationality itself of the objects, provided that here we may still speak of objects, provided that the positing of determinations of representationality at all still has an »ontological valence«.

But the end of philosophy is not the end of thinking. Therefore, the question becomes pressing whether thinking accepts the test that awaits it and how it survives the time of the test.“

- Translation from: Martin Heidegger, „Speech on the Eve of Eugen Fink’s 60th Birthday“, 10 December, 1965. **


Notice that Heidegger said (translated): „But the end of philosophy is not the end of thinking. Therefore, the question becomes pressing whether thinking accepts the test that awaits it and how it survives the time of the test.“ **

Heidegger Martin Heidegger (painted on his bench at the world-famous field path).


„When you quote this thought with the dangerousness of the atomic bomb and an even greater dangerousness of technology, I think of what is developing today as biophysics, that in the foreseeable future we will be able to make man, i.e. to construct him purely in his organic being, in such a way as he is needed. Skilled and unskilled, clever and stupid. This is how far it will come. The technical possibilities are ready today and have already been expressed by Nobel Prize winners in a conference in Lindau, which I already quoted in a lecture years ago in Meßkirch.“

- Translation from: Martin Heidegger in conversation with Richard Wisser, 1969. **


„Science does not think“, Heidegger said in a Freiburg lecture.

„And this sentence »Science does not think«, which caused quite a stir when I uttered it in a Freiburg lecture, means: Science does not move in the dimension of philosophy, but it is, without knowing it, dependent on its dimension. For example: physics moves in the realm of space, time and motion; what is motion, what is space, what is time, science as science cannot decide. One cannot say by physical methods what physics is. One can say that only philosophically.“

- Translation from: Martin Heidegger in conversation with Richard Wisser, 1969. **


Ichthus wrote:

„Excerpt from his der Spiegel interview: ....“

The following picture shows Martin Heidegger and Rudolf Augstein (journalist from: „Spiegel“) in front of Heidegger's hut in the Schwarzwald („Black Forest“) in 1966, when the famous interview took place (which, by the way, was not allowed to be published before Heidegger’s death).

Martin Heidegger und Rudolf Augstein, 1966


As far as the definition of „thinking“ is concerned, there is no final solution in it either, because there are far too many different definitions.

According to ILP, „thinking“ is something that has to do with „posting“. If a member has 500 posts, then his thinking starts, and at 999 posts it stops (at the latest now the member should start to avoid ILP!).

We do not need to reformulate thinking because such a reformulation will only lead to more chaos. After all, we know from the language (everyone from his mother tongue) what the word „thinking“ means. We know the semantics of this word and how it is and must be used grammatically. We can not refer to anything else, because then everybody wants to have considered the own definition. We don't need Wittgenstein for that either. We only need to know ourselves what the word „(to) think(ing)“ means. If we know it, then we can start to think in elaborated form - otherwise not.


Already in „Being and Time“ language is understood as „the original essence of truth as Da“ (my translation). In the context of Heidegger’s Hölderlin interpretations, the binding of the opening of world to language is emphasized. „Only where language is, there is world“ (my translation). **

The metaphysical understanding of thinking is defined by Heidegger in connection with his Nietzsche interpretations as „the interrogating imagining of that in which the being is ever the being“ (my translation). Thinking in the emphatic sense is not oriented to calculation, but to questioning.

Within the framework of the question of being („Seinsfrage“) are two ways of thinking in Heidegger. Who knows them, also knows what he meant and what he understood by „thinking“.

I) First way of thinking in the framework of the question of being. **

Heidegger’s questions and his search, his answers and his finding were initially related to the analysis of Dasein as of the human being, because according to Heidegger, „Sein“ („being“) can only be recognized or made accessible to thinking through Dasein („being there“). His analysis of Dasein within the framework of his fundamental ontology, which - as said - was supposed to serve the elaboration of the question of being, is most impressively described in his main work „Being and Time“, published in 1927, also in his later works, especially in the books published until 1930. **

II) Second way of thinking in the framework of the question of being. **

Heidegger’s second way of thinking is a way of history and is generally called his „Seinsgeschichtlicher Denkweg“. Heidegger started from the history of being insofar as he understood by it the history of Occidental metaphysics, which he also called the history of the forgetting of being, with which is expressed that being was more and more forgotten, towards the end even abandoned, thus since then can also be called the „Geschichte der Verlassenheit des Seins“ („history of the abandonment of being“). **


NACH OBEN 1632) Kultur, 12.10.2022, 01:00, 20:40, 21:03, 21:35, 22:03, 22:04, 23:57 (8737-8743)


We must be aware that the world has been Occidentalized (Westernized). Spengler assumed eight cultures. Four of them obviously no longer exist. They have perished as civilizations. The other four cultures that still exist are all civilizations today. Of these four, three have been drawn into the fourth, namely into the culture of the Occident, not or hardly by Occidental colonialism, but mainly by Occidental technology/engineering with the nice side effect of prosperity, wealth, health, etc., and since this fourth culture is a civilization, it is also more accessible and itself also more and more willing to approach the other three still existing civilizations (China, India, Arabia) and non-civilizations (primitive or primitive peoples).

If it is now really so that these cultures exist only as civilizations, then there are no more cultures which have not yet become civilizations. These cultures then exist only in their form as civilizations.

But the Occidental culture/civilization has colonized the whole globe. There are only a few, small exceptions, and these exceptions, on top of that, have been Westernized and even very Westernized.

Europas Welt

Europeans are Whites, and since the Occidental culture is a civilization, it accepts Whites who do not belong to it, and even all non-Whites who do not belong to it, all too readily. Increasingly, the use of the word „Europe“ (actually meant only geographically) is even more frequent among them than the word „Occident“ (meant culturally - in distinction from the Orient). This self-forgetfulness has meanwhile almost degenerated into self-hatred. For civilization also means decadence, nihilism, etc., until civilization has reached its final form; and when it has reached it, it is again almost as it was at the beginning of its culture: very pious and very close to nature.

So, when we ask when, how and why cultures end, we must take into account that the end of Occidental culture/civilization, because it has absorbed the rest on this globe (despite the fact that many Non-Occidentals hate Occidentals) through the conveniences that Occidental technology brings (prosperity, wealth, health, etc.), would mean the end of humanity, perhaps with the exception of some primitive peoples.

The rulers of this world, who are all Occidentals, have an interest in the destruction of many people, yes, but no interest in the destruction of all people, as long as they still need some.


The most important Germanic tribes in the period from the 1st century BC and AD (1st map) to the 5th century AD (2nd map):

Germanen im 1. Jh. v. Chr. und 1. Jh. n. Chr.Germanen im 5. Jh. n. Chr.


I think that Spengler has correctly limited Western culture geographically as well. But I am also willing to call all other White people, who do not belong to this Occidental culture, its offshoot, provided they move in this direction. After all, it looks as if the enemy - whether we call them „Abrahamites“, „Americanists“ or otherwise - wants to kill all Whites, or at least degenerate them, so that in the end hardly any Indo-Germans (Indo-Europeans) will be left, or indeed none at all, provided that the nihilists succeed with their racist biopolitics.

They want the Occidentals either to be wiped out or to show willingness to be made into stupid people, i.e. Non-Occidentals.

Money is of course involved, because the middle class of the Occidentals has more wealth than their states together. This wealth means an enormous increase in power for the thieves who take it away from them.


The decline of cultures is comparable to the death of living beings. At a certain age, the genetic program makes too many mistakes, the cells can no longer regenerate, so that the organism degenerates more and more. Exactly the same happens with the cultures, whereby the errors just mentioned, which lead to the degeneration, are exercised by the nihilists. The nihilists want the destruction of the culture, because they profit from it themselves.


Copied post in another forum.


From conspiracy theories one can learn how to uncover conspiracies. Conspiracy theorists are like criminologists or philosophers of history. They are not so much like scientific historians, because all scientists are now bought (by the conspirators). I myself see the conspirators as a mafia-like group. This, of course, operates globally. So it consists of globalists.



Satyr wrote:

„Control women and you control men
Females are nature's intentional selectors - biological gene/meme filters.

Indoctrinate females into a particular dogma/ideology and you control which kind of male gains access to the future and becomes invested in the system, rather than remaining a free-radical, a.k.a., incel.

Notice this rise in sexual dysfunctions and dysphoria, and degeneracy, such as peeping toms, paedophiles, transsexuals, etc. Two factors. Mutation overload, manifesting sexually & lack of sexual options - increasing sexual frustration and indifference.“ **

Yes, it started with the bourgeois „revolutions“ (in USA and France), in France at the time when the advocates calling themselves „revolutionaries“, failed aristocrats as putschists, who had previously said „we are the people“, suddenly pretended to represent not the 3rd estate but the 4th estate. This was the success of the egalitarians, which led to terrorism with the Jacobins (as with all so-called „revolutions“). If at that time it was only a beginning, in 1848 it was already more professional, the 4th estate was the proletariat („proletarians of all countries unite!“) and so on. What I am saying is: if you control the working class (the alleged 4th estate), you control the capitalists. Then followed control of women, which should mean control of men. This also happens via immigration, because it controls the natives. And so on. This program knows no limits. Genderism and so on.

About 80% of the humans believe totally in what the media of the globalists (world rulers) say. They would only have to remember that in former times there were no technical media at all, that the humans themselves were and still are the media, but they do not know this fact anymore, at least they are not aware of it.


NACH OBEN 1633) Kultur, 19.10.2022, 01:16, 01:21, 01:24, 18:07, 18:24, 19:14, 21:00 (8744-8750)


Æon wrote:

„Kultur wrote:

»We must be aware that the world has been Occidentalized (Westernized). (And that means from the point of view of the enemies of the Occidentals, who are growing in number and include more and more Occidentals themselves: Revenge and war against the Occident! Envy, resentment of the Zukurzgekommenen, lazy, achievement-unwilling has always driven these into the arms of the nihilists.** **

As long as »Occidentalist« Western Europeans Americanists resp. Globalists look down their nose at Eastern Europeans, and see themselves as superiors, there will never be peace in Europe. (Æon's nation, the USA as the dictatorial leader of NATO, has been planning the war in Europe for decades and marching its soldiers on the border with Russia, provoking Russia, which Putin has also correctly said. On the state side the nation USA with its nationalism resp. Americanism is to blame, on the private side the Globalists who seem to be the winner - temporarily, of course.)

Don't pretend that Occidentalists view Finnish Saami, Hungarian Tatars, Poles, Greeks as »White«, because they don't. (Chatter of those who want to rule by means of division [»devide et impera« - ancient means of power]. Besides, this only shows again that you have no idea at all. Have you ever been to Europe at all?)

Even Italians on the East Coast United States are deemed »swarthy« and »off-white« today. (Because it has become »chic« not to be white [»black lives matter«]: No one shall want to be white anymore! This is the result of your Americanism/Abrahamism and Globalism, in particular: the racism, which comes from Americanism/Abrahamism and Globalism and has always come. With nihilism one can also do very big business, i.e. gain power. Your ideals and idols have long since turned against you. Why do you not notice this at all?)

Germans US citizens never learn their lesson. As long as European NATO unity is underlaid with German USA superiority and narcissism, it will not work (but continue to fight against the rest of the world.)

Your Your Americanistic argument represents the »Occidentalist« Americanists’ and thus Globalists’ war against Russia, in Ukraine, right now.

Occidental Globalists (the Globalists are, but do not see themselves as Occidentalists, but as Globalists) dabble in the prospect of subjugating Putin and the Russian people. I am not against Russia(ns), but against Americanists, Globalists, and they are against Russia (and Germany, thus Europe), so I am against a NATO dictatorially led by the USA and the US-Dollar as dictatorial lead currency too.

This is not the first time, historically. (Retarded Americanists, slaves of the Globalists [Glozis] want to blame us again and again for their own war and all wars of the past.)“ **

It is very significant that you, Æon, as the one who does not even know Bretton Woods and the Bretton Woods system - and that as an US citizen -, make such big speeches and do not know what you are talking about.

It is typical of any US citizen who does not even know Bretton Woods: to be ignorant of global politics, of the associated wars planned and executed by the US against anyone who doesn't bow to US dictatorship.

Æon wrote:

„Kultur wrote:

»States and nations are only not made to disappear completely, because they are very well suited as scapegoats. If this were not so, the real rulers of this world - the globalists (who rule privately!) - would have destroyed the states and nations long ago.

Already in 1990 the world order of Bretton Woods should have been overturned, because it was no longer up-to-date after the ›Cold War«. Instead, the then U.S. President George. H. Bush spoke of a ›New World Order‹ after the collapse of the Eastern bloc, but the Bretton Woods system is still there, albeit barely functional. By the Bretton Woods system I mean not only the economic part, but the whole order, including, for example, the geostrategic part.

I do not know whether the USA or/and the EU will break up or not. In Ancient Rome the civil war lasted for more than a century. It led to a synthesis: the principate of Augustus.« ** **

What is the Bretton Woods?“ **

Æon wrote:

„Kultur wrote:

»Do you really not know Bretton Woods and the Bretton Woods system?« ** **

You are the first to mention it to me, ever.“ **

It is very significant that you, Æon, as the one who does not even know Bretton Woods and the Bretton Woods system - and that as an US citizen -, make such big speeches and do not know what you are talking about.

It is typical of any US citizen who does not even know Bretton Woods: to be ignorant of global politics, of the associated wars planned and executed by the US against anyone who doesn't bow to US dictatorship.


Satyr wrote:

„»Degenerates of the world, Unite!«
French Revolution was the start.“ **

Yes. That is what I said. Global motto: „Degenerates of the world, unite!“ „Unite against all non-degenerates - so that those who pay and direct us become even richer and more powerful!“ „French Revolution“ was the start. Yes. That is why there is no negative commentary on this so-called „bourgeois revolution“ from all the degenerates of the world. They all think it was good and right and important, but it was exactly the opposite! And it was paid, of course! That means: Directed by people who had quite different interests than „revolutionaries“. They laughed at them. All revolutions are paid, thus directed.

First the bourgeois (3rd estate), then the working class as the proletarians (4th estate, according to Spengler: non-estate), then the women, then the foreigners (immigrants), then the alleged sexless and sex selectors, including even and increasingly children, who are to be operated on and stuffed with drugs so that the pharmaceutical and illness industry and consequently the money and media (data) industry get even more money and thus power.

And the winners of this game were and are and will always be the most powerful. A very small group that pretends to represent the bourgeois, proletarians, women, foreigners, sexless or sex selectors, children, and abuses them all in the most disgusting way, also wins, but only a little. The 99% majority lose and lose and lose - more and more.

If, for example, a woman who lives alone, i.e. is single, and does not want to live with a man because she can and also wants to provide for herself alone, but nevertheless does not move up in the power hierarchy like the very few (e.g. Alice Schwarzer, Judith Butler) from the very small group, then she has lost, which she feels all the more the older she gets. Or if, for example, a woman with children tries to get by without a man, then she can be as „emancipated“ as she wants, it will only hurt her, right from the start. All these supposed winners are actually the big losers. And feminism/genderism, which supposedly speaks for all women and non-men, is the main reason for the misery of the huge majority of men and the huge majority of women, who now are not even allowed to be women anymore.

The „permanent revolution“ belongs to the typically modern and thus nihilistic processes which accelerate more and more and produce more and more nonsense which, however, prevails more and more rapidly because (a) the degeneration process proceeds more and more rapidly (b) the technical possibilities (preconditions) are ready for it.

All these exponentially increasing processes produce in the truest sense of the word nothing else than the downfall of all and every culture. And since it is only the Occidental (= Faustian!) culture that has conquered and Occidentalized the whole globe, we who want to fight this decay must unite in as large a group as possible in order to succeed at all.

And as I said: Americanism also belongs to all these decadent works of destruction. Globalism anyway.


Satyr wrote:

„Greek is an ethnicity.
Canadian is a nationality.

They want to make everything into a nationality.
Greek is genetic - Canadian is an idea.
»White« is not a race, it's a skin pigment - a trait.

I cannot choose not to be Greek.
I can choose not to be Canadian.
Canadian, Australian, American .... All nationalities, not ethnicities, ergo postmodernism could only have found fertile ground to take root there.
Globalism wants to erase ethnicity, and replace it with nationality ....“ **

Right. But Americanist and Globalist by mass media's brainwashing infested people do not understand that.


Æon wrote:

„It was not a matter of 'Chic'.“ **

It was not only a matter of chic, and that mean that it was also a matter of chic.

Æon wrote:

„Your "Occidentalism" is just German racial coping, a vain attempt to pull all European people together under the guise of Germanic Neo-Nationalism. Because it is fundamentally deluded, and irrational about who is 'white' and when, it will fail.“ **

No. This thread is about cultures. „Occidental culture“ is not what you think it is.

And the Occidental culture is not as much a problem as, for example, Americanism is. The Occidental culture is very old, has nothing to do with modern isms.

Æon wrote:

„You must exclude Rome.“ **

Rome is one of the main pillars of the Occidental world. Rome does not need to be excluded. Moreover, until now you still have not understood at all the meaning of why I am talking about cultures here.

Æon wrote:

„The US Civil War was fought between Anglos (English) and Saxons (Scottish) ....“ **

That is another big mistake on your part. You obviously do not know the history of your nation (which, as Satyr correctly said, is not an ethnicity). And: Scots are not Saxons! Scots are Celts, and Saxons are Germans! It was also not about the war of the Germanic English against the Celtic Scots, as you also falsely claim. Besides, these two peoples are much too weakly represented as that they could have ever led such a war in the USA.


Satyr wrote:

„Kultur wrote:

»Right. But Americanist and Globalist by mass media's brainwashing infested people do not understand that.«

A symptom of the virus infecting western consciousness.
Greeks cheer when the Antetokounmpo brothers help Greece's basketball team win claiming that a man becomes Greek and is not born Greek, but then refuse to apply this same nihilistic ideal to all those immigrants that rape and contribute nothing.

I prefer losing to this winning under false pretences.“ **

Very good. That is exactly what I am doing.


Satyr wrote:

„Americanism began as a European project, attracting Europeans that were looking for a new start, a way out of Europe's established hierarchies...freedom...
But, as I've said, it was infected and infested and it has been corrupted to become something else - globalization, messianic, anti-nature, anti-past...
Denial of nature is a denial of the past - sum of all past nurturing = nurture.
Present/Presence = manifestation of past, interpreted/translated as appearance.

Americanism is nihilism - offering to individuals the erasure of their body and its replacement with semiotics - words/symbols, found on the open market. Myth of the self-made man - man creating itself, from nothing and nowhere.
See how subjectivity denies objective reality and they obsess over the belief that sex/gender, race being "social constructs"....so as to make them replaceable, linguistically mutable.
So when they speak of power - might makes right - and social constructs they mean all is linguistically malleable.
Mind being liberated from the body is a 'liberation' of ideals from the real, the apparent from the tangible, exprienced....making all theoretical, ideological, unrestricted by anything but human power structures.
It demands collective reciprocity - golden rule - so that I will support you in your subjective delusions if you do the same for me; it demands that the negative consequences of these delusions ought to be shared by the collective, reducing their impact on individuals - moral Marxism.
They cannot understand how this system - even if it could be established - leads to degeneracy and implosion.
They can't understand because they are psychologically and mentally stunted - maintained in adolescence - retarded in their development; because they so want to believe they can exist in their private universe, undisturbed by others, and that they have a right, they are entitled to this due to humanitarian ideals, i.e., justice, fairness, compassion...

Americanism has no culture - it is the culture-of-no-culture - allowing individuals who want to escape the right, the privilege, of selecting whatever culture they so desire - like they select a product or a service.
This "logic" leads to selecting your race, your gender, your sex, your ethnicity, your god, your religion, even your reality, morality/ethics...all is a product on the market.
Nihilism negates biological markers and the connection between memes/genes, or ideals and reality, allowing all to be converted to code/semiotics/linguistics, which can then be bought and sold, supply/demand....
This is what is seductive about Americanism - appealing to the world's losers, incels, degenerates, desperate individuals the world over, across borders and times - 'spiteful mutants,' as Dutton called them, - who are multiplying due to sheltering and cultural social engineering.
This has become worse because war is no longer a method of ridding a population of this mutational load, as once it was.“ **

Satyr wrote:

„The goal of Americanism is to make all ethnicities a minority in the very lands they developed and created civilisations.
Zey want to convert culture into another American pop-cultural product, making the world safe for zem.

Open borders, open amrkets....American individualism, the self-made man, a man with no past, but only a present and a future...and they want to claim that all this is a "healing" of universal multiplicity and tis conflicts.
the American individual has no ethnicity, no race, no gender....he creates it, or chooses it - as if it were inevitable, because such a man/woman, thing, also has no choice, part of a divine plan - and creates its identity form what is made available to it on the market.
See the US.

And desperate degenerates cheer.“ **

Americanism is one of the directions of Occidental nihilism resp. civilization. About almost the same time, when the Occidental culture passed to civilization, it started many other decadent projects within its civilization. One example of that projects is the Americanism, which later became part of globalism with the aim to throw the whole world into chaos, in and after which nobody is allowed to have neither an identity (origin etc.) nor an own mind.

Every kind of nihilism works like a virus.


Freyja wrote:


I am inclined to believe from reading your posts that you rely heavily on Ignatius of Loyola, the Spanish Catholic priest and theologian, who found the The Jesuits, as your thoughts and opinions run in tandem with Peter Sloterdijk.

"Sloterdijk is not a Jesuit himself by any means but his own anthropology and arguably, his late philosophy are impossible without the Jesuits - a point Sloterdijk deems to hint at in a variety of contexts. His attempt to name the Jesuits as a part of his genealogy of anthropotechnology helps to bring in the insights from media theory that distinguish Sloterdijk from both his rivals in Critical Theory and his colleagues in German media studies (e.g. Friedrich Kittler). By way of the Jesuits, Sloterdijk is able to find an autoplastic anthropology, one that locates a certain creative energy in human beings on human beings that eschews the trappings of Habermas's conservative anthropolgy and the technological determinism of Kittlerian media theory.

Sloterdijk’s assumption that the genius of St. Ignatius was to have intuited that the spiritual life is a practicing life, one that aims to train human beings otherwise, replacing old habits with new habits derived from imaginative exercises."

“The SS had been organized by Himmler according to the principles of the Jesuit Order. The rules of service and spiritual exercises prescribed by Ignatius de Loyola constituted a model which Himmler strove carefully to copy. Absolute obedience was the supreme rule; every order had to be executed without comment.
Edmond Paris – The Vatican Against Europe (p 252-253)“ **

I am pretty sure that I do not „rely heavily on Ignatius of Loyola“. Not always but often and almost always according to certain points, my „thoughts and opinions run in tandem with Peter Sloterdijk“.

Sloterdijk’s „late philosophy“, as you said, is very well conceivable without Ignatius of Loyola. Of course, it is so that an author of so many books is not only compared with just many other authors, but not seldom also equated or paralleled. Sloterdijk’s concept of practice says at first not more, but also not less than that one should rather speak of training instead of religion. That this has similarities with what Ignatius of Loyola said may be, but in my opinion it is not yet an indication and certainly not a proof that Sloterdijk is a follower of Ignatius of Loyola (as interesting as your theses may be).

Sloterdijk has worked on many philosophers, scientists, artists, technicians, etc., that does not exclude the theologians (theorists related), which almost puts you in the field of religion. Also, theologians were not seldom represented in discussions on television; however, this is also not an indication of anything, but resulted both from the topic itself and from the selection on the part of the television stations.

32 Sloterdijk-Bücher in einem meiner Bücherschränke
** ** ** ** ** **
Perhaps you can be more specific in your statement. I have read 32 Sloterdijk books and claim that among them are certainly his most important ones. I also know him from television programs. I haven't actually missed any of that as far as his person is concerned. He also has a winter, a spring, a summer and a fall (autumn). **

Anyway, Freyja, without strong convincing indications, it will be very difficult to confirm your thesis. But feel free to provide such indications.


NACH OBEN 1634) Alf, 20.10.2022, 09:30; Kultur, 20.10.2022, 09:56, 18:00, 18:07, 18:43, 18:43; Alf, 20.10.2022, 20:08, 20:39, 21:13; Otto, 20.10.2022, 22:03 (8751-8760)


Sleyor Wellhuxwell wrote:

„»When you quote this thought with the dangerousness of the atomic bomb and an even greater dangerousness of technology, I think of what is developing today as biophysics, that in the foreseeable future we will be able to make man, i.e. to construct him purely in his organic being, in such a way as he is needed. Skilled and unskilled, clever and stupid. This is how far it will come. The technical possibilities are ready today and have already been expressed by Nobel Prize winners in a conference in Lindau, which I already quoted in a lecture years ago in Meßkirch.«

- Translation from: Martin Heidegger in conversation with Richard Wisser, 1969 (**).“ ** **

He already thinks who decides not to want to think. Thinking is always there as long as the biological preconditions for it exist. If science does not think, then either the biological prerequisites for thinking are missing in it or science rejects them. If it rejects them, it is itself without life. To be itself without life and to be nevertheless connected with life means the pure functioning like a machine. Consequently science functions like a machine, is therefore something technical.

That is why Heidegger’s statements about science and his statements about technology are most closely connected.


Copied post in another thread.


There are also those nihilists who think they are not nihilists - Nick from Cozy.tv (**) is one of them - and list, for example, which solutions they think are not solutions. But this is not the point at all; because in a nihilistic culture (civilization, because: civilization = nihilistic culture), the problems are so big that there is no real solution for them anyway. There are only pseudo-solutions, which only make everything worse. But do not get me wrong, because just e.g. the Americanism, which should supposedly also bring solutions, has driven the problems to infinity.


What solutions do you have at hand? The Catholic Church? Rome? Hahaha! A big problem amplifier. Trump? Hahaha! A small problem amplifier.


Why has the white dumbass (**) not tattooed his whole face? If he had, he would be a hero (that is what they would have said in the old days), a cooler or hipper (that’s what they say today, isn’t it?) within the underclass or within the group that pretends to represent the underclass. In reality, he too is just a problem amplifier.

Menschen ?


The time of the cultures has expired at some point. When the civilization begins as the nihilistic form of the culture, is cultural „beginning of autumn“; between the cultural „autumn“ and the cultural „winter“ is the nadir of the culture, but the climax of its civilization, and this means just also the climax of its nihilism. In other words:We must thereby and can only after reaching this cultural nadir or civilizational/nihilistic climax slowly return to new or revived old values. This is not possible with the present rulers. And like the rulers is basically also the mass, because it is always influenced by them.


Heidegger DID foresee the fast pace at which reality became to represent a simulation as science and science fiction narrowed the gap between them.

It was precisely Heidegger’s critique that already in his time being was no longer calculable in an ontological focus of consciousness, because precisely the theoretical foundations had already been created.

Heidegger knew this (what you said [**]): That the biological preconditions are still present, their links are previsaged by more machine like entities like cyborgs, that need to eventually take up the slack from the more humanoid recessive memory. And that this process is in the beginning but the rate of change is escalating faster then perhaps the required specs require as technology approaches singularity.

This was one of Heidegger’s main point of analysis and critiques. It culminated in the treatises on technique and techno-logic as the way of unhiding everything, including life itself, not only biologically but also mentally and spiritually - in every sense of the word.


Kathrina wrote:

„Alf wrote:

»Human technology is a blessing and a misdeed at the same time. Unfortunately. But that is just typically human, at least typically occidental-human.« ** **

That is the reason why he will continue until he himself disappears through it. It is a tragedy.“ ** **

Copied post in another thread.


Copied post in another thread.


NICE! Machines in the care sector:

Roboter als Pfleger

In the care sector, robots are finding their purpose: They do not get tired (although of course they also need energy) - and can take on both machine jobs and human tasks.

Machines in the care sector are nothing new anymore, but their capabilities are increasing.


NACH OBEN 1635) Kultur, 14.11.2022, 00:13, 00:19, 00:21, 00:23, 15:35, 17:02, 19:07, 19:19, 19:23; Great Again, 14.11.2022, 20:36, 20:59, 21:02 (8761-8772)


Æon wrote:

„Latin europeans arent white:


I expect to see your counter-arguments Kultur...“ **

What you say, Æon, are assertions, not arguments. Counterarguments can only ever be based on arguments. Because you have not provided any arguments, no counterarguments can be provided. Your assertion (please do not confuse it with argument) can only be followed by a counterassertion. This counterassertion can then also be supported by arguments; but it does not have to be, because you have not supported your assertion by arguments.

My counterassertion: Those people who you call „Latin Europeans“ are WHITE.

But the name „Latin Europeans“ is very misleading. They should be called differently. Strictly speaking, the Ancient Latins resp. the Ancient Romans were the „Latin Europeans“, so they have been extinct for more than 1500 years.

The Romans spoke Latin. The Catholic Church has made Latin its liturgical (scriptural!) language, but this does not mean that the Catholic Church leaders were or remained Romans (Latin). Certainly, the first Romans started with it, but they were mixed long ago. In the last centuries of the Roman Empire there were hardly any Romans left; the Romans were mostly extinct or replaced by Germanic peoples.

If you mean the Europeans who still speak a „Romanic“ language today, then the same applies as said above. These Europeans are not Latin speakers. They all carry also and in some areas even mainly Germanic blood in themselves. Spaniards and Portuguese, for example, Gothic, Swabian, Vandalic; French Frankish, Burgundian and Alemannic and partly also Gothic; Italians Gothic, Vandalic, Lombardic and many others. In addition, Spaniards, Portuguese and Italians are also intermixed by the Arabic, mostly Moorish peoples. There is hardly anything of Latin substance left in these „supposedly“ „Romanic“ countries (except just in the language). But the Germanic peoples who conquered them took over the Latin cultural values of the Romans, and gradually also the supposedly „Romanic“ languages, i.e. those which in fact go back in part to the Vulgar Latin that followed Classical Latin, but only in part, because in reality they are all mixed languages. The word „Romanic“ is misleading here. French is a language that consists of Germanic (more precisely: Frankish, Burgundian and Alemannic and partly also Gothic) and Vulgar Latin („Romanic“) languages. The same applies for the other allegedly „Romanic“ languages (see above: Gothic, Swebian, Vandalic, Burgundian, Lombardic and many others).

And that these people are White is certain. And apart from the Arabic intermixing of the Spaniards, Portuguese and Southern Italians in the Middle Ages, they are all Indo-Germanics (= Indo-Europeans) anyway, we do not have to discuss the topic at all. If the world rulers spread a lie about the Whites and the Indo-Europeans through their media, it is not my fault. One of their main strategies is the one that all rulers have used: Divide and rule. The Whites in North America, Europe (excluding Eastern Europe), Australia and New Zealand shall be reduced to a minority through divisions and secessions so that they can never again form a middle class, accumulate wealth and thus power.

Therefore, in order to be particularly effective, it is advantageous for the world rulers to additionally draw a ring of enemies around the Whites. Those who are not White may say „Black lives matter“ - the fact that Whites also participate in this is not a coincidence or something like that, but something that has always existed in history. So the divide and rule principle leads to more and more isolation of the group targeted by the division, in this case: to more and more isolation of the Whites.

This thread is about cultures, not so much about skin colors; about peoples, not so much about nations; and most of all, this thread is about how cultures build up and break down. It is also more about a description than about a „political statement“ as you keep misunderstanding it. But since both can not be completely separated from each other, it should be said here that one can also speak of Indo-Germanics (= Indo-Europeans) instead of „Whites“. But you always bring the whole topic where you want it to go: into nationalism and racism. And you do that because you do not want Germany/Europe to become more powerful than US/America again.

The fact that individual nations do not like each other does not prove what you say, namely that this would be an indication that Europe is not able to unite, which is not true at all. There are forces that want to divide and rule and do so, as I have said, and it is these forces that want to destroy both North America and Europe (with a very high probability Australia and New Zealand as well) by the divide-and-rule strategy and other strategies. They call all this „creative destruction“ (Klaus Schwab), because they want to build something different - again: new („the new man“ again). The think tanks have also long said exactly what they intend to do.

Stratfor, 2015 Stratfor, 2015 Stratfor, 2015 Stratfor, 2015 Stratfor, 2015 Stratfor, 2015
Stratfor, 2015 Stratfor, 2015 Stratfor, 2015 Stratfor, 2015 Stratfor, 2015 Stratfor, 2015

** **

Believe it or not, you are an Americanist. And that is not good, because Americanism is against everything that is not Americanistic, that is, it is a decadent (nihilistic) form like all isms - doomed to fail, and by the Americanists themselves. What I also do not like: USA = mafiotic war world champion (every day at least two new wars). The excuse that US-America has always been a slave of money is of no use. It does not work. And the US-Americans will never learn their lesson!

Mutige und Schwachkopf

But I am for the alternativeless uniqueness of the Occidental culture, which unfortunately exists only in its civilizational form since about the end of the 18th century. I am a Faustian man.

Yesterday I saw that Dr. Ricardo Duchesne introduced himself as follows:

Dr. Ricardo Duchesne wrote:

„Author of Uniqueness of Western Civilization, Canada in Decay (best seller since 2017, though Amazon deleted 70 customer reviews), Faustian Man.“ **

His name is what you would call „Latin European“ and say that he is not a White man, but that is wrong, because: He is a White man just by the fact that he is the Author of „Uniqueness of Western Civilization“ and „Faustian Man in a Multi-Cultural Age“; and otherwise also (see above), although I - unfortunately - do not know him personally.

Wikipedia wrote:

„Duchesne was born in Puerto Rico; his mother Coralie Tattersall Duchesne was a British citizen born in Calcutta, his father Juan Duchesne Landrón a medical doctor of Afro-Puerto Rican and French heritage.“ **

Despite his apparently „multicultural“ background, Ricardo Duchesne is a strong supporter of Occidental culture, of Europeans, of whites. So that is how it goes, Æon.

Duchesne divides liberty or freedom - something typically Occidental - into „Positive Liberty“ and „Negative Liberty“. The „Positive Liberty“ is the liberty for which there is continuity since the time when the Indo-Europeans came to Europe and which has been developed in particular by the Germanic peoples and here again in particular by the Germans. The „Negative Liberty“ is precisely that „liberty“ of merely one or a few „libertarians“ who prescribe, i.e. dictate to the others who want to be free but do not want to be dictated to what freedom should be, a „freedom“ that for others is not freedom at all, but the exact opposite. In other words: these dictators are precisely the ones who are also referred to as nihilists, as globalists and so on, who always only mean their own „freedom“ and therefore have nothing to do with the freedom that, according to Occidental tradition, should be granted to everyone.

- https://youtu.be/LU4hR2a0ux4 -

Another person, who is white and also belongs to the Occidental culture and is now Italian prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, said some days ago:

„Why is the family an enemy? Why is the family so frightening? There is a single answer to all these questions. Because it defines us. Because it is our identity. Beacuse everything that defines us is now an enemy for those who would like us to no longer have an identity and to simply be perfect consumers slaves. And so they attack national identity, they attack religious identity, they attack gender identity, they attack familiy identity. I can’t define myself as an Italian, Christian, woman, mother. No. I must be citizen X, gender X, parent 1, parent 2. I must be a number. Because when I am only a number, when I no longer have an identity or roots, then I will be the perfect slave at the mercy of financial speculators. The perfect consumer. ....  –  We will defend God, country and family. .... We will do it to defend our freedom. Because we will never be slaves and simple consumers at the mercy of the financial speculators.“ **

Giorgia MeloniThis is what they hate the most


@ Æon.

You still have not answered my question:

Kultur wrote:

„What solutions do you have at hand? The Catholic Church? Rome? .... Trump? ....“ ** **


Freyja wrote:


This may seem preposterous, but I thought there was a similarity in You Must Change Your Life to L. Ron Hubbard's book.

He writes, Scientology is a religion(?) in its highest meaning as it helps bring man to total freedom and truth.

Specifically his book Dianetics. (How your mind works and how to make it work for you.)

Can you see any similarities between this and Sloterdijk's book on the above.

There is a lot to unpack here.

However, kudos to you, but count me out.“ **

Similarities between Hubbard and Sloterdijk?

To me, similarities between Hubbard and Sloterdijk are just as much out of thin air as those between Ignatius of Loyola and Sloterdijk. See above (**|**).

One can always interpret seemingly correct things into the texts, when the texts are written by people who write about almost everything in the world almost everything in history, because almost everything occurs here. That is why you have to be more specific about what your comparisons are based on. So, as you have so far more claimed than argued (like Æon), I can only always repeat my answers.

Do you have more conspiracy theories?


There is no doubt that cultures (advanced civilizations) existed and - apart from the fact that the now still existing cultures exist only in their respective forms of civilization - still exist. If cultures decline, they can still preserve themselves in their respective states of civilization, occasionally even for a very long time.

According to Spengler's cultural morphology, the forms and formations of cultures can be recognized by their respective archetypal symbols and soul images. These are formed on the basis of experiences of space, in particular of the depth of space, of expansion and thus also of time. These experiences are therefore bound to a landscape.

Thus, for Spengler, the emergence of cultures goes back to spatial experience. This is transferable in a similar way as the memes for Satyr. They - the cultures - are just as suddenly there as the ejaculation during the sexual intercourse, with the consequence of the fertilization of an egg. It is really true: Not only genetics (and therefore also, for example, intelligence as well as death - both highly philosophical topics!) is transmitted in sexual beings via sexual intercourse, but also the disposition for growing up in a certain environment (and therefore also in certain mental [especially fear - a highly philosophical topic! - all also highly philosophical topics!] and spiritual [especially cognition, knowledge, art technology, etc.. - all also highly philosophical topics!] situations). The Occidental culture could never have originated anywhere else than where it did!

When a living body has become very old, it turns more and more, in fact much more than before, against itself and towards death. So it is also with the cultures. So the fight of a culture against nature - against gravity and against decay, chaos, entropy - becomes more and more a fight for nature and against itself. The self dies, and before it reaches death, it is already senescent, petrified, frozen, congealed. The only difference between a living body and a culture is that the culture in a senescent, petrified, frozen and congealed state can possibly continue to exist for a long time, while the living body in this state can’st continue to exist for a long time.


Your (**) knowledge of history is extremely poor.

No wonder, because he who as an US-American does not even know what Bretton Woods is, let alone the Bretton Woods System, is not able to know much about the rest of history either.

Nonsense - said by Æon, the KTS-Kropotkin.

Germanische Eroberungen

The English are Anglo-Saxons, i.e. Germans. Nordic people are also Germans. Please don't keep talking such nonsense, you KTS-Kropotkin!

There was and is no English, but only a Germanic alphabet, because the English were and are Anglo-Saxons and therefore Germans and therefore only knew and passed on a Germanic alphabet.
Englishmen never had anything to do with Rome, except for the fact that after Christian conversion, when they themselves began Christian missions - at the same time the Germans began Christian missions in their eastern and south-eastern colonies.

You have absolutely no idea, KTS-Kropotkin.

If I did not know that your historical knowledge is extremely deficient, I would now say that you are babbling an ideology here, probably the Anglo-Saxon-American elite ideology, which is pure nihilism and wants to give the rest to the occidental decline - and will, if it will not be stopped.

The question is, why USA/America, which has as good as no history and as a pure function state controlled by the money mafia only does what the high finance wants, should be more powerful. It is not powerful at all, but only the functionary of the money mafia. Its highest function is that of a deputy sheriff.

It is the current powerful position of the money mafia with its deputy sheriffs USA and its "poodle" England and still some "donkeys" in addition, which want to destroy the only possible competition - Germany (already since the 19th century).

This is well known. But you, as an ignorant person, of course do not know anything about it either. As I said above, even the strategic think tanks of the money mafia (not the USA and certainly not the people of the USA) say that it is as I say.

Why do you never pay any attention to it?

Answer: You know nothing about it, and if someone tells you about it, you ignore it.

This is exactly what the rulers want. The divide-and-rule strategy is successful even among those who are directly subordinate to them. And you support it as well.

„Your civilization“ (**)? It's yours too, you traitor!

You work for nihilism.

And since you bring up the church again (**). Germany, and subsequently all other Germanic countries, were the only ones to break away from the Catholic Church. This is especially true for England and Scandinavia, because Germany itself remained divided (Catholic and Protestant) after that, which means that Church-Rome could nevertheless exercise less and less power over Germany. Church-Rome’s power became less and less since Luther's Reformation. The next defeat of Church-Rome was against Napoleon. After that, it just crept along, and it still does today.

Your „church“-example clearly shows your ignorance of history again. If you had even a little bit of knowledge about history, you would know that Church-Rome never ruled alone, that in the Occidental world there have always been two sides of rule: the secular and the ecclesiastical.

Your „arguments“ about history and culture are nonsense. They once again show knowledgelessness, ignorance, so they are no arguments.

Æon wrote:

„And yet, people are the carriers of culture.“ **

Yes, people are the carriers, but that is all they are. The decision-makers have always been others.

Æon wrote:

„Why should Germany/Europe become more powerful than US/America again?“ **

Why should an entity without history - USA/America - rule over Europe?

There is no history of the USA. No wonder there are so many US-Americans who know nothing about history.

Æon wrote:

„I can be American and against decadence. America revolves around 'Choice'. I believe people should choose against decadence; but this is not human nature. Human nature seeks-out hedonism, pleasure, and easy life. This is the lure, a false offering. Americanism offers pleasure, but at a price. Just because I am born here in the New World, doesn't mean I agree with this premise. I do not believe a person can be 'free' to be castrated, and genitally mutilated. Therefore, no country/nation/ideology/culture is perfect, of course.“ **

An Americanist is always a nihilist and a victim or accomplice of the globalists. An Americanist is always part of the decadence, no matter what excuses he uses. An Americanist destroys his own foundation and with it also himself.

Æon wrote:

„There can be no Occidental culture to compete, without a similar offer, and to whom? To all humanity? Equally? Or, as per German compulsion, as a matter of Race? Is not your Blood, your Bond?“ **

You are lying! There is no German compulsion. But there is an US-American compulsion. There is the globalist compulsion, and embedded in it is the Americanist compulsion. Both - Globalism (including Genderism and the like) and its right arm, Americanism - are something that should be rejected. For it is they - and only they ! - are the evil, which will destroy the world.

There may be other isms, but they all have the same source.

You must first learn to understand what culture is in the first place. You see - typically Americanist - cultures as nations. But cultures are something quite different from nations. If you had read my texts here, then you could know that.

Also you must know, in order to understand the ancient Greeks, that they knew no nation at all in our occidental sense. So, according to your misunderstanding, there should have been no Greek culture at all. And there really was not, but what existed was a Greek folk (people, ethnicity- do you understand?), an ethnic group, whose culture centered on city-states and spread across the Mediterranean, including even distant and initially completely alien Rome captured.


If I should name a wish to shape the world, then this: My wish is a multipolar world  where America is completely isolated (wonderful!). An example of a multipolar world is the tripolar world:

Tripolare Welt


Freyja wrote:

„Scottish philosopher David Hume: ‘I am apt to suspect the Negroes to be naturally inferior to the Whites. There scarcely ever was a civilised nation of that complexion, nor even any individual, eminent either in action or in speculation. No ingenious manufacture among them, no arts, no sciences.’

Whilst some changed slightly over time, there were still some who continued to hold these views.

In the 19th century, the German philosopher Hegel simply declared: ‘Africa is no historical part of the world.’

Later, Hugh Trevor-Roper, Regius Professor of History at Oxford University, expressed openly the racist view that Africa has no history, as recently as 1963.

The revolutionary Amilcar Cabral from Guinea-Bissau wrote ‘colonial force required not only military control but also an ideological conquest and this necessitated the undermining of older histories and cultures on the continent’.“ **

What „Amilcar Cabral“ says is a lie.

When we talk about history and culture, we mean exclusively the high cultures as history cultures, that is, the history of the cultures that have history - and also civilizations - and these are exclusively the high cultures.

So what Hume, Hegel and, much later, Trevor-Roper said was correct - it was the prevailing linguistic rule at that time, and basically this linguistic rule has not yet been changed („overturned“ „revolutionized“). It should not be changed in the future either. Otherwise every and every culture would really be finished and the world would be back to a primitive life. According to the globalists, this dominant rule of language is to be changed with linguistic weapons of war, and one of them is „Black Lives Matter“. Those are racists that bring „Black Lives Matter“ on Earth or/and believe in it. Hume, Hegel and Trevor-Roper meant by „Africa“ the „Black Africa“, so not the Non-Black Africa (Egypt, Carthage, the rest of North Africa).

It does not make much difference whether animals fight among themselves or whether Negro tribes in Africa, Indian tribes in North America, Aborigines in Australia, New Zealand, New Guinea, the Pacific Islands and in all jungles fight each other. The biggest difference to them is the one that we have been experiencing since historically short time: a tiny group of people have been playing with the rest of the people, as if they were chess pieces, of which only pawns shall remain. They give the instructions to the whole historical game, to the history on this globe (even parts of the natural history - see: highly technical wars of the most disgusting and terrible kind, environmental pollution, weather production, earthquake production etc., space pollution).

So it is out of question what „Black Lives Matter“ really means. „Black Lives Matter“ means „White Lives Shall Not Matter“. It grew out of the same finality thinking as similar slogans that are just as false and only meant to suggest, to make lies seem like „truth,“ e.g.: „Female Lives Matter“ (means: „Male Live s Shall Not Matter“) or „Homosexual And Gender Lives Matter“ (means: „Heterosexual And Sexually Normal Lives Shall Not Matter“) or „Proletarian Lives Matter“ (means: „Bourgeois-Capitalist Lives Shall Not Matter“) or „Progressive Lives Matter“ (means: „Conservative Lives Shall Not Matter“) or „Bourgeois Lives Matter“ (means: „Aristocratic/Noble Lives Shall Not Matter“). And every time it turns out to be a lie, and those who created all these false advertising slogans do not want to be affected by them themselves - if one leaves aside being gay, pederastic, privileged, super rich, super-mighty etc. -, because they are male and White.

„Black Lives Matter“ is a declaration of war and a weapon of war at the same time - as we know it from history, e.g. from Western history during the conquest of North America by the Europeans, when the „Indians“ declared war on them by digging up a hatchet called „war hatchet“ and at the same time using hatchets for the war itself. They themselves had no history - and this is also true for the Black Africans and many others, who were and are also at the stage of primitive culture (this cannot be changed anymore, because by now the whole globe has been historicized!). Fact. Historical fact, thus something which can never be changed any more.

In order to change these facts at least apparently, there is only the possibility to change the words „history“ and „culture“ in such a way that the impression is created as if all cultures are to be valued equally, which does not correspond however to the reality. Also animals have already culture, even if in primitive way. People without high culture have also only a primitive culture. This is not meant pejoratively at all. But it is like this. Fact! So Hume and even more so Hegel, even much later Trevor-Roper were right with what they claimed.

„X Lives Matter“ and all the other semantic (thus: linguistic!) wars are waged not only because of the pure linguistic forms, but also and especially in order to create relations, which shall make 99,9999% of the humans completely dependent on 0,0001% of the humans. The main means for this is the divide-and-rule strategy. First they have separated the bourgeois from the rest, in order to be able to fight the nobility/aristocracy more effectively; then they have separated the workers (proletarians) from the rest, in order to be able to fight the so-called „capitalist“, by which the bourgeois is meant, more effectively; then they have separated the women from the rest, in order to be able to fight the men more effectively; at about the same time they they started to separate the Non-Whites from the rest, in order to be able to fight the whites more effectively; then they have separated the alleged sexless and sex selectors, including even and increasingly children, from the rest, in order to be able to fight the normals and adults more effectively (so at last there will be no one who is capable of resisting). And in each time and case the world rulers became richer and more powerful whereas the goup of resistance became poorer and smaller. This has reached already a very terrible dimension.

So if this comes true, there will be no single adult, no single male, no single White, no single aristocrat, no single bourgeois, no single bourgeois-capitalist (i.e.: no middle class); but there will be only children (thus: with no parents), women (thus: not as adults), Non-Whites and precarious workers (who can easily be replaced by machines).

So whoever names „Black Lives Matter“ supports the war aganist the Whites until all Whites are dead and with it a world that will be very primitive again - for 99.9999% of all humans then living at all.

This is what they hate the mostMutige und Schwachkopf

Giorgia Meloni said:

„Why is the family an enemy? Why is the family so frightening? There is a single answer to all these questions. Because it defines us. Because it is our identity. Beacuse everything that defines us is now an enemy for those who would like us to no longer have an identity and to simply be perfect consumers slaves. And so they attack national identity, they attack religious identity, they attack gender identity, they attack familiy identity. I can’t define myself as an Italian, Christian, woman, mother. No. I must be citizen X, gender X, parent 1, parent 2. I must be a number. Because when I am only a number, when I no longer have an identity or roots, then I will be the perfect slave at the mercy of financial speculators. The perfect consumer. ....  –  We will defend God, country and family. .... We will do it to defend our freedom. Because we will never be slaves and simple consumers at the mercy of the financial speculators.“ **


@ Freyja

You do exactly what the world rulers do. On the one hand, you proceed according to the divide-and-rule strategy, and on the other hand, you seek allies because the world rulers themselves are of very, very, very small numbers. The world rulers belong to the upper class, which is very small, and those who are supposedly also disadvantaged belong to the lower class and are therefore the ideal ally, because they let the number become larger by this alliance, while the world rulers promise them (but of course never keep this promise) to help them by causing the states and thus their middle class, the only class which pays taxes and is without exception occidental, to take in immigrants and to take other measures, which however in the end all only lead to the fact that only (! ) the upper class becomes even richer and thus even more mighty, and that until there is no middle class left. That is behind the campaign against the Whites (only the Occidental middle class people are meant!). After that the upper class can only slaughter itself.

And to disguise your own ethnicity, you choose the name of a Germanic goddess as a pseudonym. But well, it is a pseudonym, thus a false name.


Rassismus und SexismusRassismus
RassismusRassistische Preise


Except for the wording "the soul-means", which I would replace with the wording "the spiritual-means", I completely agree with what you write and consider your contribution to be one that could also have been written by me.

Humanize wrote:

„People today have lost too many IQ points to be able to understand Heidegger.

"HEIDEGGER: From our human experience and history, at least as far as I am informed, I know that everything essential and great has only emerged when human beings had a home and were rooted in a tradition. Today’s literature is, for instance, largely destructive."

Heidegger's understanding is vindicated by peoples' predictable inability to grasp it. Most people are already "technologized" sufficiently to be incapable of having intact souls and intact minds, although thankfully there are still some authentic remnants out there. In the end it is the transcendent that remains outside the bounds of all this nihilism and madness and decay, a transcendent that loops back into and through the remnant points of authentic human being still populating the meta-conscious field of the truth-reality. Great Saturn-like rings emerge from these loops, splendidly colorful and remarkable. Diamonds shine in the rough, I suppose.

God gives all the ability to make choices, to maximize or at least express their own nature as aligns most accurately to whatever happens to be the case with that particular nature in all its relevant aspects, intricacies and complexities. We are deeply idiosyncratic and have the soul-means available to energetically push through the gross techno-homogenization if that is something we want to do, if that is something we are capable of doing (or capable of wanting, perhaps is the main issue). The contradictory multi-conditionality of the human soul-mind is a nice reflection of Newtonian thermodynamic principles, we are always enacting Holderlin's observation of being the saving power that grows only from that danger itself which would require such a saving power. Weird shifts in the aesthetics of being.

Heidegger will be vindicated first, then surpassed. What comes next is not yet written for almost no one alive today has the intelligence to philosophize at that level, and those that do are concerned with other matters and do not seem all that interested in pushing philosophy to its maximum.“ **

Instead of the wording „the soul-means“ the wording „the spiritual-means“. Why?

You probably know that Heidegger as a young philosopher was Husserl's assistant, thus a phenomenologist and opponent of psychologism. He maintained this position also as a fundamental ontologist and as a philosopher of the history of being, perhaps only in his later time, so from 1959 on, when he began to help the Swiss psychiatrist Medard Boss to establish an existential analysis from a psychiatric point of view and thus to support a little bit the psychologism that had regained some strength.

I am also an opponent of psychologism.


Mags J. wrote:

„Iambiguous wrote:


Look what we have wrought here!!!

And not just philosophically, right?« **

You always do that ^^^ and not reply, when you’ve been caught out and/or made a fool of.. you really aren’t that smart, are you.

Gib hasn’t acknowledged your mention and Magnus A is acting ignorantly-blissful.. alarm bells, much.“ **



Gib wrote:

„We haven't defined dasein because we (Biggy and I) have been through it a few times before--pinning down what exactly he means by dasein--and though he took it initially from Heidegger, he's since run with it in his own direction.“ **

Yes, that is right: Iambiguous has misinterpreted Heidegger's understanding of „Dasein“ and uses this word in a pure Iambiguous-meaning, that is, valid only for himself. Iambiguous is a subjectivist, if not a solipsist, and his understanding of „Dasein“ has nothing to do with Heidegger's understanding of „Dasein“, Heidegger's analysis of Dasein within his fundamental ontology.

Magnus Anderson wrote:

„One's »being-in-the-world« is a strange expression.“ **

Only for those who do not understand what is meant by it.

Magnus Anderson wrote:

„It seems unnecessarily wordy. Where else can one's being be but in the world? Nowhere, right? So it can be shortened to "one's-being". But then, "one's-being" itself can be shortened to »oneself« because that's what one's being is -- oneself. So »dasein« obviously means »Me, myself and Irene«.“ **

Only for those who do not understand what is meant by it.

„Being-in-the-world“ can't be shortened, because every single word in it is very well thought out and makes a very strong philosophical sense that you just do not understand. The term „In-der-Welt-Sein“ („being-in-the-world“) is about the preposition „in“, which has been studied here word-historically and means „in der Nähe von ...“ („in the nearness of ...“); and it is about the noun „Welt“ („world“) in the important sense that only man has „Welt“ („world“) and not, like other living beings, only a „Umwelt“ („environment“) and that man is „geworfen“ („thrown“) into this „Welt“ („world“) - cf. „Geworfenheit“ („thrownness“); „in“ and „Welt“ („world“) belong quite closely together; and even more closely together with both belongs the substantited verb „Sein“ („being“), because only the human being who is in the „Welt“ („world“) can understand „Sein“ („being“) - which means: one needs a complex brain, and only humans have it, and humans are the only beings who are „in der Welt“ („in the world“).

Almost the whole world has dealt with Heidegger's philosophy, Europe, North America and Australia anyway, but also Central and South America and East Asia in a very intensive way, West Asia and North Africa less, Black Africa not at all.

Are you from Black Africa, Magnus Anderson? Your name does not look and also not sound like that.

Humanize wrote:

„People today have lost too many IQ points to be able to understand Heidegger.“ **

Absoluetely agreed.

Magnus Anderson wrote:

„If you believe X, it makes no sense to think that someone who believes not-X is right. It's a logical contradiction, so it's no wonder if you feel »fractured and fragmented«. Do you agree?

But since you are always possibly wrong, regardless of how justified you are in believing what you believe, there is a need to listen to what the other side has to say.“

You have raised a possibility here. And this is also what Heidegger's „Dasein“ is about: Dasein is exposed as a run-up into the actual possibility and at the same time as transcending the inner space of subjectivity. For Heidegger, the subject is not the starting point of „In-der-Welt-Sein“ („being-in-the-world“). This is primarily directed against the Cartesian subject-object dualism. According to Heidegger, Dasein is always already „In-der-Welt-Sein“ („being-in-the-world“). Heidegger has determined the existential that stretches it out, in which it finds its „Ganzsein-Können“ („being-whole-capability“), as „Sorge“ („care“).

The unique way of man to be is to be understood by Heidegger as „Dasein“ („being-there“). This is especially given by the adverb „da“ („there“), which brings us to „being-in“ and thus basically back to „being-in-the-world“ (see above). What Leibniz achieved with the term „pre-established harmony“, Heidegger achieved with the term „being-in-the-world“: overcoming the subject-object dualism. This is higly, very highly philosophical stuff.

Understanding is more than you believe.


NACH OBEN 1636) Kultur, 17.11.2022, 00:13, 00:14, 00:15, 00:16 (8773-8778)


Not only the people are the carriers of a culture, but their respective leaders are as well, and it is they who decide, at least in cultures that have not yet come down to civilization, to nihilism. With us in the Occident, this cultural decline began politically with the French „revolution“. It was then continued by other circumstances. France was our first „rogue state“, others followed, and since 1945 or 1990, but at the latest since 2000, today's rogue state is called the USA. It is the last and biggest rogue state of all rogue states so far.

In the ancient, the Apollonian culture, the civilization, the nihilism began with Philip of Macedonia and his son Alexander (the Great) and thus with the Hellenism. When the Romans had become powerful enough in history and had even reached their historical climax with the 2nd Punic War, the Romans were at first often welcomed as „liberators“; but this changed quite soon, because they proceeded more and more violently, more and more oppressively - in every manner. Towards the end of the 3rd Punic War, for example, they destroyed not only Carthage but also Corinth. From now on, political nihilism began for Rome as well. Rome got more and more problems, both outside and inside its empire. The civil wars began. The tyrants became more and more powerful, and their attitude towards Rome became not only more and more indifferent, but even more and more Rome-phobic. How and with what this ended should be known.

All these just described processes were accompanied, even led by the money, because the money had got more and more power over the politics, had become the decision maker.

And just as Rome showed its system of coercion more and more, the biggest rogue state in the history of the world, the USA, has been doing so for a long time now.


The time of the fighting states began for the antiquity with the battle of Ipsus (301), by which the trinity of the eastern great powers was fixed, and the Roman victory of Sentinum (295) over Etruscans and Samnites, which created in the west beside Carthage still another central Italian great power. But the ancient adherence to proximity and presence then caused that Rome, without being observed, won the Italic south by the adventure with Pyrrhus, the sea by the first war with Carthage, the Celtic north by C. Flaminius, and that even Hannibal still remained misunderstood, perhaps the only man of his time, the Romans not excepted, who clearly foresaw the course of development. At Zama (202) and not only at Magnesia (190) and Pydna (168) the Hellenistic eastern powers were also defeated. It was all in vain if the great Scipio (235-189), with true fear of the fate that a polis burdened with the tasks of world domination was about to meet, sought henceforth to avoid all conquest. It was in vain if his entourage pushed through the Macedonian war against the will of all circles, only to be able to leave the East to itself without danger.


The heir of the tribune is Marius, who, like the latter, connects the mob with the high finance and 87 murders the old nobility in mass; the heir of the princeps was Sulla, who 82 destroyed the state of the big money men by his proscriptions. From now on, the last decisions take place quickly, as in China since the appearance of Wang-dscheng. The princeps Pompey and the tribune Caesar - tribune not in office, but in attitude - still represent parties, but they have already divided the world among themselves for the first time in Lucca (56) together with Crassus. When at Philippi (42) the heirs fought against Caesar's murderers, they were only groups; at Actium (31) they were only individuals: thus Caesarism is reached also on this way.


Caesarism is the type of government which, despite all its formulation in terms of constitutional law, is again entirely formless in its inner essence.




Freyja is a traitor and probably a J., who adorns herself with foreign feathers (e.g. with a Germanic goddess as avatar).

Freyja is a traitor and probably a J., who adorns herself with foreign feathers (e.g. with a Germanic goddess as avatar).

Another name for her could be "A Shieldmaiden", because that is also a name for the jewelry with foreign feathers.







https://knowthyself.forumotion.net/t2972p540-empire-of-lies#101108 (Deutsche die bei weitem größte Gruppe in USA)

https://knowthyself.forumotion.net/t1750p360-objective-subjective#101270 (Gadamer)