As right as it is to talk about the genocide that the Israelis have
been committing for a long time (**),
it is just as wrong to keep quiet about the genocide that is happening
in the own country. South-African White lives matter!
As right as it is to talk about the genocide that the Israelis have
been committing for a long time (**),
it is just as wrong to keep quiet about the genocide that is happening
in the own country. Irish lives matter!
What you (**)
call „collective unconscious“ is language too. Language is a
collective matter and process (evolution/history) and has a huge
part within the unconscious.
To make it clear how I understand „language“, I have created
a signature (see there [below]).
In order to gain a better understanding, it is advantageous to know
what is meant by „language“. I have a very general understanding
of language, because for me language covers everything that has to do
with signs - linguistic or semiotic signs (for example: mathematical numbers
or functions etc. are signs, in this case symbols, so also based on language).
For example: when an animal interprets a track (a sign, namely an index)
and then either follows it or not; or a picture (a sign, namely an icon)
in which you find what you know and like or dislike; or a traffic light
(a sign, namely a symbol) whose colours you interpret to know what you
must or must not do as a proper road user. However, animals do not have
a linguistic language like we humans do, but have to make do with a more
modest form of language, semiotic language.
Take science, for example:
Every science is language science, science of language (linguistics and
semiotics as scientific disciplines). This applies to both the theoretical
and the practical (empirical) side of science. As in life in general,
where it also applies to both the theoretical and the practical (empirical)
side.
The „collective unconscious“ is also largely language, as
I wrote at the beginning of this post. However, I would rather not use
this term, because it has been misused too much by groups that all unanimously
follow the same agenda. I mean (a) collectivism, which was already misused
by Marx in the direction of communism as the synthesis of the thesis of
capitalism and the antithesis of socialism, in order to achieve the alleged
„overcoming of the evil“ of capitalism (the „bourgeoisie“
was meant by this) and thus „paradise“. This collectivism has
been linked by neo-Marxism, in particular by the „Frankfurt School“,
but also by „post-structuralism“, by „postmodernism“,
with (b) Freud’s „psychoanalysis“, which incidentally has
nothing to do with „psyche“, but all the more with control (power).
This connection is also called (ab) „Freudomarxism“.
Both words - „collective“ and „unconscious“ are much
older than Marxism, which is the oldest of the exploitation systems mentioned
here. Nevertheless, they should only be used with caution and otherwise
only when it comes to what I have just pointed out.
Bob wrote:
„While it is true that language and manual dexterity (the ability
to use the hands skilfully) are often considered crucial in the development
of art, the exact relationship between these factors and intelligence
is complex and multifaceted and leads to various forms of expression.“
**
I did not say „often considered“, but that „the hand
and the language challenged and encouraged each other so much that the
IQ increased enormously, especially where the landscape, its climatic
conditions, was favorable for it, and this is especially the case on our
planet Earth in Europe, very especially in North-West Europe - the North
Atlantic Current, which is fed by the Gulf Stream, provides climatic conditions
that are unique: for the latitudes at which Northwest Europe is located,
it is never too cold and never too warm, the demands are still high, but
easy to cope with because of the climate“ (**|**).
Intelligence is language. Intelligence can only be measured
by language (signs) - body movements (including hand movements) are also
signs (language). There is no other way to determine it, and it can only
be measured if one is able to use symbols, and symbols are signs, thus:
language. So language is intelligence, and intelligence is language.
Bob wrote:
„Visual arts, such as painting and sculpture, can convey meaning
without the use of language, and we have many examples of primordial
humans using colours to depict their surroundings.“ **
Visual arts, such as painting and sculpture, and all other arts cannot
convey meaning without the use of language. Meaning is always linguistic.
Definitions are also linguistic. Every kind of semantics is linguistic.
It doesn't matter if you try it mathematically, philosophically, or otherwise
scientifically, you always use language. Thinking is also language, and
a very elaborate form of language at that. When it is systematized, we
have called it philosophy since Plato. When it is systematized in a certain
way with symbols, we call it mathematics or logic. And so on .... There
are always two sides: the active side and the passive side. The active
side denotes the producer, while the passive side denotes the recipient
- whereby both can also be one and the same person and, in the case of
the artist himself, must be the same person, because the artist must understand
what he is doing and how it is understood by others. If, for example,
a Homo erectus wants to produce art, he must not only be the producer,
but also the recipient of his work of art. Both require understanding,
i.e. language.
Bob wrote:
„Language began in many places with pictorial images, and Chinese
is an example where that has remained in use.“ **
No. Language already existed long, long before pictorial images began
and even very much longer before the Chinese.
Bob wrote:
„Language can enhance the interpretation and understanding of
art, and artists may use language to communicate their intentions or
provide context for their work, but the act of artistry, especially
of drawing and painting, has a lot to do with reproducing an impression,
a shape, a colour, a shadow, a beam of light and so on, and with language
we may later try to explain what we were doing, but I don’t think
that it normally precedes the art.“ **
It does. And it did. The interpretation, the comprehension, the communication,
the context, the art, the drawing, the painting, and everything else,
you have talked about, are language. Animals, for example, know nothing
of the linguistic language, which, as I have said (and recently can be
read from my signature), animals do not understand, or only in a semiotic
way, i.e. that they hear sounds which they understand as commands, flattery,
encouragement, invitations, etc., but are not linguistically capable of
understanding (they do not know any linguistic grammar and linguistic
meaning, i.e. semantics).
Bob wrote:
„The co-evolution of language and tool use has been a factor
in the development of human cognitive abilities, but language was for
a long time restricted to lists, measurements, and the like, and building
seems to have been a form of expression that was later superseded by
written depictions of imagination.“ **
You misunderstand language, Bob. You think that language is based on
only written language. In reality, written language (including artificial
language, which is also called „artificial intelligence“ [„AI“])
is the historically last stage of linguistic language, and, as I said,
language is made up of both linguistic and semiotic language.
Written language is the penultimate language invented by humans. So
it is also artificial. But now, let me say a bit more to the last language
invented by humans:
The last of the just said two examples of a completely artificially
created language by humans is the so-called „software“, consisting
of programs and often simply referred to as „artificial intelligence“
(= artificial language). It has been programmed by the linguistic beings
called Homo sapiens sapiens.
All software is language, namely a purely artificial one, i.e. one that
has been constructed by humans and has nothing more to do with nature
at all, as is still the case with hardware. This is because this language
is not in a natural body, as the language of humans (linguistic and semiotic
language apparatus) and the language of animals (semiotic language apparatus)
still do.
By the way, it follows, as the German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk has
also said, that since the time of computers, more precisely, since the
time of software, even more precisely since the time when software was
more intelligent than man in a purely rational sense (this began back
in the mid-1990s, when no chess player could defeat computer software
anymore), all people are condemned to inescapable conservatism, as they
were before the Neolithic Revolution and most of them even long after.
To make it clear how I understand „language“, I have created
a signature (see there [below]).
In order to gain a better understanding, it is advantageous to know
what is meant by „language“. I have a very general understanding
of language, because for me language covers everything that has to do
with signs - linguistic or semiotic signs (for example: mathematical numbers
or functions etc. are signs, in this case symbols, so also based on language).
For example: when an animal interprets a track (a sign, namely an index)
and then either follows it or not; or a picture (a sign, namely an icon)
in which you find what you know and like or dislike; or a traffic light
(a sign, namely a symbol) whose colours you interpret to know what you
must or must not do as a proper road user. However, animals do not have
a linguistic language like we humans do, but have to make do with a more
modest form of language, semiotic language.
Take science, for example:
Every science is language science, science of language (linguistics and
semiotics as scientific disciplines). This applies to both the theoretical
and the practical (empirical) side of science. As in life in general,
where it also applies to both the theoretical and the practical (empirical)
side.
Bob wrote:
„The idea that climatic conditions, such as those in Northwest
Europe, may have influenced cultural and intellectual development is
a hypothesis that I can’t agree with, considering the structures,
writing and images that have been found all over the world.“ **
Do you want to deny that the Gulf Stream exists and the North Atlantic
Current exists with all its effects on Europe?
Without the North Atlantic Current, we would have climatic conditions
in Europe like those in Canada or Russia!
Geology is a pretty serious science.
Do you want to deny that humans are almosts always facing challenges?
The Europeans have not only risen to, but also developed the best for
them from the challenge of the weather/climate. The effects of the North
Atlantic Current on Europe, especially on the northern half and western
half of Europe, are unique on our planet.
That is undeniable!
You can only allow yourself your interpretation because of a historical
fact, which, by the way, proves exactly my assertion that the interplay
of genetic and climatic conditions has ensured that Europeans have been
so incomparably successful. There is not a single comparable example that
can even come close to a similar success. This historical fact led to
all luxuries: Western technology, which led to the Industrial Revolution
and made possible all the other revolutions, i.e. the insane revolutions
with all their isms resp. ideologies. Why insane? Most people are not
able to adequately handle the luxuries that Western technology - and only
Western technology ! - has made possible. We see this everywhere: the
more luxury, the more dissatisfied and morbid most people are.
Most humans are not able (probably due to biological deficiencies) to
persevere for a evolutionarily long time a really high culture, i.e. also
highly technical, highly intelligent, highly luxurious, etc.. Luxury is
one of the main reasons why they begin to degenerate at a certain point
in time. Luxury and its consequences are among the main reasons why this
point in time occurs after a certain number of generations. Actually,
we should always be in good shape because of the luxury, but that is not
the case. It gets worse and worse with luxury, although it is precisely
luxury that gives us an increasingly pleasant life. This is a contradiction,
yes, but one that can be resolved. After a certain point of time luxury
will be destroyed because of the named biological deficiencies and above
all the great interests in destruction (one of the many, now officially
recognized isms is even named after it: destructionism) in order
to get money/wealth and thus power. Without the luxuries that Western
technology has brought to everyone, there would probably still only be
around 400 million humans on earth today. This means that 7.7-7.8 billion
of the humans living on Earth today (8.1-8.2 billion) would not exist
at all, and to the same extent (95%) all their ancestors would not have
existed either!
Note: The last paragraph refers to the relationship between biology
and culture and the relationship between the two and power. Due to lack
of space, I have not yet gone into much detail about the negative influences
such as control through advertising and brainwashing - all language (see
above and my avatar below).
I am by no means alone with my philosophy, more precisely language philosophy,
which includes philosophy of science or epistemology.
Many well-known philosophers have said similar things, though not exactly
the same as I have.
I developed my philosophy over a long period of time and started very
early on - initially with a focus on science (language) and history resp.
evolution.
There is nature with its bodies in it. To understand this more precisely,
physics came into being. But even the physicists would only see bodies
without knowing that they are bodies, if the physicists did not use language,
i.e. would remain without understanding and therefore without knowledge
of them - like an animal that can also see the bodies, but knows nothing
about them in contrast to the physicist and also almost all other humans.
The bodies that the physicist sees can only be recognized when the bodies
move, i.e., give signs, and these signs are language - and nothing else.
The most interesting question for me is why people of the highest culture
in world history are willing not only to abandon their culture, but even
to destroy it. I have already given the answer: on the one hand, they
themselves are so in their biological way of being, and on the other hand,
it is the forces of power of very few that control, exploit and drive
the masses to their downfall. The reasons for this are clear. The effects
are dramatic, a tragedy.
Even in the Stone Age, some humans exploited nature to such an extent,
i.e. achieved a luxury that ultimately caused them to starve. In Stone
Age Burgundy, for example, humans drove wild horses towards a slope, which
they then fell down and were then eaten by the humans. This was continued
until there were no more horses there. Those humans were too greedy and
probably not able to hunt sustainably. It is just easier to make as much
hunted prey as possible and not worry about the consequences. It is a
greedy behavior, albeit still primitive, with luxury effects, which in
the end almost always result in the death of the luxuriated greedy. Man
becomes comfortable and puts up with the downfall. This can be observed
again today: most humans know what is going on against them, are otherwise
too comfortable to defend themselves against it.
The first luxury was brought to humans by fire.
Two further examples of greed, which makes us forget that every hunter-gatherer
must focus on sustainability in order not to become his own victim in
the end, are the inhabitants of Easter Island, which made with their wrong,
because unsustainable, economic behaviour the island uninhabitable, and
the Aborigines of Australia, which made with their unsustainable, economic
behaviour almost the entire continent uninhabitable.
First World War.
It was clear long before the First World War that the British Empire
would not last much longer. Without the help of the US-Americans, their
financial support and their entry into the First World War, the British
Empire would have been over by the end of the First World War, and its
role would have been taken over by Germany, which would have won the First
World War. The same thing happened again with the Second World War. These
two world wars are historically very closely linked. Without the First
World War, there would have been no Second World War. And it was first
the British, then the French, then the Russians, then the Italians and
smaller nations like the Serbs who wanted the First World War. The British
Empire and France were at the end of their tether and therefore feared
the loss of their colonies and bankruptcy. Russia feared revolution and
wanted to divert attention from it with the First World War, Italy aspired
to the top and Serbia wanted to remain independent while being protected
by Russia. Austria-Hungary wanted to prevent its collapse, not through
a world war but through reforms. The only one of the six great powers
that neither feared losing nor wanted a world war was Germany. Germany
only wanted to trade, was economically and otherwise in first place in
the world and would have won the First World War if the United States
had not entered it (to achieve this, the US-Americans needed a pretext:
the sinking of the Lusitania [later, for entry into the Second World War,
it was Pearl Harbor]). In the period from the end of the 19th century
to the middle of the 20th century, it was a question of which of the two
powers would inherit the British Empire: Germany or the USA.
Benjamin Freedman wrote:
„It was absolutely absurd that Britain, which had no interests
or ties to Palestine, offered this land in return for the USA's entry
into the war. Yet they made that promise in October 1916, and shortly
thereafter - I don't know how many people remember this - the United
States, which until then had been almost entirely pro-German, entered
the war as an ally of Britain. Until then, the United States had been
pro-German. US-American Jews were also pro-German because many of them
came from Germany. They wanted Germany to defeat the Tsar. The Jews
hated the Tsar, they didn't want Russia to win the war. Jewish bankers
like Kuhn-Loeb and other big banks refused to support England and France
with even one dollar. But ... they wanted Germany to win the war and
the Tsarist regime to fall. But these same Jews suddenly got involved
in a deal with England when they saw the possibility of getting Palestine.
Suddenly everything changed in the USA, like a traffic light switching
from red to green. All the newspapers, which until then had been pro-German,
changed their tune. Suddenly they were claiming that the Germans were
evil, that they were Huns, barbarians and so on. The Germans would shoot
Red Cross nurses and chop off the hands of small babies. Now the Zionists
telegraphed from London to their guarantor in the USA, Judge Brandeis:
»We get what we want from England. Work on President Wilson. Get
President Wilson to enter the war.« Shortly afterwards, President
Wilson declared war on Germany. In this way, the USA entered the war.
But there was absolutely no reason to make this war ours. We were driven
into it just so the Zionists could have their Palestine. This is something
that the citizens of this country have not yet been told. They still
don't know why we entered the First World War. After the US entered
the war, the Zionists went to London and said, »We've fulfilled
our part of the bargain, now it's your turn. We should put it in writing
that we are entitled to Palestine if you win the war.« The Zionists
didn't know whether the war would last one, two or ten years. They therefore
wanted to put their agreement with the British government in writing.
The document was written in the form of a letter, which was coded so
that the general public could not know exactly what was behind it. This
document is known today as the Balfour Declaration. The Balfour Declaration
was England's promise to the Zionists that they would receive Palestine
in return for the USA's entry into the war, which they had brought about.
That's where all the trouble began. The USA entered the war, which,
as you know, led to Germany's defeat. You know what happened afterwards.
After the end of the war, the Versailles Peace Conference was held in
1919. This conference was also attended by a delegation of 117 Jews,
led by Bernard Baruch. How do I know that? Well, I should know, because
I was also in Versailles at the time. At that conference, when they
were in the process of carving up Germany and redividing Europe, the
Jews said: »We want Palestine for ourselves.« To emphasise
their demand, they showed the participants the Balfour Declaration.
The Germans only learnt of the agreement between the Zionists and
the British here in Versailles. It was only at Versailles that the Germans
learnt why US-America had entered the war. The Germans realised that
they had only lost the war because the Zionists wanted Palestine for
themselves at all costs. To make matters worse, the Germans were also
confronted with insane demands for reparations. When they realised these
connections, they understandably resented the Jews very much. Until
then, the Jews had never fared better in any country in the world than
in Germany. .... There is no question that the Jews were doing very
well in Germany at the time. But the Germans saw it as a shameful betrayal
that the Jews went behind their backs to ensure that the USA entered
the war against Germany. Until then, the Germans had been very tolerant
towards the Jews. When the first communist revolution in Russia failed
in 1905 and the Jews had to flee Russia, they all went to Germany. Germany
offered them all a safe haven. They were treated very well. But they
betrayed and sold out Germany for a single reason: they wanted Palestine
as their homeland. Shortly after the end of the First World War, the
Zionist leader Nahum Sokolov admitted that the anti-Semitism in Germany
stemmed from the fact that the Jews brought about the USA's entry into
the war, which ultimately led to Germany's defeat. Many other Zionists
also openly admitted this. From 1919 to 1923, they wrote it again and
again in their newspapers for everyone to read. It was not as if the
Germans suddenly realised in 1919 that Jewish blood tasted better than
Coca-Cola or Munich beer. There was no hostility just because the Jews
had a different faith. At that time, nobody in Germany cared whether
a Jew went home at night and prayed »Shema Yisroel« or the
»Lord's Prayer« - no more and no less than here in the USA.
The anti-Semitism that arose later was solely due to the fact that the
Germans blamed the Jews for the lost war. The Germans were not to blame
for the outbreak of the First World War. Their only fault was being
successful. They expanded their navy. They expanded their trade relations
with the whole world. You have to realise that at the time of the French
Revolution, Germany still consisted of over 300 city states, counties,
principalities and so on. From the time of Napoleon to the time when
Bismarck was chancellor, i.e. in just 50 years, Germany became a single
state and one of the most important world powers. The German navy became
almost as powerful as the British navy. The Germans maintained trade
relations with the whole world. They were able to offer high-quality
products at absolutely unrivalled prices. For this reason, England,
France and Russia conspired against Germany. They wanted to smash Germany.
There is no historian today who could give any other comprehensible
reason why these three countries would otherwise have decided to wipe
Germany off the political map. In the winter of 1918/1919, the Communists
attempted to seize power in Germany. Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebknecht
and a group of other Jews took over the government for a short time.
The Kaiser fled to Holland because he feared that he would suffer the
same fate as the Russian Tsar shortly before. At the time, Germany had
a population of around 80 million, of which just 460,000 were Jews.
....“
Second World War.
You have to take into account that before the official start of World
War 2 (1 September 1939) Poland had already invaded and annexed a part
of Lithuania in 1934 in 1938 and Italy had already invaded, annexed and
turned Abyssinia into a colony in 1938 - all reasons to accuse either
Poland or Italy or both as the cause of World War 2 (in the case of Poland
there are even more examples). But the reason for not doing so was a simple
one: Poland and Italy could not have been exploited because they had nothing
that could have been exploited.
„Another fact is that Stalin realised his plan to annex eastern
Poland (= western Ukraine [annexed by Poland]), which he had already
made in the 1920s, in 1939 and that he took the opportunity in 1945
to compensate the expelled Poles (less than 1 million) with the eastern
German territories (with 16 million inhabitants). Stalin - clever as
he was - had promised his ally, the USA, support in the war against
Japan, because he could make the cessions and expulsions in East Germany,
which the Western Allies had actually rejected, dependent on this promise.
Stalin had once again tricked his allies, because he did not support
the USA in the war against Japan, even though they had supported him
beforehand, and indeed throughout the entire war against Germany (1941-1945)
(e.g. the »Stalin organs« should actually have been called
»Roosevelt organs«).
Germany was a world leader in all areas, including science
and technology!
His opponents in the war were backward, that is, inferior, and that is
why they robbed Germany!
As soon as Germany's opponents became certain (1943/'44) that they
would win the Second World War, the battle for the vastly superior German
technicians and scientists began among them. The fact that the US-Americans
were able to win this war for the German technicians and scientists
can be explained by the fact that they did not allow their troops to
march on towards Berlin but towards the Alps - because that was where
a large proportion of the German technicians and scientists had retreated
- but less by the fact that their allies, and among them the Soviet
Union in particular, simply accepted this US triumph, because their
ally, the Soviet Union, no longer wanted to be patronised by them (in
fact, on both sides only the common goal was the meaning and purpose
of their alliance) and was even able to make an almost equally significant
proportion of the German technicians and scientists from the territory
they occupied their prisoners. The mere fact that Germany was technically
and scientifically far superior to all other powers and that Germany's
opponents were only able to win the war because of their ultimately
more sustainable deep armament meant that their warmongers could promise
themselves gigantic spoils of war. Germany's opponents saved an infinite
amount of money, time and investment through their entire war booty,
especially through their theft of over 1 million German patents and
through the capture and deportation of German technicians and scientists
for the purpose of total exploitation.
The »Operation
Overcast« - the targeted capture of German technology and technical
documents as well as the targeted capture of German technicians and engineers
- was aimed, among other things (!), at the
retaliatory weapons produced under the direction of Wernher von Braun
(V-weapons) and the atomic bombs produced under the direction of Werner
Heisenberg, as well as many other objects, e.g. robot aeroplanes!
The military victory of the Allies over Germany in 1945 and the occupation
of the Reich's territory also meant that the Allies - primarily the
USA, but also the Soviet Union and to a lesser extent the other Allies
- subsequently confiscated over 1 million German patents, inventions
and utility models and expropriated them without compensation (they
had already done this after the end of the First World War). This raid
had been planned years in advance by the USA with a general staff, because
the huge knowledge advantage of the Germans, which had lasted since
the 19th century, seemed unassailable to them without robbery. Germany
was the world champion in all areas, and the realisation that Germany
was decades ahead in basic research and the development of new ideas
in all areas of science and technology was particularly significant
for its opponents in the war. It was only through the theft of German
knowledge and years of forced labour by German scientists and technicians
in the USA that the United States was able to put its economy and armaments
on a new footing and become a leader in development. The book by Friedrich
Georg (Unternehmen Patentenraub 1945 - Die Geheimgeschichte des größten
Technologieraubs aller Zeiten [Undertaking Patent theft 1945
- The secret history of the biggest technology theft of all time],
2007 ), for example, describes in detail the preparation, implementation
and consequences of the biggest »patent theft« in history.
It shows that innovations such as colour television and transistor technology,
space travel and rockets, supersonic flight and computers, the atomic
bomb and other nuclear technology can be traced back to German inventions
and discoveries, with which the US economy subsequently made billions
in profits.
Germany's offers of peace and negotiations were in vain
because its opponents in the war
did not want to miss their unique opportunity - this greatest robbery
of all time!
When in 1945 - immediately after the end of the war (!) - the Americans
brought Baron Wernher von Braun and his team from Germany, for example,
it was clear that they wanted to win them, these geniuses, over to their
interests, because they came from the land of poets and thinkers, the
land of competition, and had been bitter enemies as Germans just days
before, but were now not treated like enemies at all. But they were.
When von Braun was technical director of the rocket flight project at
the Army Research Institute in Peenemünde in Germany (1937 to 1945),
where he developed the first automatically controlled liquid rocket
A4 (later V2), he could not quite convince Hitler (1889-1945) of the
space programme: »My Führer, in a few years we can land on
the moon with these rockets«, he is said to have said, to which
Hitler is said to have replied: »What do you want me to do on
the moon? I want to go to London.« Hitler liked the fact that
von Braun had built the world's first rockets, but he paid less attention
to the nuclear weapons programme, although the nuclear weapons research
carried out in Germany (e.g. in Berlin and Göttingen) since the
end of the 1930s was the first in the world and remained the only one
worldwide until 1943/'44.
Only the Jews who had been expelled from Germany advised the USA
to build an atomic bomb, so that from 1943/'44 there were two nations
with a nuclear weapons research programme: Germany and the USA. In addition
to atomic bombs, Germany's scientists and military researchers had probably
already tested hydrogen bombs and »atomic and hydrogen mix bombs«
(cf. »Wunderwaffe«). In any case, the USA only built its
nuclear bomb because it was afraid of Germany's nuclear bomb. Germany
could have had an atomic bomb long before the USA. But even if Germany
had only had the atomic bomb in 1945, i.e. at the same time as the USA,
history would have been different: Hitler could have blackmailed the
USA (and with it the rest of the world) with nuclear missiles. But the
German atomic weapons scientists also prevented Hitler from using the
first atomic bomb and winning the world war. Heisenberg and von Weizsäcker
and their crew just knew more about physics.
Germany's army was the largest army of all time and the
strongest army of all time!
It was quantitatively the largest, qualitatively the best, overall the
strongest army in the world!
The technology for space travel, the never-ending battle to conquer
infinite space and, ultimately, the moon landing were therefore born
in a German mind (Wernher von Braun), just like nuclear research: Otto
Hahn (1879-1968) had discovered nuclear fission in 1938, and the development
of the atomic bomb first had to be convincingly taught to the USA by
Albert Einstein (1879-1955), who had emigrated from Germany. He advised
them to develop the atomic bomb faster than Germany because, as a Jew,
he knew what could happen to him if his competitor was faster. Heisenberg
(1901-1976), Weizsäcker (1912-2007) and Co. were unrivalled leaders
at the time, because until 1943/44, research into nuclear weapons, i.e.
a »nuclear weapons programme«, only existed in Germany.
The intellectual machinery was running at full speed, just like the
political machinery. The brains of scientists, technicians and space
travellers could have been programmed by the German engineer Konrad
Zuse (1910-1995), as he was the first person to create the basis for
a program-controlled calculating machine (1936) and build the world's
first computer with his Z3 (1941). The climax of the greatest competition
of all time was therefore that between Germany and the Anglo-Americans
(USA and England). When that was decided and a single world power was
left, the time of crisis was also over.“
„Who had the atomic bomb first: Germany or the USA? Germany!
And of course it only looked like that, as already mentioned. But Heisenberg,
Weizsäcker and the other German researchers had deliberately delayed
the development of the atomic bomb more and more in order to prevent
Hitler from using it. They also said this after the Second World War,
when they were secretly bugged by the enemy secret services as prisoners
of war in a house. So it was the German scientists working on the atomic
bomb who actually prevented Hitler from using the first atomic bomb.
They were close to it and had done enough tests by then, they also had
enough uranium available, but they increasingly gave the National Socialist
government excuses and reasons for postponing use in order to prevent
them from launching the first atomic bomb from Germany.
The Germans had the atomic bomb before the Americans and just didn't
use it - Edgar Mayer and Thomas Mehner, for example, also say this.
After the Second World War, however, it was forbidden to talk about
it. »Why can't Hitler have had atomic bombs?« Michael Grandt
asked this question on 17 November 2010 in his interview with Thomas
Mehner, who replied: »The question is easy to answer: because
then another one would immediately arise, namely that of the non-use
of the weapons. And the answer to this question would bring many different
facets to light, which would put numerous establishment historians in
the greatest need of explanation. One of these would be, for example,
why a dictatorship would not use the ›bombs‹ at its disposal
under penalty of its downfall, while the United States of America, which
calls itself a democracy, directed two of its weapons against Japan.«
(In: KOPP, 17 November 2010).
According to Mehner, the special adviser to the US ambassador in London,
Herbert Agar, »in lectures he gave in Great Britain after the
war - in June 1945 - named 6 August 1945 as the date of the first use
of a German nuclear weapon. On this day, an atomic bomb actually exploded:
an allegedly US-American one over the Japanese city of Hiroshima. However,
I assume that the German nuclear weapons had already reached operational
readiness earlier. The problem that probably arose at that time was
the transport of the bombs by means of a non-interceptable carrier system
- a missile.« (Ibid. ). According to Mayer and Mehner, »the
established historiography», as they call it, does not correspond
to the truth. The journalists of the mass media are »incapable
of learning, they are still parroting the contemporary historiography
that was given to them by the victors of the Second World War. A good
journalist does his own research, but you don't notice any of that in
the quality media when it comes to this topic.« (Ibid.).
The V1, the V2 and the »Rheinbote« were only
the technical preliminary stage for developments such as intercontinental
missiles, space aeroplanes and manned orbital stations.
These projects had progressed far beyond the drawing board stage by the
end of the war. Hitler wanted to use these weapons, which were to carry
nuclear warheads, not only to attack
New York and »shoot« the USA out of the Second World War,
but also to use long-term planning to secure Germany's supremacy in the
period after the »final victory« he propagated.
(See: Friedrich Georg, Atomziel New York - Geheime Großraketen
und Raumfahrtprojekte des Dritten Reiches [Nuclear target New York - Secret
large rockets and space projects of the Third Reich], 2004).
It is also extremely strange that neither the US-Americans nor the
Soviets, after the period in which they profited from the German scientists
they abducted into the country and the »Apollo« programmes
led by Wernher von Braun, and despite the fact that they stole at least
700,000 German patents and more than 110,000 tonnes of important documents,
simply did not and do not succeed in further developing space technology.
The »Space Shuttle« programme, for example, is accompanied
by ongoing, sometimes massive or even catastrophic technical problems.
The problems with »modern« space technology obviously persist
to this day because its foundations are based on German developments.
These were captured after the end of the Second World War by both US
Americans and Soviet Russians, but without being understood down to
the last detail. Indeed, a closer analysis of the situation even leads
to the conclusion that everything we know today from aerospace was in
principle already available on German drawing boards and in secret development
facilities before 1945. The fact that captured German drawing board
designs, patents and prototypes were passed off as »newly invented«
US-American or Soviet »technology« after the end of the
war does not change this. What was US-American and Soviet (or Soviet-Russian
or Russian) was robbery - legally speaking: Theft - murder, deprivation
of liberty, kidnapping and lying.
Post-war reports by the Western Allies state that there were two German
space programmes. Of course, the first programme referred to the activities
of the Wernher von Braun group to conquer space and achieve world domination
with the aid of ballistic or semi-ballistic recoil rockets. However,
what is meant by the »Second Programme« remains a mystery
to this day. The former Allies have still not opened their archives
on the subject. One possibility is that the activities of Professor
Eugen Sänger, the Luftwaffe and the SS to create an »antipode
glider« constituted this second programme. However, it could also
be that the »Second Programme« went far beyond this and
was related to the fields of quantum theory, gravity, magnetism, mercury
and plasma propulsion. Research areas that were controlled and shielded
by the SS, among others.
The assertion by Edgar Mayer and Thomas Mehner that Germany was working
on a new generation of wonder weapons during the Second World War, which
was about to be deployed, is further fuelled by the facts presented
in their book (Die Lügen der Alliierten und die deutschen Wunderwaffen
[The lies of the Allies and the German wonder weapons], 2010). As
incredible as it is astonishing: 6 August 1945 was set as the date for
the first use of a German nuclear weapon. On this day, an atomic bomb
actually destroyed a city - Hiroshima in Japan!
Mayer and Mehner show that the German nuclear weapon was ready and
the delivery system in the form of an intercontinental ballistic missile
was nearing completion. The centre of both secret weapons programmes
was located in Thuringia and was operated by the SS, the Reichspost
and the Skoda company. The authors document not only that a small-scale
static test took place on 4 March 1945 at the Ohrdruf military training
area, in which several hundred people lost their lives, but also that
the successful launch of a carrier rocket took place from the ground
in Thuringia on 16 March 1945. Hans Kammler, who had been appointed
plenipotentiary of the »Strahlwaffe« - meaning the atomic
bomb - in January 1945, was also appointed plenipotentiary of the »Strahljäger«
in March 1945. Such an appointment was only ever made when series production
was imminent.
Germany's Third Reich developed nuclear weapons and the necessary
delivery systems in the form of multi-stage missiles. Documents that
were classified for 60 years and declassified in 2005 show that the
secret second-generation weapons actually existed. The US fear of a
nuclear attack on New York and other East Coast cities was real! The
US-American Major Alexander de Seversky, an engineer, Göring's
interrogator and aviation expert honoured by US President Harry Truman
in 1947 for his services, even stated after the war that it was only
thanks to the Anglo-American area bombing that the German atomic bomb
could not be used before the American ones!
Immediately after the end of the Second World War, the »rumours«
that the atomic bombs dropped on Japan were of German origin would not
die down. In recent years, numerous facts, circumstantial evidence and
proofs have been gathered which document that the »rumours«
are not wrong, because German research in the field of nuclear technology
and nuclear weapons technology was much more extensive and advanced
than previously assumed. For the first time, a contemporary witness
is speaking out and revealing his knowledge in the form of a memoir.
He relies not only on his own research, but also on information made
available by his father at the end of the war, which he possessed due
to his special function in connection with the construction of the German
uranium bombs in Thuringia. The most important point: US special forces
captured three ready-to-use atomic bombs during the advance on the area
in the centre of the Reich, one of which was tested on American soil
in July 1945, while the other two were used over Hiroshima and Nagasaki
using a method developed by German experts. Even experts on the subject
are astounded by the fact that seemingly well-known facts, when viewed
from a new angle, reveal a completely different context, which ultimately
shows that the first »US nuclear weapons« were in fact booty
bombs. The secrecy and cover-up practised by the US government has succeeded
in suppressing the truth for more than six decades - but ultimately
without success.
The Jonastal near Arnstadt in Thuringia is one of the best-kept secrets
of the Third Reich. (See Gerulf von Schwarzenbeck, Verschwörung
Jonastal: Sensationelle neue Erkenntnisse zu Ereignissen und zur Lage
unterirdischer Objekte im AWO-Gebiet sowie zur Technologie der deutschen
Atombombe [Conspiracy Jonastal: Sensational new findings on events and
the location of underground objects in the AWO area as well as on the
technology of the German atomic bomb], 2005 ).With its underground
S-III project, it was the site of the most secret military and technological
experiments. The German nuclear weapon, the America missile and other
advanced technologies were developed here. Was there a plan to cover
up the dramatic events at the end of the war in Jonastal? Why has historiography
still not clarified the actual background to Special Construction Project
III? Why are the files of the Allies of the time on this subject still
blocked today? Why did people who knew the true facts remain silent?
Why did US Americans and Soviet Russians have certain people sign declarations
of silence, and why are witnesses to the events of that time who are
still alive today afraid to speak out on the subject? This did not happen
by chance!“
When the Second World War came to an end in Germany (9 May 1945), the
US troops had occupied both Bavaria and Thuringia because they suspected
that the documents containing the instructions for building the atomic
bomb were in these two German regions. However, these documents were already
in Berlin-Dahlem at the time. So the US-Americans had to come to an agreement
with the Soviets that they could divide up the Reich capital Berlin and
the western part, where Berlin-Dahlem was located, could become the US-American-occupied
sector. Only after they had reached Berlin-Dahlem could the US-Americans
build an atomic bomb. At that time, as I said, the Second World War was
over in Germany, but not yet in Japan. That - and that alone - was the
reason why the US-Americans did not drop atomic bombs on Germany (because
that was exactly what they wanted!), but on Japan (6 and 9 August 1945).
The US-Americans were only able to drop their first atomic bombs because
they were unable to realise their nuclear project without the documents
containing the instructions for building the atomic bomb, which were located
in the German capital Berlin-Dahlem. Because the US soldiers were not
yet in Berlin at the end of the Second World War in Germany (only the
Soviet Union soldiers were there as foreign soldiers, who knew nothing
about the documents), they were only able to steal the documents with
the instructions for the construction of the atomic bomb located in Berlin-Dahlem
after the end of the Second World War in Germany, so that their atomic
bomb project could only be „successfully“ completed after the
end of the Second World War in Germany - by dropping the atomic bombs
on Japan.
Since the 19th century, the British, and after them the Americans, because
they have orientated themselves towards them, have always paid attention
to what Germany is doing and have always geared their strategy towards
preventing cooperation between Germany (intelligence/technology/science/economy)
and Russia (natural resources).
George Friedman of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs also says this
very clearly time and again.
This is why the „Nordstream 2“ pipeline was also blown up.
Sociologist wrote:
„Dear Mr S
It certainly feels like all those countries endured national socialist
like infiltration perhaps via syndicalism, concerning industries and
amenities, and a few other ways to perpetually lurk.
I had seen part of that Sloterdijk interview Jan 2023. His analog
”Resentment is dangerous, because it resembles a fossil energy”
(**)
was striking. And interesting since there is reason to suspect that
something that happened in WW2 is destabilising the world right now.
Perhaps since ‘A’ are not happy that ‘B’ can seem
to be able to afford another war without having cleaned up after last
time.
This quote from Sloterdijk is also intriguing :
”The gesture of exposure characterises the style of argumentation
of ideology critique, from the critique of religion in the eighteenth
century to the critique of fascism in the twentieth. Everywhere, one
discovers extrarational mechanisms of opinion: interests, passions,
fixations, illusions. That helps a bit to mitigate the scandalous
contradiction between the postulated unity of truth and the factual
plurality of opinions — since it cannot be eliminated. Under
these assumptions, a true theory would be one that not only grounds
its own theses best, but also knows how to defuse all significant
and persistent counterpositions through ideology critique.” (Englische
Übersetzung aus: Peter Sloterdijk, Kritik der zynischen
Vernunft, 1983, S. 18 [in der englischen
Übersetzung]).
If measured against your :
”In this topic, therefore, we are dealing with two three-steps:
(1.) an inner or smaller and temporally closer together three-step
and (2.) an outer or larger and temporally more distant three-step,
which superimposes the other. According to this insight, fascism/national-socialism
can only be an opponent of capitalism indirectly, namely in its superimposed
form; it is directly an opponent of communism/international-socialism,
and as such it came into being, as a reaction to communism/international-socialism.”
**
**
In the wake of the last 25 years i’d tend agree with rationale
pointing either of these analogs. Both support sociological ecological
creep gradually intersecting concentric society until consensus moves
into this ‘superposition’ you mention. This seems to mean
that a permissive society who believe the consented to radical socialism
can be made not to understand the actual symmetry & movement to
fascism. If per chance the some throw in some obscure linguistic @ tactical
points they then might claim full mandate for it all. People slowly
regimented to feel comfortable with flowing along like grains of sand
in an hourglass. Most people are never even slightly fascinated by pure
phenomena like ( say ) self organised criticality – and why should
they. The trouble with WW is it loves to take advantage of the peaceful
majority who simply want to live, and do not even wish to be concerned
for what the human mind can do. As of this moment the main perpetual
human (MPH) is under scrutiny for a tediously contrived range of exclusion
misanthropy. In fascism this has meant that a force of ( lets just say
) ‘inclusion’ i.e ones who will turn against fellow human
MPH – are prepared in advance.
Thus obtaining a ‘Yes’ to national socialism ( when they
mean Fascism ) from a vast majority who are intoxicated with the need
NOT to need war is a sophisticated creep up on them / us business. I
feel its possible that plenty NOT – MPH i,e educated people like
James are also concerned and offended by the clear war cries this learning
enables. I’m not sure how many an intellect reaches to the very
root of crime against humanity offence given that % of MPH are vulnerable
to ‘Inclusion / Reaction’, It does not make intellectual sense
to be split if one knows how existential crisis was stirred in many
of these, if fact lack of vision there simply illustrates level of intellectual
limit. So be it – intersectional lines have geom3etry obscured
by lack of the right information. This ‘National Socialist’
oxymoron ultra anti social war project had never been discussed, rather
as well over a century of wood wormish collectivist/ syndicalism enemy
within whittling at sovereignty free speech & human rights.“
**
Dear Sociologist.
I hope that by „Mr S“ you mean me.
Anyway, thank you for your response.
The relationship between language and intelligence is not „complex“
(**),
because both basically mean the same thing. Basically!
You seem to have not read my text. ALL signs are language - including
mathematical numbers, functions, statistics, etc, ALL signs.
There is no such thing as „non-verbal intelligence“ (**).
Everything that an animal or a human being does non-verbally is language
too, must also be understood in every process, i.e. the meaning of what
is done must be understood - the semantics, and this is only language:
(a) semiotic (what you mean by „non-verbal“ is semiotic) and
(b) linguistic (human language - non-oral and oral - it can be partly
and passively understood by higher animals, but only on a semiotic level,
because animals do not understand the linguistic semantics and grammar).
And again: Written language is also linguistic language (if it were not,
then it would only be understood semiotically - try to read/understand
a text omly semiotically). Written language is based on oral linguistic
language.
By the way, every intelligence test is language too, so it can also
be used to test intelligence/language. It would be something like a hyperintelligence
test.
You argue with „emotions“ or „sensors“, but neither
of them is of any use for the understanding itself, for the intelligence
itself, but must also be interpreted, both by the sender and the receiver.
This is also how art was created. An animal that wants to draw attention
to itself does not do so without understanding, without knowledge, without
intelligence, i.e. without language, in this case: semiotic language.
Otherwise, the animal would not do it. Instinct is a program, and a program
is also language. We hardly notice this program.
Semantics is not just about words. Even in ancient times, it did much
more than that. Semantics deals with ALL signs. In linguistics, these
are phone/phonemes, morphs/morphemes, words/logemes, sentences/syntactemes
and texts/textemes, as well as with all characters/graphemes; in semiotics,
these are all other signs, i.e. all those that are not linguistic. There
are evolutionarily subordinate signs to linguistics, which are purely
semiotic, and those which are evolutionarily/historically superior to
linguistics, i.e. belong to metalinguistics, or to philosophy, to logic,
to mathematics, and which are both semiotic and linguistic, because they
can be traced back. And that is exactly what intelligence research does.
They conduct language research.
The smaller the language sub-area, the less room for
art.
Unless one would regard the sub-areas themselves as art.
But the sub-areas are not entirely art, but only partially.
Semantics is a language discipline. It is about meanings. It is all
about meanings. Von Humboldt dealt with this very intensively, as did
many others, and later, for example, Sapir and Whorf. In this case, when
it comes to attribution, it does not matter whether mathematics also does
semantics (it does) or other disciplines do. Semantics only has to do
with language, because all the others can be traced back to it - and must
be if you really want to do good science. All other attempts at semantics
are subordinated to the semantics of langunage science (either linguistics
or semiotics), because everything can be reduced to it.
And also philosophy can make a lot of contributions here, because it
comes from the meta-level, just like logic and mathematics.
There are reasons why certain branches of science are partly opposed
to this, because they do not want to lose the power that they have been
given, because certain people can use them to better control the mass
of people.
You use a trick when you talk about „communication“ (**)
to distinguish it from language. That is how you colour when you want
to talk down or get rid of something. Communication is language, but not
in such a way that it comes before it or stands above it, but the other
way round: communication is an aspect of language - nothing more.
I have told you how language is to be understood. You do not go into
it, because you always use words that distract from it. If you understand
language the way I do, then it already exists before communication. Communication
merely serves as a placeholder for focussing everything on information
(see the lobby for computers and the internet - both of which are also
nothing more than language). But language is more than information, more
than communication. You in particular, who like to deal with emotions,
should understand this very well. Is the influence of the media (also
just language) stronger on you with regard to communication theory and
therefore information theory? Communication theory and therefore information
theory are good theories - I have studied them myself for a long time
- but they are not enough if one wants to investigate language itself,
on which they are also based.
If we go along with and believe the communication theory and therefore
the information theory 100%, then we are lost, because that robs us of
our humanity. And the reason for this lies in the fact that we are more
than beings of communication and therefore of information. We are beings
of language - like all other living beings - and we have placed ourselves
above the other living beings by beginning to expand and develop language:
from semiotics to linguistic (oral and written) language.
Written language is a great development, an important component of language
and has revolutionised many things, first with the book, then with the
Computer and the Internet, right up to artificial intelligence, which
should actually be called artificial language. The alphabet with consonants
is the best that has ever been developed, because it allows us to read
much more effectively and quickly. In the case of the other writings,
the writing itself must always be deciphered, so that there is no time
to deal with what has been said much more effectively.
I am „putting the interpretation first, not the non-verbal impression
a scene makes“ (**),
because your „non-verbal impression“ is not non-language (the
English language does - unfortunately - not have an adjective for the
noun „language“). Beauty and all the other things you mentioned
must be interpreted. A baby is not capabel of interpretation beauty, for
example, but the beauty is there. It can only be done by interpretation,
and interpretation is a matter of semantics, either semiotic semantics
or linguistic semantics.
And your „art forms“ (**)
that have to do with „visual, auditory, tactile, or other non-linguistic
elements“ are NOT non-language (the English language does - unfortunately
- not have an adjective for the noun „language“), they are language,
because language is always involved - in semiotic or linguistic or in
both semiotic and linguistic forms.
You relate too much to things and far too little to what things do.
They give impressions through the signs, which either come from themselves
and are then interpreted by us (this way or this way or that way ...)
or are interpreted by us into them.
Your answers clearly tell me that you have not understood what I mean
by language. I explained it to axtra several times and even created a
signature for it. Perhaps it would help you if the English language would
finally offer an ajective for the noun „language“. The English
language does not distinguish between the hyperonym (superordination)
„language“ and its hyponyms (subordinations) „semiotics“
and „linguistics“, so that many misunderstandings are preprogrammed.
Lorikeet wrote:
„The song of a bird, the braying of an ass, the hooting and hollering
of a primate...the beginning of art.“ **
Yes, these examples belong to the beginning of art.
Certain character patterns that are repeated over and over again are
eventually varied to make a special impression. For example: „I’m
the one who did this.“ „I’m better than the others.“
If something is not done about it, they will literally be abused until
there is nothing left of them.
And when you confront most people here at ILP with this issue, there
are two variants of the reaction: (1) they play dumb (convenience) or
(2) they show solidarity with the aggressor (Stockholm syndrome) and say
that the whites deserve it, but always mean the other white people, never
themselves (Stockholm syndrome). Here you have to observe exactly who
is really racist: it is the left, the left wing, the left extremists.
They have learned it from the Marxists and Neo-Marxists (Frankfurt School,
left-wing existentialists [Sartre and Co.] Poststructuralists/Postmodernists/Loxists,
all nihilists).
Artimas wrote:
„I don’t know, should the books of authors who do not or
cannot write anymore be burned?“ **
Yes, you don’t know. Who said anything about books or about people
who are not able to write?
And because you addressed the people „who do not or cannot write
anymore“: why should they write a book? They „do not or cannot
write anymore“ - these are your own words!
Bob wrote:
„I agree that the surface is what changes, but that is what I
was describing. I am a natural introvert but tried for decades to be
like the extroverts I knew, and I could play one, but only at a great
cost. It was only when I learned to introspect and take the solitude
that I needed that I came to that core you mentioned. So, in effect,
we are both right.“ **
Yes, you see. You say yourself that you are actually introverted and
that you have to go into yourself in order to solve your problem (playing
extrovert). And I told you before that in the depths you always remain
the same anyway and only the past selves, which you were, but still are,
and who compete with each other, sometimes report themselves jealously.
They confirm me. What you say about yourself, I know from my brother as
well.
Bob wrote:
„When I entered nursing, it was a re-education, obviously, but
it also showed me the dormant side of my character that I believe we
all have. The brainwashing is what commonly occurs and suggests that
we are either masculine or feminine and undermines the strengths that
a non-stereotype can give us. We all have varying talents and access
to certain necessary attributes, so it isn’t that we are all the
same, and men who discover their other side are not naturally able to
nurse, just as there are things I can’t do. It is just that we
can escape the narrow interpretation of what it means to be a man.“
**
But „brainwashing“ can just as easily be understood as hammering
into us to constantly question our sex/sexuality/gender, and you can see
where that leads. Just because the consequences do not seem clear enough
does not mean they are „good“. It will not end well - I already
know that -, the Corona and vaccination mania has given us something similar.
It is not possible to just go 100% against nature and then make the absurd
claim that it is like the normal, that it is prescriptive, restrictive,
oppressive, and you have to get rid of it at all costs. Do you think that
- just for example - the „not-more-female-and-yet-not-male-but-still-female-anyhow-female"
being seen in the following picture knows what it has done there and how
it will feel about it later.
Lorikeet wrote:
„They are brain-dead zombies.
I am directing my posts to those who are still healthy.
Most are just indoctrinated....some express their self-hatred in this
way.
Your own remind you of your own failures, and the enemies of your own,
sympathize.
Race traitors.
They tolerate the "chosen tribe", denying they are acting
as a collective - no matter how much evidence you provide - and then
denounce tribalism.
They support everyone but their own kind, feeling ashamed, if they even
think it.“ **
Exactly. If they even think it!
Because they are brainwashed. But they did not notice that either. Because
they did not think at that moment either.
Lorikeet wrote:
Watch this...."human"... tossed around a white baby.“
**
Again: Unbelievable!
How can a human leave the own child to a non-human?
How can a human even let a non-human into a human flat or house?
Is that film perhaps a fake that is supposed to scare us?
It's just unbelievable!
Disgusting!
„Ecmandu wrote:
»I’m a human machine.« **
So you are no human.“ **
**
He is no human.
A machine is a machine, and a human is a human. A machine human is still
a human, and a human machine is still a machine.
|
Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz 
).
The difference between both is only a „social construct“ (i.e.:
„artificial construct“ [AC]). 
