Happy new year.
The following book should be translated soon, or you read it in German:
Die schrecklichen Kinder der Neuzeit (my translation: The awful
children of the modern era) - by Peter Sloterdijk, 2014.
And the follwing video I already posted in your other thread refers
to the said book:
Arminius wrote:
„My video contribution to your thread is the following video:
**
.“ ** **
James S. Saint wrote:
„Actually Arminius, this post belongs on this thread too: **
The reprogramming of a society begins with the mid-wives and nannies/media
(whether human or machine).“ **
Yes. Reprogramming always starts with education because the young people
are the most influenceable people.
What do you think about that?
Fantastic! **
**
**
James S. Saint wrote:
„And without mass particles, there won't be any photons either.“
**
Perhaps mass particles need photons, but photons do not need mass. Whithout
photons there won't be any mass particles.
Mithus wrote:
„Hard to understand for somebody who learned already as a schoolkid
how important it would be to learn from history, in order to prevent
the recurrence of certain situations.“ **
There is also a great interest in the prevention
of learning from history.
Another „sucker“ (**)
or the end-consumer or the last man.
„»We have discovered happiness«- say the last men and
blink.“ (Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche).
@ Maia (**).
Nobody envies the Jews, but a lot of humans envy the Whites (also called
Caucasians or Indogermanics / Indoeuropeans / Aryans), especially the
White men.
Where is the price for the Jews? If there were anybody envious of Jews,
then there would be a high price for Jews too.
James S. Saint wrote:
„Racism is the act of making decisions based upon race. It is
a specific case of the »over-generalization« logic fallacy.
And it is a simple true fact that the Judists (not necessarily all
Jews) are more guilty than any in that regard: »We are God's chosen
[better than the rest, above all creatures]«. They are also the
most guilty of murder because of their belief that the goyem are not
really human, thus to them, causing the death of goyem is not really
murder.
But then again, the Aryans do play in that same arena.
It is merely a competition of the Godwannabes.“ **
The analogy of the Ashkenazi Jews and the Germans in particular or of
all the Jews and all the Aryans in general inspired Hitler.
The intelligence of the Ashkenazi Jews and the Germans is similar, the
intelligence of all the Jews and all the Aryans is also similar - since
1945 the difference is merely that Jews are allowed to be proud of themselves
and Aryans have to feel ashamed of themselves.
The words „Jew“, „jewish“ and other words with the
same stem do not refer to biological aspects, thus also not to „race“
but to an ethnic or religious group. The race Jews belong to is called
the „semitic race“.
So Jews are not a race but an ethnic or merely religious group. The
current propagandists just want them to be a „race“, because
otherwise there propganda would not have the effect that is has: racism
as a killer argument against any opposition and in order to control 99%
of the humans.
James S. Saint wrote:
„Magnus Anderson wrote:
»James S. Saint wrote:
›Racism is the act of making decisions based upon race. It
is a specific case of the 'over-generalization' logic fallacy.‹
**
It's more than that. Racism is ethnic egoism. Egoism means being
concerned only about your own group and unconcerned about all other
groups. Racism would then mean being concerned only about your own
ethnic group while being unconcerned about all other ethnic groups.«
**
That is merely one type of racist ..., »homoracist«.
And its »Portman«, not Pittman (originally »Neta-Lee
Hershlag«).“ **
The original form of „Hershlag“ is the German „Herzschlag“.
So the original name of this lady is „Herzschlag“, and the English
translation of the word „Herzschlag“ is „Heartbeat“.
Egoism does not mean „being concerned only about your own
group and unconcerned about all other groups“ (**).
„Being concerned only about your own group and unconcerned about
all other groups“ means Chauvinism.
A race is a biolgical term, thus does not (necessarily ) refer to an
ethnic group.
And instead of the word „homoracist“ I use the more correct
word „autoracist“.
Maia wrote:
„What's so bad about the New World Order?
....
One world government ....“ **
Yes. That is very bad.
Maia wrote:
„What's so bad about the New World Order?
....
Banning guns ....“ **
That will never happen - unless you mean „banning guns of the poor
and defenseless people“.
Maia wrote:
„What's so bad about the New World Order?
....
Socialism ....“ **
Yes. That is very bad.
Maia wrote:
„What's so bad about the New World Order?
....
Anti-Christianity ....“ **
Yes. That is very bad too. Have you already bought your „nice“
burka, Maia?
http://www.gaelnet.de/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/burka.jpg
This new world order (globalism) can only and is going to lead to a
global chaos. The result of the new world order can only and is going
to be the survival of (a) no one or (b)
few of the wilderness.
Think about it:
    
Political correctness in a globalistic phase is the most fatal behavior.
Globalism destroys everything on this planet, thus also and especially
humans.
Einstein did not want an universe that is open and changes the dense
of ist matter. He wanted a closed universe in which the dense of the matter
does not change.
Perfect Logicians.
Players A and B have got the number 12 written on their foreheads. Everyone
sees the number on the front of the other but does not know the own number.
The game master tells them that the sum of their numbers is either 24
or 27 and that this numbers are positive integers (thus also no zero).
Then the game master asks repeatedly A and B alternately, if they can
determine the number on the own forehead.
A: „No“.
B: „No“.
A: „No“.
B: „No“.
A: „No“.
....
After how many „no“s does the game end, if at all?
„Where Fichte had lectured: »Act like
nobody!«, Stirner replicated: »Do what you can do alone on
the world: Enjoy yourself!«“ - My translation of: Peter Sloterdijk,
Die schrecklichen Kinder der Neuzeit, 2014, S. 461. **
„»The rhizome is an anti-genealogy. The
rhizome passes through conversion, expansion, conquest, catch and stitch
.... The rhizome is about ... ›becoming of all kinds‹.«
(Gilles Deleuze & Félix Guattari, Rhizome, p. 35.) The invisible
underground mesh (network) against the visibly sprouting, striving upward
tree ....“ - My translation of: Peter Sloterdijk, Die schrecklichen
Kinder der Neuzeit, 2014, S. 472. **
Against any past and future - the anti-genealogy - that is one of the
main aspects of the modernity, when fashion replaces customs (morals).
The opposite of you? You can be your own opposite, thus without any
other body / person.
And you do not think that the discovery itself could be the problem,
the mistake? You need light in order to discover mass particles. So for
observers their result can only be and is always that "mass was before
light", but that does not need to be true.
For the modern human there is only consumption, no
past, no future, no children, no parents, thus no familiy, no genealogy
but only consumption, enjoy-yourself-ism. So there is also no sacred thing
for the modern human, because for the modern human there is only consumption,
no custom (moral) but fashion that has replaced all customs (morals),
no sacred things, unless they are consumable. The modern religion (ideology,
consumistic manifesto) is consumption, enjoy-yourself-here-and-now-ism,
anti-genealogy, the devil-may-care-attitude.
It is not possible to completely understand God. If it were possible,
then God would not be God. This impossibility is also the difference between
religion and science, and this difference may be called theology. However.
It is impossible to prove or disprove God, otherwise we would just know
everything. God can do what no one else can do (the accent is on the word
„can“). If we were capable of proving that God exists or that
God not exists, then we would not need religion, theology, science and
so on, because we would know everything, thus the imposibility too. Proving
that God exists or that God not exists means knowing as much as only God
can know. All other meanings and definitions make no sense in this case.
James S. Saint wrote
„Arminius wrote:
»Mithus wrote:
›Hard to understand for somebody who learned already as a
schoolkid how important it would be to learn from history, in order
to prevent the recurrence of certain situations.‹ **
There is also a great interest in the prevention of learning from
history.« **
**
They can't rewrite it if people keep learning it.“ **
Yes, of course, that is also true, but the accent in your sentence is
on the word „if“, because the problem is that the preventors
of learning from history and the keepers of learnig from history have
one point where they agree, and the preventors have more power.
Most of the buildings Richard Buckminster Fuller constructed were built
because of his and other's interests. So the increasing of the dense of
the cities was merely his excuse.
In the third part of Peter Slotredijk's „Spheres“ (especially
in chapter I) Fuller is often mentioned, yes, but his buildings are primarily
representation buildings.
I was referring to the discoverer, the observer, the empiricism when
I wrote that „you need light in order to discover mass particles“
(**|**),
although it is also right that you need light, at least „a bit“,
for the use of your brain for logic.
Ierrellus wrote:
„I admit I'm an old hippie. But I haven't seen here in the USA
a better, or even an equal, sense of brotherhood than that expressed
by the young people of the 60s. Consumerism dulls all ideals eventually.
It is taught hunger that fits the ego better than natural hunger.
The wealth disparity now in the USA is 98 % poor, 2% wealthy. Doesn't
that prove there is something wrong with a system that allows this to
happen?“ **
„98% poor, 2% wealthy“ - really?
Fact is that history is not the same as mathematics. And fact is also
that the winner writes the history. The winner dictates, because the winner
has the power, the victor's justice and so on.
Only those who can and do keep history in mind and keep learning from
history are capable of resisting the lies about history.
That's impossible. Probably you do not know what you have said.
Zoot Allures wrote:
„I've always preferred the line up in the last two- Montana and
Dupree's Paradise. Fowler, Duke, Underwood, Ponty, Humphrey. Most of
the live stuff done with the original MOI- the first video- is okay
but often overloaded with satire.“ **
I agree.
It is not possible to prove or disprove God. That
is why he was „created“ by humans (or did he „create“
the humans?).
The main mistake of the modernity is to put the „social
question“ in the in the foreground and to forget to ask the genealogical
question.
I have put the word „created“ (**|**)
in quotation marks, because I have meant „defined“, yes. We
both have had many conversations about that without any misunderstanding.
D 63 wrote:
„Thanks for the rhizomes, Arminius.“ **
My pleasure, D 63.
Zinnat wrote:
„I am not sure but it looks to me that some science theorists
tend to take the clue from the Bible (let there be light).“ **
No. It was just a thought - not more. And it is true: a discoverer,
an observer, an empiricist needs light in order to be capable of discovering,
observing, being an empiricist. The idea that the light was before the
mass is interesting but not necessarily the true. I have learned that
the reverse is true. But nevertheless: I am always skeptic.
The fact that Fuller grew up in poverty is not so important when it
comes to the other fact: Fuller's buildings have nothing to do with poverty.
Now you are saying that Fuller's „family was prosperous, affording
him a Harvard education“ (**)
- that contradicts what you formerly said: „Fuller grew up in an
abject poverty“ (**).
Fuller was born 1895 - so he was already an adult during the Great Depression
you mentioned (**).
Yes, Harbal did not provide a single constructive contribution but a
lot of nonsense. He is just a peckish troll.
The idea behind the rhizome was, as I already said, to have a symbol
for the anti-genealogy. No ancestors, no origin, no parents, no past,
no descendants, no children, no future, no hierarchy - but a mesh (network)
of consumers (also drug consumers, of course, because Deleuze and Guattari
themselves were professing drug consumers). Deleuze and Guattari had the
obsession that the original sin was ancestry, descent, origin, just genealogy.
So they said consequently that their rhizome was an anti-genealogy.
Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:
„The answer:
A. His number is 12? It adds up to either 24 or 27. Mine is either
15 or 12.
I do not know what my number is.
B. A does not know what his number is. His number is 12 though. He
must be thinking
his number is 15 or 12. But if his number is possibly 15, that means
my number is not 15.
So my number is 12.
So it should only be after 1 no will the game end.“ **
I am sorry, but that is false. Please try again.
Maia wrote:
„Why does a one world government have to be dictatorial? Why
can't it be federal, like the EU, which makes it a policy to devolve
powers to the smallest local unit that can efficiently carry them out?
Surely this is better than the current situation, in which states can
go to war against each other? Why is it that half the world is on the
breadline and the other lives quite well? It's because of capitalism,
and its channelling of resources into things like war and other useless
pursuits, and the inherent inefficiency and waste in the system it creates.“
**
So you think that dictatorship and federalism are
opposites or do not fit together, but that is a fatal fallacy. The EU
is a dictatorship. No one of those in the EU who have power are elected.
And the reason why „half the world is on the breadline and the other
lives quite well“ is not merely the so-called „capitalism“,
as you think, but the so-called „socialism“ as well. You think
that „capitalism“ and „socialism“ are opposites or
do not fit together, but that is a fatal fallacy. The globalism proves
this every day.
|
Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz 
),
because I wished very much (too much!) that you solved the riddle. But,
unfortunately, you did not solve the riddle, and I became sad. 
