Thoughts

Peak oil is not based on scientific knowledge, but primarily on speculation, and when it comes to speculation, lies are immediately at work, whereby the wealth and therefore the power of the ruler of the world is increased.

Incidentally, it is possible that oil is an inorganic product. If this is true, then it is also true that peak oil is a lie.

Most „scientists“ are no more scientists because of their involvement in corruption and their opportunistic behavior due to the censorship of the rulers. Who is brave and wants to remain scientists, is soon released and exposed to impoverishment

The history of the internet repeats (somehow) the history of modern technology and the history of modern economics and politics, although the history of the internet itself is also a part of the modern history. The history of the internet is faster than the history of the whole modernity. Therefore, we can say: The history of the internet will show us how the modern history will end - probably both will end up at the same time. In the end we will be real and virtual slaves - slaves as never before.

You will be transfered back into the Stone Age within a very short time! Then you will probably not ask, whether such a theory is false or not, is a lie or not, is a cheating or not, is a artificially produced crisis or not, is only a profit for the winner of this artificially produced crisis or not, is the hell on earth or not? But already yesterday was the time, and especially now is the time for asking this.

One could say that the huge agencies and huge corporations (huge companies) are kinds of superorganisms (systems of organisation). They “live” in the sense that they are systems of variation, reproduction, and interest in self-organisation and reproduction - like organic systems, assuming that they are sane and fit (competent). These superorganisms (systems of organisation) have more power (in every case), more intelligence (many organic systems and many anorganic systems work always together) etc., so they are “x”-times more “survivable” than organic systems. And I think that someday in the future these superorganisms (systems of organisation) will merely consist of anorganic systems (machines), thus no more organic systems.

These thoughts were the reasons why I opened an “ILP” thread with the title “Will machines completely replace all human beings?” (**|**). **

Examples for human beings who are already replaced by machines are not only those without work but also the killed unborn human beings in the Occidental area, because they have been being the most humans who have been being completely replaced by machines. If you want to know when, how many, where, under which costs, and why humans are completely replaced by machines you only have to look at the Occidental demographic development (especially since the end of the 18th century). The correlation between demography on the one hand and culture (civilisation), economy, intelligence, and - last but not least - technique / technology on the other hand is so obvious that it can not be denied anymore. So there is also a correlation between machines and fertility. If the machine rate is high, then the fertility rate is low. Look at the data, numbers, and facts of demography and you will find out that the relatively fast decline of the Occident is caused by cultural (civilisational) effects, which include the economical, scientifical, and - last but not least - technical / technological effects, to which the machines belong. ** **

Table for the machines rates and the fertility rates since 1770 in the occidental (industrial/mechanical) area: *

* The declared values are relative values (compared to the average values from 1770 till today), so for eaxmple LOW does not mean generally low, but relatively low, and this relative value is also an average value of one phase. And as said: the values refer to the occidental area, its people, its machines (so: immigrants are not included).

Please notice that this values can clearly show that there is a correlation between machines and fertility. If the machine rate is high, then the fertility rate is low.

In the first phase (stage) and in the first half of the second phase (stage) the machines cause an increasing population, but in the second half of the second phase (stage) and in the third phase (stage) the machines cause a shrinking population. Because of the fact that the „evolution“ of machines is going to lead to more phases, new phases (amongst others because of the so called „progress“ and the so called „revolutions“) one can generally say that machines cause a shrinking population, in other words: machines replace human beings more and more (in an exponential way!). ** **

We know that machines are cheaper than human beings, and we know that machines replace human beings. **

We live in an age of globalism which is a system of both capitalism and socialism. Please don't underestimate the socialism!

The capitalistic system and the socialistic system are both not able to afford what is needed for them. The capitalistic systsem has always to fear the socialistic system, and the socialistic system can not exist without the capitalistic system. It's Hegel's „Dialektik“. So this is merely possible with a „Synthesis“ of both capitalism as „Thesis“ and socialism as „Antithesis“. There is no other solution in order to “manage” that - as long as history last (**|**|**).

Perhaps it would really be better if we were small groups of farmers working for our self and owning some goods and land, and perhaps it could really be like some of the barbarian’s style of life, but I am afraid that the civilised barbarians would not want us to do that because they want us to be consumers, social welfare beneficiaries, but no farmers or other freelancers, self-employed persons.

Be careful with Malthus and Malthusianism! There is much propaganda! Please be careful with concepts like “Malthus curve”, “Malthusian dilemma”, “Malthusian catastophe”, “Malthusian crisis”, “Malthusian nightmare” and so on ....

Is the population always rising at a geometric rate? Is the food always growing at an arithmetic rate?

Already during his lifetime “Malthus was criticized severely. His fellow clergymen thought he was crazy; politicians and journalists called him a heretic. But others, especially a famous economist of the time named David Ricardo, made much use of the Malthusian theory. Let’s delve a little more deeply into why Malthus came up with such heretical ideas. We will see that although his theories didn’t describe the industrial society of his own time very well, they did do a good job of describing preindustrial Europe (and perhaps certain less developed countries today).“ - Economics Today.

The reason why the world population is still growing is the fertility of the black human beings.

Besides cultural (cp. e.g. decadence and so on), economical (cp. e.g. welfare, debt, terror of consumption and so on) and other reasons there are also techn(olog)ical reasons (cp. e.g. machines and so on) for the decline of the so called developed population, the white population (and their “branches”). Cultural reasons lead - via economical reasons - to techn(olog)ical reasons, and the last ones make the decline complete by mechanical replacing. Machines are the modern “crown of creation”.

Non-Westerneres live according to their tradition; they don’t know and don’t want (!) the typical white, typical Western reasons: “Individualism” and so on. So they live and decide to have children because of their tradition, just as they have always done - that's all.

When the Western culture was brought to them they at first partly adopted and partly negatetd it, but then they negated it more and more, because they noticed the negative side of the Western culture. One of their reasons to change their opinion about the Occident was their growing self-confidence. So they didn’t and don't want to change the fertility.

The economical reasons, you mentioned, are not the only reasons. Behaviour doesn’t have merely economical reasons. Contrariwise the economical reasons should not be underestimated. Nevertheless: economical reasons are not always the only reasons for having children.

1.) Firstly one has to see it from the layer of the evolution because we human beings are involved in evolution.
2.) Secondly we have to see it from the layer of the history because we human beings have been having history since 6000 years.

So we human beings have an (1) evolutionary and a (2) historical development which means that we e.g. have an (1) oral / verbal and a (2) written / recorded cultural tradition.

Economical and - last but not least - techn(olog)ical reasons are important when it comes to explain why human beings have children, but they are not the only reasons; other important reasons are biological and - of course - cultural ones.

If one only looks for economical reasons for having children, then one will only find a ¼-solution.

1.) Biological reasons.
2.) Cultural reasons.
3.) Economical reasons.
4.) Techn(olog)ical reasons.

The reason, why decadent people always think the reasons for having children are always and exclusively economical ones, is the fact that they themselves always think (decadently) the reasons for having children would be always and exclusively economical ones.

So the fertility of the white population shows - without any doubt - they are (1.) culturally decadent, (2.) economically under terror of consumption and debt, thus: bankrupt, insolvent, (3.) techn(olog)ically endangered because of the replacement by machines (**|**|**).

How much percent of the gross national product ends up as income after taxes and social transfers?

The trend is the “Brazilization of the World”. And when the „Brazilization of the World“ will be reached, the next trend will be 80/20 (80% to the richest 20% and 20% to the rest, thus 80%).

The birthrates and fertility rates I have given in one of my posts are known and accepet worldwide. They are facts. The population of the most african populations have grow exponentially since the last centuries. In the 1940's they had the population of “x” and in the 1990's they had the population “10x” - ten times more! Not an african, but a west asiatic example is Iraque: In the 1920's Iraque had a poulation of 3 millons, 2010 Iraque had a population of 32 millions - more than ten times more!

Communism have killed the most people of all time. Please don't forget that. Egalitarianism is a homicidal system like all other kinds of totalitarianism, and they all fail at last at the fact that they don't work.

According to Hegel's Dialektik there has to be a Synthesis of the Thesis „capitalism“ (especially successful in the 19th century) and the Antithesis „communism“ (especially successful in the 20th century). What kind of Synthesis can it be? Merely something like globalism or its contrary: localism / regionalism which will lead to the pre-historical times resembling post-historical times (**|**|**).

If the “new world order” is really “as ideologically necessary in today's world” (**), then this new world order can merely be - llike I said - something like globalism or its contrary: localism / regionalism, which will lead to the pre-historical times resembling post-historical times (**|**|**).

The “Hundred Years’ War of ideological conflict” (**) was the epoch where egalitarianism (socialism, communism etc.) were stronger than liberalism (capitalism etc.) because it had undercut and threatened all liberalistic (capitalistic) systems. But now we are living in a different epoch: capitalism is weak, communism is not as strong as in the last epoch, and globalism - as the Synthesis of capitalism and communism (cp. Hegel's Dialektik) - is the strongest. That means that both capitalism and communism still exist, but as a mix in which capitalism dominates as a communism.

Referring to the fact that globalism is a Synthesis of capitalism (Thesis) and communism (Antithesis) the end of history will be reached when this Synthesis has changed to such a New Thesis whithout any historical existence. Merely something like globalism or its contrary: localism / regionalism, which will lead to the pre-historical times resembling post-historical times (**|**|**).

The current art shows also what globalism means (see above), so the current art is also enbedded in both capitalisms and communism, in Thesis and Antithesis of the Synthesis globalism. Nobody else than Oswald A. G. Spengler has so consequently and arrestingly shown how art works as a semiotic and/or linguistic indicator for historical phases of a culture / civilisation.

According to Schopenhauer in the face of the will as Kant’s „Ding an sich“ (“thing in itself” / “thing as such”) human beings are almost powerless, but amongst them the genies of the art, especially of the music, are able to conceive and represent the eternal ideas.

A system of government does not have to be ruled by a so-called “elite” of “academic experts“, but merely functionaries, because the so-called “elite” of “academic experts“ can, should be slaves (and they are!) and/or machines (and they are!). You merely need functionaries for technocracy. Rulers have merely one purpose: control (power). So what are all rulers doing in order to control? They are enslaving humans and/or creating machines by enslaved functionaries and/or machines.

The risk is that there will be at last merely machines. Because humans act in this way, their end is clear. The question is only: When?

Not the US president, but the most powerful men of the world calculated well. The US president merely works for them.

The US and the USSR - the former is the current USSR, the latter (perhaps) the current US - have no ideologies?

If the US president were not a functionary - a slave -, he would not be paid, but he is paid!

A society or culture has to have a real antithesis (and not a artificial one), else it can't be a real thesis. But if it is a real thesis with a real antithesis, then it becomes sooner or later a synthesis. And after that this sysnthesis becomes the new thesis, either a real or not a real one. The older a society (culture) the more artificial its thesis and so on.

The synthesis becomes a new thesis. Life with no synthesis would be very boring, merely acting (thesis) and reacting (antithesis), no qualitative change. There would be no qualitative development without any synthesis (and further: no new thesis). Humans changed their lives - compare the humans of the Stone Age and the humans of the last 6000 years.

Without any synthesis life would be merely a ping pong game because it would merely consist of thesis and antithesis, for example: action and reaction.

We should have more than one currency, and the first one should be a currency of knowledge, wisdom, information.

Due to the fact that the money economy, also known as monetarism or finance, is too much in line with energetic resources, we would have a very much better economy, if it were more in line with knowledge, wisdom, information than with energetic resources.

Another point is the relation of production and reproduction. All fertility rates have to be almost equal, and after that (not before and during that) the rich and the poor will also become more equal, not equal - because that is impossible -, but relaitively equal. That is a fair deal. Else the result will be: Stone Age or even extinction!

But the more the machines are successful the more the human beings are threatened with extinction.

So we have three great modern human errors or mistakes: 1.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false input of machines; 2.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false demographic policy (population policy); 3.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false concentration on energetic resources (instead of knowledge, wisdom, information) by the money economy.

Actually the liberals say “everyone is free”, which is impossible, and the egalitarians say “all are equal”, which is also impossible. So they have to find a synthesis, if they don't want to constantly fight aginst each other; and the fact that they have found one is the reason for the fact that they say the thesis (“everyone is free”) and the antithesis (“all are equal”) together.

Hyperbolism, hedonism, utilitarianism, individualism and all the other nihilisms are those problems, which became as much bigger as the attempt to control them in order to prevent chaos, anarchy, and - last but not least - overthrow, downfall. It's a vicious circle.

So a solution of the three great modern human errors or mistakes seems to be impossible: 1.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false input of machines; 2.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false demographic policy (population policy); 3.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false concentration on energetic resources (instead of knowledge, wisdom, information) by the money economy.

The disproportion between: (1.) machines and humans to the disadvantage of humans; (2.) population of poor and population of rich countries to the disadvantage of about 99% of all humans; (3.) energetic resources and other resources to the disadvantage of non-energetic resources. That is what is meant by the three great modern human errors or mistakes: (1.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false input of machines; (2.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false demographic policy (population policy); (3.) the disproportionate and thus wrong/false concentration on energetic resources (instead of knowledge, wisdom, information) by the money economy. In the long run that will lead to something like a suicide of all humans.

A more fair distribution can follow then (and only then!), if those three great modern human errors or mistakes have been disappeared or at least demagnified. Else the unfair distribution remains, the unfairness increases exponentially.

We have to correct the three great modern human errors or mistakes (=> 1., 2., 3.). We must slow down.

Why is there this huge disproportion between (1.) machines and humans to the disadvantage of humans, (2.) population of poor and population of rich countries to the disadvantage of about 99% of all humans, (3.) energetic resources and other resources to the disadvantage of non-energetic resources?

The first impression may be that there is no disadvantage of humans (=> 1.), of about 99% of all humans (=> 2.), of non-enegertic resources (=> 3.), but is that really true? The paradox is that the past, present, and some of the future advantages will change to disadvantages in the (long run) future. So we can interpret this “advantages” as “short advantages”, or as “pretended advantages”, or even as “disadvantages”, because the prize is to high, and the prize has to be paid by all humans: the probable extinction of the humans because of a very short moment of wealth for very few generations of the humans!

So if we want to keep wealth, we have to correct the three great modern human errors or mistakes (=> 1., 2., 3.). The only alternative to that correction is the extinction of all humans.

One has to underline the term “in the long run” here. In the long run it is possible that machines replace all human beings (**|**|**) - the probability is about 80%, I estimate.

This probability that machines will replace all human beings is too high (80% - as I estimate; see above), and if they will not replace all human beings (20% - as I estimate; see above), the probability of poverty, dullness, and other badnesses is too high (99% - as I estimate).

“Willpower”does not mean “will to power”. “Willpower” means a kind of power, namely a “power of will”, but “will to power” means a kind of will, namely a “will which tends to power”.

So both “willpower” and “will to power” are more different than many people think.

Everyone should reproduce himself / herself one time in his / her life, so that the reproduction rate could be always about 1, the fertilitiy rate always about 2 children per woman. If he / she doesn't want a child, that should be no problem anyway because he / she would have to pay for his / her desire - a so called “management of reproduction”, or “management of children”, or “management of family” would adopt the task having one child per one adult person. Anf if one person wants to have more than one, or a couple (two persons) more than two children, he / she / they would have to pay for that desire. In short: the reproduction rate would always be about 1, the fertility rate always about 2.

We know that fertility and prosperity (wealth) correlate with each other (b.t.w.: also with intelligence). So where the fertility is too high you can be sure that there is poverty and vice versa. Politicians have no idea or just don't want (corrupion etc.) to change anything in that way that fertility can “control” prosperity (wealth): the current politicians and other so-called “experts” (they are no experts at all) want the prosperity (wealth) to “control” the fertility, but that doesn't work in the long run. In the long run the result is always poverty of all or about 99%, if prosperity (wealth) is wanted to “control” the fertility. Prosperity (wealth) produces infertilitiy, especially of those who work very much, but also of those who are very much self-centered (cp. “individualism”, bad egocentrism), and at last of all or almost all.

My solution would help all to become richer - all, thus the rich and the poor. But the rulers would not agree with that, because they would not become as fast richer as they now do, although they would become richer too, but not in the same fast way as now. So my solution is not wanted by the most powerful 1% (possibly on the way to become a new “human species”).

The problem is not, that my solution would not work - it would work very well -, but the problem is that no one wants to be responsible for such a policy. For the rulers and the politicians it is easier to control the population by continuing their policy of lies, cants, double moral standards, simulation and so on. Those who have to be responsible are not responsible at all. So the irresponsibility continues - meanwhile the shear between rich and poor increases exponentially.

In the mentioned case it is a question of the dimensions, circumstances, and time. If 99% become richer, then the 1% becomes not necessarily poorer, but with the utmost probability also richer, although not so much and not so fast as before because the richness of that 1% depends on the poorness of those 99%. And the scissors between rich and poor are expoentially widening.

Some corporations (companies, organisations or however you may call them) are already so rich / powerful that each of those corporations has a property / power which is more than the gross national product of France or Italy.

So the mentioned corporations are super-corporations, super-companies, super organisations (similar to a super organisms). The difference between them and the ordinary people is already so great that one can almost speak of two different human “species”.

Joining information theory and economy makes sense, but I don't think that everyone who calles himself an “information theoretician” or an “economist” is really an information theoretician or an economist.

1) World “nobility” (upper “nobility”).
2) State “nobility” (middle “nobility”).
3) Dressage “nobility” (lower “nobility”).
4) Masses.

Interestingly the governmental politicians are not a part of the “state »nobility«” (“middle »nobility«”), but merely a part of the “dressage »nobility«” (“lower »nobility«”).The “state »nobility«” (=> 2) and the “dressage »nobility«” (=> 3) shall unite to one “nobility”; both shall become one “dressage »nobility«”, because states shall vanish.

The “policy of deterrence” and the “policy of cuddling” can be successfully used by both sides, and in the case of mass murder the death penalty has to be a very valid law, even then, if all human beings are bad and accomplices of the mass murders, so that all laws are merely a formality and the anarchy an everyday occurrence.

In the long run the real libertarianism is anarchy; in the long run the real egalitarianism is anarchy; in the long run the real synthesis of libertarianism and egalitarianism is anarchy, but called humanitarianism.

You will get the anarchy sooner, if there is no “policy of deterrence” at all.

Both cases bring the machines, but the first case with punishment, which is the more “traditional” case, wins time by procrastination, while the second case with cuddling, which is the more “modern” case, wins some people by “reprogramming“, as you call it. As a “chief accountant“ I would say that the first case is more efficient. So I prefer that first case. Call me “old-fashion”.

Relating to those two cases there is no “best aim”, because the differences between those two cases are too small, and both cases are bad, too bad.

One has to be very micrological in order to find those very micrological differences.

The “contrast” of being “conservative” and being “liberal” in the USA means the “contrast” of being “conservative/liberal” and “socialist/politically-correct” in Europe. That's absurd and ridiculous.

The “war“ between conservative and liberal “parties” in the USA or the “war” between “conservative/liberal” and “socialist/politically-correct” “parties” in the EU are merely the stage play with which to keep the masses confused and distracted while conquering them. Motto: divide and conquer!

According to Karl Marx the capitalism is a pre-condition to communism because he was a Hegelian, a Left Hegelian. There has to be the thesis capitalism (wealth) before the antithesis communism (egalitarianism) can take place and lead to the synthesis. So there has to be wealth before anything (namely: that wealth!) can be distributed. Therefore Karl Marx expected the “revolution” to take place in Germany because Germany was the most advanced country. If Karl Marx had lived one century later than he did, he would have said that the “revolution” in Russia was a farce. Why? What happened? In Germany where he had expected the “revolution” did not occure, but instead of that the “revolution” occured in Russia 1917 - with causes, reasons which were the reverse of that he had expected, and under pre-conditions he had never expected because Russia was a Third world country, no advanced country. And because Russia was not advanced enough Stalin forced the Russians / Soviet population for industrialisation, and because of this forced industrialisation 40 million or more people died (even by pogroms and propaganda trials). That was not what Karl Marx expected in the century before that farce and mass murder.

A country has to be rich or wealthy because without richness or wealth it is not possible to distribute it.

There are quite a few signs that suggest that states will disappear. I have already spoken of these signs. States are indeed amongst the historical existentials (**|**). Globalism, super organisations, organisations like UNO, nongovernmental organisations (NGOs), and many other organisations and institutions replace the national states - that is already obvious -, and will replace states at all.

It is well known that the Glozis want to abolish the nations and have already abolished the nations for the most part; but it is not so well known that they also want to abolish the states.

Sovereign or at least semi-sovereign states are in a position to better solve. But that should not be solved by states, because for the rulers the control of the people is easier to do without states - according the motto “DIVIDE ET IMPERA”.

The real (!) upper class wants the other two classes (middle and lower class) to fight each other - according to the motto: „DIVIDE ET IMPERA“.

The West has partly done away with states or nations. So the states or nations have not disappeared to 100%, but approximately to 50, 60, 70 or even 80%.

That's funny, isn't it? The West as the founder of the nations has merely 50-80%-nations, demolished nations, but the Non-West has nations.

In order to be an upper class the upper class does not have to be „noble“, but an upper class.

What is tried again and again, is to be powerful, to be the most powerful. They need all people in order to rule, to control them, and therefor they have to split, to divide them. That seems to be a paradox, but it happens due is to an old effective method of ruling: “DIVIDE ET IMPERA”.

A successful currency that is not under the control of the Glozis (Globalists) will never be tolerated by the Glozis. An autarky will never be allowed by the Glozis. Glozis will never allow an economy that is directed against their economy.

The worst racism is the auto-racism (racism towards one’s own race). The Whites daily show how auto-racism works.

A real democracy is merely possible with very small populations or with states of polity (city states) or nations. Nations are one of the greatest Western creations, and nations function, although they have large populations, because of the states which manage the function of nations. If the state is taken away, the nation can no longer exist. A state can exit without a nation, but a nation can’t exist without a state. So if you want to have merely a little bit of democracy, you must either have a very small population or a well working state of a polity (city state) or of a nation (if you have one). Now please combine, draw the right conclusions.

The biggest unproblematic units of populations will disappear, if the globalists will destroy them totally (and I’m sure that they will do that): nations. So what will be socially left after that destruction? Emipres? Yes, but only one, namely a global or almost global empire because that is the goal of the globalist, and b.t.w.: it is mostly already reality.

The end of blind lusting and the dissolution of the (temporary) last empire will come. But it will take time. And what will happen in the meantime? That’s the most important question? Will the humans be able to solve their problems in the meantime? Will the machines take over in the meantime? Will that happen or not happen during or after the globalism epoch, or will it never happen?

When the nations are eliminated, there is no more impediment for the Glozis to eliminate the states of that ex-nations as well. First the nations, then their states. If a nation is already eliminated, then its state is not needed anymore. And if there are no nations and their states anymore, very small social unities or empires can merely be possible. An empire has its own state, and that state has nothing to do with any political participation of the people/s. So either imperial dictatorship or anarchy will follow, if nations and their states are eliminated.

What we can currently notice is the reduction of national aspects, which shall lead to the elimination of the nations, then of the national states, or even states at all, with the result totalitarianism as never before: globalism.

Empires can only be held together, if they are like dictatorships, if they are totalitarian.

What about the possibility that the globalists, or the machines, or both together will bring such a situation to the people of the whole globe as it was brought by Augustus to the people of Rome (“Pax Augusta” / “Pax Romana”)?

This “Pax Augusta” (“Pax Romana”) for the whole globe or for the whole solar system? With such Glozis as rulers? And/or with such machines we have already described as the probable rulers of the world in the future?

First, the middle class will be eliminated, and after that the lower class will be eliminated, namely then, when it will have grown up to 99% (lower class + ex-middle class = lower class of 99%).

The middle class has to carry everything and everyone. The only difference between former modern times and curent modern times is that the nobility and clergy have been becoming globalists.

The history clearly shows that all previous socialisms, because they were modern, were either national or - in the worst case - imperial totalitarianisms. The current globalism is also such an modern imperial totalitarianism, namely the worst case of the worst cases because it is the greatest of history.

The two ways to get out of the imperial madness are the alternatives as city states or as nation states; but because both are about to be destroyed (and even are going to destroy themselves), only one possibility remains: the very small social units, for example something like the “communal particles”. But this only possibility will come again anyway, because history repeats its form.

So one could think one has only to wait. But there is another modern problem: the modern trend itself which means also - and amongst other powerful things - machines (**). You and other human beings will not be needed anymore. Perhaps no human being will survive because that threat with all its consequences will probably come true.

And if someone has an idea like “communal particle” (see above), then he is threatened with lies, that he is a “friend” of the “bad socialists” of the past, although / because the liars themselves are this bad socialists, even in a global scale of imperialism.

You and other human beings will not be needed anymore. Perhaps no human being will survive because that threat with all its consequences will probably come true. And b.t.w.: not later than since the beginning of the history of the words „joblessness“ and „unemployment“ it has been being obvious! Johann Wolfgang Goethe knew that already towards the end of the 18th century!

“Liberal democracy” is merely one of the (last) Western forms of governement. All “liberal democracies” content an antagonism, a contradiction, similiar to all “liberal equalities” or all “capitalistic socialisms”. And liberality without democracy or democracy without liberality are one of the worst forms of society or government because they serve the purpose of exploitation and are not of long duration.

The reason why the Glozis, their functionaries, and their seduced crowd can say that it is communistic or socialistic - and not just democratic. They say: „You are not democratic. You are communistic or (national) socialistic.“ And so they can incite their seduced crwod against you. The crowd is too much influenced by the Glozis and their functionaries.

They themselves are more communistic or (~~national~~ global) socialistic than the people as the huge majority, but they (and not the people as the huge majority) have the power.

Do you remember what happened after the so called „Cold War“ relating to the former members of the USSR? Many states of the erstwhile Eastern Bloc came back into the Western control, and the Westerners agreed to the Russian will to control all - except the Baltic - erstwhile members of the USSR. That was the deal. According to this deal it is not allowed that the ertswhile members of the USSR can also become a member of the EU, thus EUSSR.

Putin is more powerful than Obama - not at first because of the dictatorship, but because of the fact that US presidents are politicians (as functionaries!), but not rulers because they are dependent on their money lenders, donors, “sponsors”. Not only Russia has an interest in the erstwhile members of the USSR, but also the West, in spite of the fact that according to the deal I mentioned (see above) the West is not allowed to have an interest in the erstwhile members of the USSR. So the presumption is justified that the West is corrupt and that not the West itself - as a whole -, but his leaders, the globalists, have this interest and pretend as if the whole West would defend the so called “free world”. That's ridiculous!

If we really want to reform Western “societies” and economies, we must take into account the correlation between wealth, intelligence/knowledge and demography.

Like I said: We know that fertility and prosperity (wealth) correlate with each other (b.t.w.: also with intelligence).

The statement that knowledge depend of the so called “free market” is merely partly right, thus partly wrong. For example: (1.) The current Western/global market is not really a “free market”. (2.) Knowledge depends on genetics, because intelligence is mostly based on genetics, and on education, thus on a relatively long time; so it is not primarily a question of a market, or of capitalism versus communism, but a fortiori of culture. (3.) Knowledge can be used in several ways; so it is also important to keep knowledge by selecting the right people with their achievements and trustworthiness, and that (of course!) is also not primarily a question of a market, or of capitalism versus communism, but a fortiori of culture.

When it comes to speaking about knowledge, the meaning of knowledge, and the importance of knowledge for a “society” and its economy, then it is primarily important to do it in connection with (1.) genetics and evolution of intelligence, (2.) education and history of culture (cultural evolution), including economical facts, (3.) information (including all kinds of communication that leads to knowledge, e.g. all sciences, semiotics, linguistics, philosophy, mathematics, if they are in fact no sciences). That does not mean that economy is somehow unimportant. No. That only means that knowledge is firstly a genetic/biological and cultural issue (remember and see above: “long time”) - and guess why this issue is a taboo in the Western “societies” -, and secondly an economical issue, but then (and only then), if such knowledge is well arrived in economy, then there is such a great feedback that the West had in the past, still has in the present (although the negative trend shows clearly in the other way!), but will not have anymore in the future.

So first of all a “society” has to have people with knowledge and a trustful will to work, thus intelligent people with a trustful will to work, and only then it can also enjoy the advantages of this people because they have enriched the economy and via economy also the “society”.

Does something like a “communal particle” or the so-called “Social Anentropic Molecule” (“SAM”) has to be “democratic”? And if so: why?

The forms of history repeat. In other words: The time of “SAM” is going to come!

My question wether it must be “democratic” was meant generally and related to the possibility that if “SAM” is “democratic”, it would get more and more under the control of the globalists and their system of corruption. Then you wouldn’t have a “SAM”, but a “GANG”.

If “SAM corps are an element within a somewhat democratic/capitalistic” (**), then they are vulnerable to corruption, even if SAM remains small.

It depends on (1.) the social/political system you belong to, (2.) the personalities and characters of the members of the social/political system, and (3.) the might around you (currently the power of the globalists and their system). (1.) SAM for instance is perhaps “democratic”, but “democracy” means more vulnerable to corruption than other forms of government; and SAM has for example 4 groups - seers, strategists, doers, overseers -, and that doesn’t “sound” like democracy, although SAM’s smallness allows to call its social/political system “democracy”. (2.) One has to be sure, in spite of the smallness of SAM, that all members are not corruptible. (3.) The globalists as SAM's enemy can eliminate SAM, if it SAM not willing to be corrupt.

Logically, SAM has firstly to be monarchic, then aristocratic, and at last democratic. Else you can’t build it correctly. Check out the history of all hitherto successful companies/corporations! No one of them started democratically, but they all started monarchically, then they changed to aristocracy, and at last they perhaps changed to democracy (perhaps! because most of them did not want to change to democracy, but they lastly had to because the corruption had grown and forced them). It would be no good omen for SAM to start democratically, in spite of its smallness. Unless you could be sure that no one of its members is corruptible. But how can you be sure in that case? You can never be sure, but almost be sure, if your social/political system is monarchic, thus authoritarian.

“Human rights” “are” to be read only on paper and “are” because of merely one “right”: 1% of the humans „is“ allowed to exploit and destroy the Earth and 99% of the humans.

The Nazis were never conservative, on the contrary, the conservative humans were their greatest enemies. The only real (!) resistance against the Nazis were the conservative humans.

Interestingly but not surprisingly, the oldest generations and the youngest generation are seldom told anyway.

In future all generations are seldom told. The end effect will be the redundance of all humans. They will not be needed anymore.

The motions of the planets and their moons are also spiral motions, even the motion of the sun is a spiral motion. And the motions of the planets and their moons belong to the motion of the sun. There is perhaps only one or even no arrow in the universe because all orbits in the universe universe belong probably either to one spiral (one arrow) or to one circular / elliptic (no arrow) orbit.

Naturally / universally considered, the forms of government have also only one or even no arrow / goal. That is the reason why we often say: “always the same”. It’s just true.

“Isms” are no forms of government, but forms of ideological systems, and both are not the same. But those „isms“ are included anyway, because forms of government and ideological systems “like” or even “love” each other very much, especially in modern times, the times of “isms”.

Each human should have the right and the duty to reproduce himself / herself; that should and would lead to an ideal case with the reproduction rate 1. If someone wants to have more or less than one child, he or her would have to pay for it.

In this way the rate remains at 1. But if not, it would be no problem anyway. If the reproduction rate is higher than 1, it would be reduced soon because there are enough humans who don't want to reproduce themselves. If the reproduction rate is lower than 1, the state or a professionell corporation would have to add the reproduction rate by "reproduction managers" ("state mothers" or "professionell mothers") who are paid by those who don't want to reproduce themselves.

If we do not solve the demographic problem, we will get very much bigger problems!

Demography and economy have much to do with each other, but it is the demography that has the 51%. Or to modify your sig to a metaphor: „In a pure demography, 51 percent of the people get to pee in the economy of 49 percent of the people.“

You all want to prefer to live in luxury and therefore not to make the smallest sacrifice.
You all are partly to blame for the disaster that awaits us.
You all say: “After me, the flood.”
You all do not want to see anything because you are too luxury horny.

Who pays for it, that many people have too many and some people too few children? Who makes sure that it is paid for?

We could really avoid these problems, if there were no interest in defending them!

It is known that economists should be and sometimes really are rational humans. And what do economist mostly do? As far as possible, economists try to quantify any quality! But it is also known that economists are humans. Machines are much more rational than humans and their economists. Machines are much more efficient than humans and their economists. We count 1 and 1 together: machines are far more rational and far more efficient than humans and their economists; thus machines are also the much better economists.

Technologically spoken, the last two economic crises were caused by machines, although they had got their numbers and data from humans, humans with no idea, but power.

My solution has nothing or merely less to do with restriction because the regulation does not work via state, but via market. Those family managers are not paid by the state, but by the market. The “restriction” refers merely to the law of birth control, family planing, population control (“oh”, you may think, “China!”, but it is not like “China”) and not to the regulation itself. China's regulation was and is part of the regulation by a dictatorship. We may wait until the Western countries will have become more dictatorial than China ever was; then this regulation will come anyway, but it will come with more restrictions, with more repressions, depressions, suppresions, ... and so on. Better we do it via market than dictators will do it instead of us and “for us” via dictatorship.

In this case referring to China means distracting from the subject, and referring only to the exceptional cases means the same because those problems are existent anyway and increase exponentially. So we have to find a solution for the problems, or the increased problems will come to us.

Again: My solution leads to less regulation, thus less state, thus less dictatorship because the gigantic and exponentially increasing costs that we have now for ignoring this problems would gradually disappear.

Does the difference between “conservative in US” and “liberal in US” really exist? No - because that “difference” is only show.

The US politicians are not powerful enough; so they aren’t “putting on a show for the rest of the world”, but for themselves and for the chance to become a president, thus to get more power; but mainly they are staged.

If the societal/political systems are extreme, then the probability of brainwashing is very high.

So we have to ask whether the societal situation in the US, or elsewhere, even in the world, is already extreme.

Capitalism is the pre-condition for socialism. Without capital there is nothing to share, to redistribute.

The current demographic policy is regulated by a “global beurocracy to dictate the terms under which every human being is allowed to reproduce” - it is the declared goal of all global institutions to reduce the population. So what I want to do is nothing else than change this dictatorship of global institutions into a market. It is that beurocracy of the global institutions which costs a lot of money.

If we want to make clear what we are talking about, then we have to say what the facts are. And one of the facts is that the global institutions are a global beurocracy and nothing else, and this beurocracy allows and forbids every human having children by beurocratic policy.

Another fact is that this theme / topic - reproduction / demography - is a taboo for the people (and not for their rulers). But if we want to talk about it we have to mention the facts. There is a terrible global beurocratic system that dictates the reproduction.

Many people “do not decide to have or refrain from having kids every day” (**), because they “decide” according to what is regulated by the global institutions and “think” (!) it were their own “decision”. There is a global bureaucracy that regulates anything and everything, and the “national states” have to implement what the global bureaucracy dictates (and it does dictate!). Whether or not humans, especially Western humans, have children is determined by the global bureaucracy and the regulated markets. The people are not “free” - this is merely what party leaders and their media always say, have to say -, and there is no real democracy.

Humas are not “free” and do not have a “free will”. You are not “free”; no human is“free”; humans do not have a “free will ”, but merely a relative free will.

THESIS	ANTITHESIS	SYNTHESIS
Liberalism	Egalitarianism	Fraternitism
	Socialism, Communism	Globalism

A “free market” means an absolutely free market. That's logical, even tautological. The “liberal humans” want a “free market”? - Okay, here is one:

“We should all join together and change the world!” That sentence is a term of those who believe in progress as an eternal process without any return or other direction than straight forward. The world has been changed enough; it is important to protect it from those who want to change it! Unfortunately the changing of the world will not stop because they can’t stop even when they believe that they really need to.

The world has been changed enough; it is important to protect it from those who want to change it! That sentence is directed against the following sentence of Karl Marx: „Die Menschen haben die Welt nur verschieden interpretiert; es kommt aber darauf an, sie zu verändern.“

Like I said: it is the influence of all those who believe in progress as an eternal process without any return or other direction than straightforward. I don’t believe in such an eternal progress without any return or other direction than straightforward.

No one could ever describe „Faust“ as accurately as Goethe and Spengler. The Occidental humans (and only they) are Faustians, their (and only their) culture is a Faustian culture.

Geographically, the Occidental culture means the North, West, Central, Southwest, and some Western parts of East Europe. In the following maps you can see the Eastern border of the Occidental culture as a black line in the left map and as a white line in the right map:

„Abendland“ (= “West / Occident”) means the Western part of Europe, especially Germany, England, France, Italy, and the Iberian peninsula. The German word „Abendland“ literally means “evening land”.

The reasons why beliefs, thoughts, theories, metaphysical ontologies, philosophies of physics are different refers to the difference of cultures. Two examples of that much different that they are antipodes are the Apollonian culture and the Faustian culture. The humans of the Apollonian Culture always interpret physical bodies staticallly, the humans of the Faustian culture dynamically. So it is no wonder that in the Faustian culture a „Faust“ came to the idea to interpret the dynamics (and no longer the rest position, the statics) as the normal state of a physical body and to postulate forces as the cause of this dynamics.

Newtons physcal theory is one of these Faustian physical theories, although there had been many more Faustian physical theories before Newton, especially those of Johann(es; Georg) Faust himself, or of Galileo Galilei, or of Johannes Kepler, and also after Newton.

The author “The Idiot”was a Russian, and Russia has never been a part of the Western culture. All Orthodox Christians have never been a part of the Western culture. The border (see above) between the Catholic and Protestant Christians, thus the Westerners, on the one side and the Orthodox Christians on the other side has been existing as border since the 4th century or earlier because the Roman Empire had been declining since the 2nd century.

Dostojewski believed in the Orthodox Christianity and didn’t want Russia to copy the Western culture, but Russia had been doing it since tsar Peter (“the Great”). Probably Dostojewski’s books were based on that two aspects.

„Tolstoi ist das vergangene, Dostojewski das kommende Rußland.“ - Oswald Spengler, Der Untergang des Abendlandes, 1918-1922, S. 792 **
Translation:
“Tolstoi is the past, Dostojewski the coming Russia.”

„Tolstoi ist mit seinem ganzen Innern dem Westen verbunden. Er ist der große Wortführer des Petrinismus, auch wenn er ihn verneint. Es ist stets eine westliche Verneinung. .... Der echte Russe ist ein Jünger Dostojewskis, obwohl er ihn nicht liest, obwohl und weil er überhaupt nicht lesen kann. Er ist selbst ein Stück Dostojewski. .... Das Christentum Tolstois war ein Mißverständnis. Er sprach von Christus und meinte Marx. Dem Christentum Dostojewskis gehört das nächste Jahrtausend.“ - Oswald Spengler, Der Untergang des Abendlandes, 1918-1922, S. 792, 794 ** **
Translation:
“Tolstoi with his whole inside is connected to the West. He is the great spokesman of Petrinism, although he denies it. It is always a Western denial. .... The real Russian is a disciple of Dostoevsky, though he does not read it, though, and because he can not read. He himself is a piece of Dostoevsky. .... The Christianity of Tolstoi was a misunderstanding. He spoke of Christ and meant Marx. The next millennium belongs to the Christianity of Dostoevsky.”

A goal could be the protection of nature, or the right and the duty of fair production and reproduction, but as you could and can see: each attempt of stopping change was, is, and will be answered with more change.

If everything and anything being in harmony is really anentropic, then the tautological term “anentropic harmony” could stand for something like a paradise, a paradise for the “last men”.

„Seht! Ich zeige euch den letzten Menschen. Was ist Liebe? Was ist Schöpfung? Was ist Sehnsucht? Was ist Stern? – so fragt der letzte Mensch und blinzelt. Die Erde ist dann klein geworden, und auf ihr hüpft der letzte Mensch, der Alles klein macht. Sein Geschlecht ist unaustilgbar, wie der Erdfloh; der letzte Mensch lebt am längsten. »Wir haben das Glück erfunden« – sagen die letzten Menschen und blinzeln.“ - Friedrich W. Nietzsche, Also sprach Zarathustra, 1. Teil, 1883, S. 13.
Translation:
“Look! I show you the last man. What is love? What is creation? What is desire? What is star? - so asks the last man and blinks. The earth has then become small, and on it the last man jumps, who makes everything small. His species is ineradicable as the flea; the last man lives longest. »We have discovered the happiness« - say the last men and blink.”

„Zum Schlusse drängt es mich, noch einmal die Namen zu nennen, denen ich so gut wie alles verdanke: Goethe und Nietzsche. Von Goethe habe ich die Methode, von Nietzsche die Fragestellungen, und wenn ich mein Verhältnis zu diesem in eine Formel bringen soll, so darf ich sagen: ich habe aus seinem Augenblick einen Überblick gemacht. Goethe aber war in seiner ganzen Denkweise, ohne es zu wissen, ein Schüler von Leibniz gewesen.“ - Oswald Spengler, Der Untergang des Abendlandes, 1918, S. IX. **
Translation:
“Finally, it urges me to once again mention the names, I owe almost everything: Goethe and Nietzsche. From Goethe I have got the method, from Nietzsche the questions, and if I should bring my relationship with this in a formula so I can say I have made of his moment an overview. But Goethe had been in his whole way of thinking, without knowing it, a disciple of Leibniz.”

The sentence “workers always lose, economy always wins” is right, if workers are paid (and they are usually). Economy is the household, means the cost effectiveness, earning power, profitableness, ... and so on. So there is no way out of the trap. Humans themselves have been building this trap - with the risk that they will be completely replaced by machines in the future.

Are those US “liberals” and IS “conservatives” similar to those who are called „die Linke“ (“the left”) and „die Rechte“ (“the right”) in Europe? I think so, but in Europe “the left” is interpreted as “the egalitarians” (communists etc.) and “the right” as “the liberalists” (capitalists etc.). If you ask a politician from Europe whether he or (even!) she is “conservative” the color of this person’s face will change immediately like this:

. And then this persons will say: “I am not »conservative«, I am »(social)democratic«¨. Apparently there are merely “democrats”, namely “social democrats” in Europe, although its reality is much different - of course!

Many years ago, when the Occident began to more and more aggressively meddle in the affairs of Ukraine, my certain idea was that later the Western Ukraine will come under Occidental and the Eastern Ukraine under Russian control.

Do you remember what the deal was when the “Cold War” ended? All Occidental countries of the Eastern bloc countries under Occidental, the other Eastern bloc countries, thus also Ukraine, under Russian control, and the US promised to adhere to it.

The classes are merely a part of the consequences. Either there are two classes (upper and lower) or there are three classes (upper, middle, lower), and believe me: the higher the number of classes, the better the society as a whole. A „classless society“ is no society but a primitive horde, often without real houses. In any other case: a “classless society” is rhetoric of those who want to become the upper class, thus the power, thus the luxury.

There are merely two kinds of human get-together possible: (1) a modern one (with a middle class and modern luxury) or (2) a non-modern one (without a middle class, but with non-modern luxury). What remains? The power, the classes (either two or three), and the luxury, but either as (1) a modern one or as (2) a non-modern one. If there will be no human luxury anymore, then the Earth will have become an inhabitable planet.

There are two hostile groups within one „society“: (1) the powerful one of the rulers (controllers), and (2) the powerless one of those who are ruled (controlled). Roughly calculated 1% are powerful and 99% are powerless.

You see that conspiracy and conspiracy theories are mainly the issue of the powerful 1% and not of the powerless 99%.

A) Those of the 1% who assume someone who is a member of the 99% to be a conspiracy theorist support the conspiracy and conspiracy theory of the 1%.
B) Those of the 99% who assume someone who is a member of the 99% to be a conspiracy theorist support the conspiracy and conspiracy theory of the 1%.
C) Those of the 1% who assume someone who is a member of the 1% to be a conspiracy theorist reveal the conspiracy and conspiracy theory of the 1%.
D) Those of the 99% who assume someone who is a member of the 1% to be a conspiracy theorist reveal the conspiracy and conspiracy theory of the 1%.
- And the latter two (see C) and D)) are living dangerous because being hunted by the 1% and a great part of the 99%.

Someone who denies conspiracy denies the power of the powerful 1% or even the existence of the powerful 1%, ... and in the extreme case this someone denies even any difference between living beings - b.t.w.: that is the reason why it is so easy for egalitarians and similar totalitarians to have success with their rhetoric and methods of catching their victims.

Reforming democracy is relatively useless, but reforming demography is not useless.

The politicians don’t solve but increase the problems. The market alone can't solve but decrease the problems, if such a market is wanted, allowed.

My solution requires less regulated markets and laws than we have today. A familiy manager is needed for my solution and will be found soon via market, if those bureaucratic laws which currently forbid to have family managers will be eliminated. Many other laws will have to be eliminated as well before the concept of the family management will be successful.

Many people have no time for their children - a family manager would do the job temporarily instead of them. Many people merely have children because the state pays for them - that is criminal, unsocial, thus egoistical, and of course that leads to many more problems which increase exponentially. Many people who want to work, to supply, to carry, to achieve, to accomplish, to afford will be able to have children then, now they can't, and other many people who don’t want to work will have children too but not more than one per adult (= two per married couple).

The merely one law which is needed for my solution is that which says: “it is not allowed to have less and more than one child per adult”. In view of the fact that many laws will disappear, this one law is no problem at all. Furthermore, my solution leads to more wealth because the productive people can be reproductive again (now they can't), so that there will be also productive people in the future. Because of the probability that again more intelligent and responsible people would take more care about their environment the reduction of the pollution of the environment would also become more probable.

This solution is a taboo, not wanted by the rulers because if practised it will be successful, and that means that the rulers will lose their control and consequently their power. The rulers don't want other humans, especially intelligent humans, because they are not needed, machines can replace them (**|**).

I have made a proposal how to solve the three main problems of Western modernity which has become the three main problems of the planet Earth, thus of all human beings, probably of all “higher” living beings, perhaps of all living beings. If each adult of the human beings is allowed to have one child but not allowed to have less or more than one child, then the population shrinks very slowly because the reproduction rate is merely 1.0 and not 1.07 or more (population growth). My solution means that the qualitiy of the population grows, while the quantity of the population shrinks, so that all become richer and also more responsible for their environment because of their quality.

Else the reverse continues: Western modernity as a way of life for all human beings as a growing population with unfairly distributed wealth and offspring on a more and more uninhabitable planet Earth.

The more a market is regulated the more corruption is there. My solution leads to less regulated markets and therefore also to less corruption. Today there is more corruption than ever before. Those who are not against corruption - political or other kinds of corruption - are either corrupt or stupid, or both.

Besides my solution, there are mereley two other “solutions” (they are no real solutions): (1) “continue / carry on with the exponentially increasing problems”, (2) catastrophe. This two are actually merely one because the (1) former leads to the (2) latter.

The relationship between regulated markets and the relatively free markets must be changed again in favor of relatively free markets. Then we can reduce the corruption very much. Unfortunately the corruption has become so powerful that there is a huge problem to start from a point of a corrupt society in order to reach a point of a relatively incorrupt society. So please don’t ask me to forebode whether my solution or the other two “solutions”, which are merely one “solution”, will occur.

We shouldn't just watch how the disaster as the only alternative comes up to us. The probability that no one survives this disaster is just too high. We can also not have a „communal particle“ without any law, and a law is not always merely fore one but for all in that little society, even then, if a law merely refers to the “recognition of association between definitions such as to reveal an associated definitional truth” (definitional logic). Since the end of the Stone Age the humans have been living with written laws. Maybe that our goal is a new Stone Age anyway or even the death of all human beings, but is that really desirable? You know, we have this “global society”, and socially we can only start from a point of that “global society”. This “global society” is full of laws, regulated markets - in the EU there is a law which dictates even the angle degree of the banana curve. So should we do nothing else than await the disaster? We can't start with the goal. That is impossible. The goal could be a “ommunal particle”, but the way to it can only be the way from the “global society” to the “communal particle”. The only alternative to it is to continue with the “global society” as the way to the disaster (see above: catastrophe [**|**]).

It works theoretically, and it would work practically too, if the rulers weren’t against it. They are against it because they profit by the current population policy, by the current employment market which is mostly a regulated market (cp. cheap workers), and orther regulated markets, a huge bureaucratic policy. Put it away!

I would also prefer to continue with the “global society”, if the global(ictic) problems were not so huge. We can also accelerate the coming of the disaster (cp. ochlocarcy, anarchy, nihilism) and hope that after it, if any human will survive that disaster, we will start with a new way of life, a new culture, and/or, for example, a “communal particle”.

I hope that someday (and hopefully before it will be too late) my suggestions will be accepted.

The main reasons for the disability of the Western states, if we can call them still so, are - amongst others (for example: cultural decadence = the so-called “civilisation”) - the structure of the power, the bureaucracy, thus the overregulated markets and societies, the dictatorship on the one dirty hand and the ochlocracy on the other dirty hand.

And by the way: the global market is so over-regulated that almost any change can only mean a less regulated market.

(1.) Currently the less-productive people have still too many children and therefore they can’t become as rich as the more-productive people; (2.)) the reasonably fair distribution of children (2.1.) also increases the wealth, (2.2.) leads to (2.2.1.) more peace, (2.2.2.) more intelligence, (2.2.3.) more competence, (2.2.4.) more responsibilities, thus (2.2.4.1.) less pollution of the environment - that all because the more-productive people can also have children and the less-productive people can not have more children than the more-productive people. And that all is fair.

Having no children would merely be the best way to accumulate wealth then (and only then), if there were not two risks: (A) the risk of losing competence and skills because there were not enough children who could learn those competence and skills; (B) becoming unfertile (that would be the end anyway).

So having no children can only be the best way to accumulate wealth for a short time, for a long time having no children is fatal, killing.

USA

The goal that the children must profit from this development is one of the main reasons why we must change the current expropriation of all by all, of everyone by everyone, of anyone by anyone, and especially of the future generations by the current generations.

We live at the cost of our children, our grandchildren, ..., in short: our offspring.

- The reasonably fair distribution of children. The invisible accent are the adverb „reasonably“ and the adjective „fair“. Currently the distribution of children is absolutely unfair, and if it is right (and it is right - because fertility, intelligence / competence, and wealth are correlated) that everyone wants to copy himself / herself, then it is fair that both the less-productive people and the more-productive people can do it. Currently the less-productive people merely produce children and nothing else, and for that they get get money from the state, thus the taxpayers. Do you think that that is fair? If yes, then we can end our conversation. Do you think it will be alright if we will have merely less-productive people, so that the whole human poulation will be less-productive which actually means unproductive? If you say “yes”, then you have to say “yes” too when it comes to this question: Will machines completely replace all human beings? (**|**|**).

- The reasonably fair distribution of children increases the wealth of the less-productive people - right - but of the more-productive people too. Both condition each other. If the less-productive people are poor and have more children than the more-productive people and have to be supported by the more-productive people (and that all is the case), then the trend is that the more-productive people also become poor and less-productive. One has always to consider the time too, for example to differ in “short time”, “middle time”, and “long time”. What I am reffering to is mainly the middle and especially the long time because this “global society” lives and thinks merely for a very short time at the cost of our children.

- The reasonably fair distribution of children leads to more peace because that distribution is reasonably fair. The invisible accent are the adverb “reasonably” and the adjective “fair”. The huge majority of people who are wealthy don't want war, they just want wealth. Human beings are luxury beings (**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**), and if the luxury of the present time is reached, then they are - by the majority - satisfied (I am not speaking of the rulers, the upper class, which is a special case because of its power which has been increasing exponentilally, horribly). Normal people are mostly satisfied when they have reached the luxury which they think has to be reached at a time. They are peaceful. War is an issue of the upper class, not of the middle class, and of the lower class because of their poorness, envy, unhappiness, resentment.

- The reasonably fair distribution of children leads to more competence because the reasonably fair distribution of children leads to more intelligence (see: 2.2.2. [**|**|**]). It is proven that fertility, intelligence / competence, and wealth correlate with each other.

Aa) If you have no children and want to be a more-productive, then the probability is high that you have much time for being a more-productive.
Ba) If you have many children and want to be a more-productive, then the probability is high that you have less time for being a more-productive.
Ab) If you have no children and do not want to be a more-productive, then the probability is high that you are not a more-productive.
Bb) If you have many children and do not want to be a more-productive, then the probability is high that you have less time for being a more-productive and that you are not a more-productive because you do not want to be a more-productive.

Egoism is on both sides, and you can’t eliminate egoism but merely extreme egoism, thus egomania.

The history of the Western societies shows how the trend will be for the other societies in the future, but there is one problem: it will not be the same but merely a similar devolopment because the other societies belong to other cultures, and if they know the history of the Western culture, then they also know what to do in order to become modern but not Western. They don’t want to live the Western way of life, they have a different tradtition. More and more of them resist the Western way of life.

You can have many children and be a very egomanian pigheaded fellow. You can have no children and be a very egomanian pigheaded fellow. It depends on which culture you belong to, which mindset / mentality and feelings / affects you have.

I want the more-productive people to pay less taxes, less charges, less surcharges etc.. It is logical. So both the more-productive people and the less-productive people will become more wealthy, if those of the less-productive people who have become part of the more-productive people are more that those of the more-productive people who have become part of the less-productive people. And that is the case. So a solution of the demographical problem is necessary.

The welfare state is not a new penomenon. If I showed you the welfare state of the 19th century (for example the German state during the time when Bismarck was Reichskanzler), you would have asked: that was a welfares state? Yes, it was, and Bismarck's welfare state was the first and the best one. What I want to say is that we have to consider that this welfare state has changed and unfortunately become a huge monster. But my main point is not the welfare state allone but also and first of all the justice of generations (remember: demography is my theme here). The problem is that this modern “society” lives and thinks merely for a very short time, at the cost of the offspring, as I already said (**|**|**|**|**|**). This includes not only the debts but also the demographic disaster and the pollution of the whole planet Earth.

The welfare state must not be eliminated but reduced. If we wanted to find back to a pure or nearly pure society of humans (and not to rush in a “society” of machines and half-machines and human slaves or even no humans (**|**|**]), then the welfare state as a monster would not be needed anymore. But the most people want the contradiction, the oxymoron, because with the machines and more and more machines the welfare state will be needed more than ever before but eliminated. That's a “good” outlook for our offspring, isn’t it?

A modern society is velociferic, expanded in any case, accelerated in any case, greedy in any case, too fat, too ugly ....

It is true that “the greatest single mistake that brought so much of this into the modern world was made in 1913. From that time to this, each generation only gets worse (and not by accident).“ - James S. Saint, 16.09.2014, 01:33 (**|**). Meant is the foundation of the Federal Reserve System (on 23.12.1913) which is the allegedly “national” but in reality private central bank system of the U.S.A. That is why it is always becoming increasingly difficult for each generation to come out of that trap. And that is in fact no accident.

The justice of generations means that any generation should not live under worse conditions than its former generation.

Again: Currently there is a crazy expropriation of all by all, of everyone by everyone, of anyone by anyone, and especially of the future generations by the current generations.

Debts and a polluted planet mean an extreme egoism, an egomania, a life at the cost of our offspring.

We live at the cost of our children, our grandchildren, ..., in short: our offspring.

If a society lives at the cost of its future, then this society is in a suicidal mood. A suicide of a society means that there is no offspring anymore. And our society says: “We are a global society”. That's lunatic.

A modern society is velociferic, expanded in any case, accelerated in any case, greedy in any case, too fat, too ugly ....

Newton was a scientist and theologian while his German „Zeitgenosse“ (“time accomplice”, coeval, contemporary) Leibniz was a scientist and philosopher; so theology and philosophy make the crucial difference. Newton had political power, Leibniz had no political power. Calculus was invented by Leibniz. Wether calculus was also, simultaneously and independently of Leibniz, invented by Newton too is doubtable because of Newton’s political power.

“Goethe ... war in seiner ganzen Denkweise, ohne es zu wissen, ein Schüler von Leibniz gewesen.” (Oswald Spengler, Der Untergang des Abendlandes, 1918, S. IX **).
Translation:
“Goethe ... had been in his whole way of thinking, without knowing it, a disciple of Leibniz.”

What has been found and brought in a formula by Newton could also have been found and brought in a formula by another person. It was Newton's political power that made him and his “laws” famous. If he hadn't had this political power, he and his “laws” would probably not have become famous. The history of Western science would have remained a Faustian one anyway but been written in a different way and probably never mentioned Newton. The history of Western science would have remained a Faustian one anyway but been written in a different way and probably never mentioned Newton. So without any doubt, Newton was also a Faustian scientist but he gave a very special form to the Faustian science. And what I just said about Newton, applies similarly for Einstein. So Newton and Einstein are not the most typical Faustian scientists but nevertheless also Faustian scientists. Their relativity theories are not as absolute and dynamic as other Faustian theories but nevertheless also Faustian theories.

The other Faustian theories are all the other Occidental (Western) theories. They are so many that I didn't want to list them in my last post. In this case, it doesn't matter wether they are “right” (“true”) or “wrong” (“false”) because in this case it is crucial and essential wether they belong to the type, the form, the character of the Faustian culture, for example: dynamic, infinity, infiniteness, endlessness, everlastingness, boundlessness, illimitableness, force(s), dilatation, expansiveness, ... and so on.

The Non-Faustian cultures had and have a completely different idea when it comes to undertand what “nature”, “physics”, “universe”, “life”, ... means. Humans at different places and times understood, understand, and will understand their environment differently, they even have their own “worlds”, and so they also value and justify differently. If you know how “science” was and/or is understood by the Mesopotamian culture, by the Egyptian culture, by the Indian (or South-Asian) culture, by the Chinese (or East-Asian) culture, by the Apollonian culture (our ancestor), by the Inka/Maya culture, by the Magic/Arabian/Islamic culture, and the Faustian culture (the descendant of the Apollinian culture), then you know also the differences in their theories and even their philosophies (metaphysics, ontologies, ...). Merely the Faustian culture has developed a real science; partly ,and merely partly also the other cultures, partly because they had and have (a) a too hot climate, (b) a too dominant religion, so that something which could be called “science” nearly remained or remains a religion, or (c) other conditions that prevented or prevent the developmet of a real science.

You may say (for example): “there were the constructions of the Tower of Babel, the pyramids of the Egyptians and the Maya, the inventions and discoveries of the Mesopotamian culture, the Chinese (East-Asian) culture, the Apollonian culture (our ancestor)”. Alright, but they weren't like that what the Faustian constructions, inventions, and discoveries were and are. Merely the Faustian culture had and has a concept of an autonomous “science” and “technique/technology”. You may see what it means to have a more religious “science” and “technique/technology” when you look at thre current Faustian science which is again more dominated by religion than in former times of the Faustian culture, for example the era of the so-called “enlightenment” („Aufklärung“). It is comparable to humans personal development: the most scientific time is the time of the adolescence and around the adolescence; the era of the “enlightenment” („Aufklärung“) was such a time for the Faustian culture. A younger one is too unripe, an older one is already too ripe - for example too conservative, too philosophical, thus too wise - for science as an “enlightenment” („Aufklärung“), but not too ripe for a more religious or philosophical (metaphysical, ontological) science.

Did anyone of the other cultures invent theories of “relativity”, “gravitational force”, “electromagnetic force”, “strong nuclear force”, “weak nuclear force”, “speed of light”, “thermodynamics”, “quantum”, “big bang”, “inflation of the universe”, “black holes”, “dark matter”, “dark energy”, ....?

That has not merely to do with the different times when those cultures had their best time in order to invent and form something like science and its theories. The Non-Faustian cultures invented theories for their religion, theology, philosophy, or just their states; they had not a really autonomous (system of) science, no universities (universities are invented by the Faustians, they are a pure Faustian form, institution). The “scientists” of the Non-Faustian cultures researched at home and the most of them also studied at home. If you now think of the library of Alexandria, then I have to remind you that it was no university in a Faustian sense.

My point is not that the theories of the Non-Faustians were not useful at all; my point is that they were not scientific (just in a Faustian sense). In the good old times of the Faustian science one could relatively freely study and research because the universities were relatively free then, and this was not possible in other cultures. So the university system, the unit of studies and research, and especially the relative freedom of all universities are unique, and abbeys and cloisters are their forerunners. Monks, namely Occidental (Faustian) monks, were the cultural ancestors of the students of the universities.

In Mesopotamia, especially in Egypt and China, not seldom also in orther cultures (except the Apollonian and the Faustian culture which are related), “scientists” or technicians were killed after important inventions or discoveries they had made. There was no scientific system, all that what we - the Faustians - call “science” lacked there, especially the relative freedom, the unit of studies and research. The universities as a system of science, thus of real science, is unique, is Faustian.

The current development of science shows whereto it tends: probably it will not vanish but become a new religion. Science came out of religion and will end as a new religion. The future scientists will probably be similar to the monks of the so-called “Middle Ages” but only a bit similar because their relative freedom will probably decrease but not vanish as long as the Faustian culture will exist.

You have to know Goethe’s “Faust”, especially the second part (but also the first part), in order to understand what is meant with “Faustian culture” and why all the other cultures are no specific or at least not as much science cultures as the Faustian culture is a science culture. But the Faustian culture is not only a science culture but just a Faustian culture, and as one of the most important parts it includes the part science. In any case, one has to read Goethe’s “Faust” or Spengler’s “Decline of the West” when it comes to really and well understand what “Faustian culture” means. The absolute, categorical will to knowledge is probably the most important example if one wants to know the impulse of Faust and the Faustians.

The other cultures are more religious, but not very much, except one which is the most religiuos of all cultures: the Magic/Arabian/Islamic culture; all so-called “monotheisms" have their origin in this culture because in the territory of that culture are a lot of deserts, and the monotheistic religions have much to do with deserts.

Religion belongs to culture, so each culture is religious, more or less. For example: the Magic/Arabian/Islamic culture is the most religious culture, the Faustian culture is the most scientific culture.

It is no coincidence or accident that the Faustian culture invented and discovered so much, and the consequences which can clearly be seen are the pollution of the planet Earth and its neighborhood, the unresponsible politics, the bad conscience, the hypocrisy, the lies, and as the next goal: the new religion. Science is Faustian science and nothing else, and one can easily guess what it means when it becomes a new religion.

Goethe has not only described the typical Western man with his “Faust”, but also predicted the future of the Western man.

„Wer immer strebend sich bemüht, // Den können wir erlösen.“
(Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust, Teil II, S. 376.)
Translation:
“Who strives always to the utmost, // For him there is salvation.”

And amongst others this is what the „Chorus mysticus“ sings when Faust is in heaven at last (... fortunately!):

„Alles Vergängliche ist nur ein Gleichnis.“
(Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust, Teil II, S. 383.)
Translation:
“All perishable is only an allegory.”

The great cultures are city cultures, and world history is city history and megacity history.

Humans’ pleasure and replication are already separated. So humans are now a species between animals (humans) and (humans,) machines or gods, not far away from (those) machines between humans and gods.

– Cultural development.
– Fertility development.
– Demographical development.
– Educational development.
– Intelligence (IQ) development.
– Political development.
– Economical development.,
– Wealth development.
– Welfare development.
– Artistic development.
– Technical / technological development.
– Mechanical development.
– Civilisational development.

When the red coloured arise, then the green coloured arise merely a little bit, and the blue coloured lacks.
When the red coloured decline, then the green arise very much, and the blue coloured arises.
When the green coloured also decline, then the blue coloured declines as well, first a little bit, then much and very much.The culture turns the light on, the civilisation of the culture turns the light off.

To a peasant population it is an advantage if the the Earth is at the center of the universe, but to an urban population it is an advantage if the the Earth is not at the center of the universe.

We have to know (a) what “democracy” really means, (b) whether there is a real democracy or not, and, if so, (ba) to which degree, and (bb) why. You think there is a real democracy in Europe and North America? In Europe the European Union dictates and is not elected by the European people. The national governments in Europe have nearly nothing to say because they are the diener (servants) of the European Union which serves the globalists. Merely 10% of the political decisions in Europe come from the national governments, thus 90% of the political decisions come from the government of the European Union, thus from the globalists. Do you call that “democracy”?

Peak oil is not a scientific fact because we do not know whether oil is a limited resource.

This so-called „Eurovision song contest“ is merely one part of the stupidest Eurodecadent horror show.

It is not advisable to consider, and especially to assess military and economy only separately. **

One important purpose is a kind of scrutiny / surveillance / control / supervision because science needs money for research and therefore becomes a corrupt system if there is no control. The current control is a political or religious control, so that science (which has already become corrupt) becomes more and more a part of the political or religious system. But a political or religious “science” is no science anymore. Philosophy should protect science against corruption. Philosophy does not need money for research. So philosophy is a good spiritual weapon against corruption, although (or because?) also for corruption.

Do you have enough money for such a scientific research like the “European Organization for Nuclear Research” (“CERN”)?

Philosophy can also be corrupt, but currently it is not as much corrupt as e.g. science. Philosophy is both a part of science and not a part of science. So in the case of philosophy the risk is not as high as it is in the case of science in general.

Six situations are possible relating to a mother and her feelings she holds towards her husband and / or children:
1.) She holds his feelings equally to her husband and to her children.
2.) She holds his feelings more to her children than to her husband.
3.) He holds his feelings only to her children, thus not to her husband.
4.) He holds his feelings more to her husband than to her children.
5.) He holds his feelings only to her husband, thus not to her children.
6.) He holds his feelings neither to her husband nor to her children.
The same applies analogously for a father.
In modern times that normal sequence (1 to 6) stands on its “head” (6 to 1).

The modernity seems to be a the accelerated mobilisation, the accelerated change, the accelerated time. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe called the modern velocity „das Veloziferische“ which is composed of the first four letters of thje Latin noun „velocitas“ (“speed”, “hurry”, “rush”) and the last five letters of the German noun „Luzifer“ (“Lucifer”) respectively the last four letters of the German adjective „luziferisch“ (“luciferic”, “luciferious”) and with an „e“ because that adjective is nominalized to the neuter noun „Veloziferisches“ (with the neuter article: „das Veloziferische“).

Remember the stupid sentence of Karl Marx: „Die Philosophen haben die Welt nur verschieden interpretiert; es kommt drauf an, sie zu verändern.“ (“The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point however is to change it.”) I say (with Peter Sloterdijk): „Die Philosophen haben die Welt immer nur verschieden verändert; es kommt drauf an, sie zu schonen.“ (“The philosophers have only changed the world in various ways; the point however is to save [conserve] ]it.”)

Since the beginning of the industrialisation by the steam engine there was a resistance against it. At first in England, then in Germany, and later in other European countries and in the United States of America too.

Perhaps (!) the humans will be so stupid that they will don’t know or have forgotten how machines work and slow down the modern velocity; and then it will depend on the developmental stage of the machines’ intelligence whether they will be able to accelerate the velocity again or slow it down, and whether they will keep the humans alive or not.

I think many of the people of the US and many other countries outside from Europe do not know enough about Europe. And what they are told by the media, is largely lie.

The Holy Roman Empire of German Nation lasted 1000 years - exactly from 843 (treaty of Verdun) to 1806 (during the Napoleonic wars). And b.t.w.: Metternich was not Austrian but German, he was born in Koblenz; but that doesn’t matter very much because Austria had been a part of Germany until 1866 - and again from 1938 to 1945 as you probably know, for example: Hitler was an Austrian, he was born in Braunau (Inn). Since the end of the Second World War the Austrians have been confusing Metternich with Hitler (

) and saying Metternich was an Austrian and Hitler a German, although the reverse is true.

There were more than one attempt in the European history to form an European Union, and any time it was Germany that did the first step. The EU we now have is a product of six countries: West-Germany, France, Italy, Holland, Belgium, Luxemburg.

Earlier, in the end of the 19th and in the early 20th century the German government and the German Kaiser Wilhelm II. were going to build something like an European Union, then the First World War startet and the hope was destroyed. Cui bono? The idea of an European Union is good but it has to work. The current European Union doesn’t work well. So it has to be reformed - soon - or it is going to decay. Cui bono?“

What the German government started at that time was almost the same that Europe got later, after the two world wars, but it was just the beginnig of the First World War that destroyed this European Union, as if there were interests to prevent it (and such interests existed, especially in England).

The German Hanse or other Städtebünde (associations of cities in Germany and Italy) were the first attempts of creating something like an European Union. The project of an European Union has always had proponents and opponents. The last powerful European opponent was the British Empire. No wonder that there was no possibility for an European Union before the British Empire ended. The German Empire was no European opponent but the most powerful proponent, and - of course - the most powerful rival of the British Empire. The profiteer of the rivalry between the British and the German Empire was the USA - that is the reason why the Dollar Empire could be formed. So the current most powerful European opponent is the USA as a Dollar Empire, and merely other than economic unions with the USA are no European opponents, for example the NATO. So the NATO is important also for Europe; but again: I don’t want such an aggressive NATO, and I also don’t want the hierarchical structure the NATO has. We should reform the NATO, change it from an aggressive and unilateral into a defending and multilateral military union.

After the ascending United States of America and the descending British Empire had bombed Europe (especially Germany and robbing it, cp. the robbed patents, knowledge, scientists and technicians [by blackmailing them], and - amongst much others - territories [cp. the forced displacement of about 20,000,000 Germans] and the whole gold of the German Reich) the United States of America have been bombing it with immigrants because thatt will weaken it sooner or later. Why should we again defence the USA by sacrificing all European people?

Many of those immigrants and many of the indigenous Europeans have already built an alliance (a “colored“ alliance that units these very different humans because of the fact that they have the same enemy) and try to continue and reinforce the so-called “permanent revolution” by their terror, “civil war”. Why should we tolerate or even accept that?

According to Nietzsche the state is the coldest of all cold monsters: („Staat heisst das kälteste aller kalten Ungeheuer.“ - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, „Also sprach Zarathustra“, 1883, S. 57 (**). And the Federal Reserve is a private bank. The European Central Bank (in Frankfurt) is a bank of the European Union. So in this case we have one superordinated monster (Fed) and two subordinated monsters (EU and ECB) like states. And they lie always: “I, the state, am the people”: „Ich, der Staat, bin das Volk.“ - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, „Also sprach Zarathustra“, 1883, S. 57 (**). And if a state is already a monster, then an empire like the “Dollar Empire”, which is monetarily based on the Federal Reserve System, is a many times huger state-like monster.

The so-called “Western World” has been completely united or already overstretched (which seems to be more probable) since e.g. Poland, Czechia, Hungary, Slovenia, Slovakia, Lithuania, Latvia , Estonia became members of the NATO (1999-2004) and the EU (2004). This empire as the superordinated monster (see above), thus the super monster, is comparable with the Imperium Romanum of the mid-2nd-century-B.C..

Economy and military are very closely connected with each other. Almost all wars have their causes in economy.

My thesis is: If the NATO partners are enemies, then the NATO is either useless, or very schizophrenic, or both; so one of the consequences must be the end of the NATO.

My opinion is: The occidental culture needs something like a military alliance but not an aggressive one like the NATO. My opinion is is not yet an ingredient of my thesis. If it were, then I could not so easily speak about the end of the NATO as a consequence but would suggest to reform the NATO in order to prevent the end of the NATO.

The EU and the US are economical enemies (and that is something different, isn’t it?). And furthermore: Germany and the US (as well as 99% of the world) are military enemies because there is no peace treaty for the Second World War (cui bono?). This all is absolutely schizophrenic but true. The historical facts do not lie. Humans lie.

Some (unfortunately mostly too powerful) people are crazy, others too stupid. That is a very dangerous mix of madness and stupidity and yields the greatest of all mistakes the more powerful the powerful people and the more stupid the stupid people are.

Can we slow down the mobilisation, the consumption, the lust, the greed which are around us almost everywhere on this planet?

- Demographically armed societies are extremely dangerous, thus very much more dangerous than other societies. Out of 100: 51-100 danger points for the demographically armed societies and 0-49 danger points for the other societies.

- Demographically armed societies are not more and not less dangerous than other societies. Out of 100: 50 danger points for both the demographically armed societies and the other societies.

- Demographically armed societies are less dangerous than other societies. Out of 100: 0-49 danger points for the demographically armed societies and 51-100 danger points for the other societies.

- Demographically armed societies mean societies with a very high number of young people aged 0 to 14 years (30% and more of the whole society) and/or aged 15 to 29 years (20% or more of the whole society). This phenomenon is also called „youth bulge“.

Probably each form of government has its time, and if its time is over, then the time of the next one begins.The monarchy has the tyranny as its negative part before it ends, the aristocracy has the oligarchy as its negative part before it ends, the democracy has the ochlocracy as its negative part before it ends.

A reproduction rate of 1 is not high and not low. It is exactly in the balance - at least statistically. The current reproduction rate is about 1.17, and demographically the difference (0.17) between 1 and 1.17 is a very big difference. Anyway, my argument is not as much a quantitative one as it is a qualitative one.

You (**) say that parents with many children abuse their children, thus you say that (for example) African parents abuse their children. I don't know whether you are right, although, statistically, one can say that the more children parents have the more the children are at risk of being abused - but that is merely a statistical statement, thus often but not always true. If everyone has merely one child, thus a couple two children, then everything is fine. Currently every human on this planet has statistically 1.17 children, thus a couple statistically 2.34 children. The African reproduction rate is about five to seven times higher than the European reproduction rate. If you are right, Kriswest (**), then you should demand the reduction of the African reproduction rate. And if that will happen, then the global reproduction rate will be soon less than 1. But that is not my argument. My argument is that it is very unfair and thus it should not be allowed that the Africans and the West and Central Asians have the children but almost no money and power while the others have the money and the power but almost no children. That will lead us into a real hell on Earth. You knwo what I mean?

There is a very deep correlation between the reproduction (biological and demographical), the production (economical), the wealth (economical, social), the power (economical, social, political), and the intelligence. If the reproduction rate is high, than the others are low; if the reproduction rate is low, than the others are high. Those who say that this correlation doesn't exist are liars.

If you agree to the statement that the „societies“ of the Stone Age can be called „societies“, then I say that the oldest „surviving societies“ are those who lived in the Stone Age. But I guess you mean the later societies. Before I answer your question in that way, I have to know what you exactly mean by „surviving societies“. Do you mean a unit of culture or a nation? Nation would be difficult because it is only an occidental, a modern occidental concept.

Monarchy (degenerated: Tyranny).
Aristocracy (degenerated: Oligarchy).
Democracy (degenerated: Ochlocracy).

In the long run no governing form can defend itself gainst other governing forms and also not against ist own degeneration.

If the government did not use the abortion through feminism for its own goals or the goals of the global rulers, then it would be a very ignorant, a very stupid government which is not wanted by the global rulers.

Small parts in Amazonia, Central Africa, Papua New Guinea and a small part of the aborigines in Australia will probably be the places where humans wil survive the global holocaust; and due to the fact that these places are really small parts and the human groups are small groups, the probability that these human groups will survive is even higher.

If their jungles will not completely be cut down, then they will probably have the best chances to survive the global holocaust.

Which country in the EU has the most pervasive latent nationalism? The Slavic (slavish) nations with their nationalism and Nazism, of course. But do they really belong to Europe? There is not much nationalism and not much latent nationalism in Old-Europe. The globalistic media lies but has the medial power over all humans, especially the Occidental humans. The globalistic rulers and their media functionaries want the US and other people to think that Europe is evil - it is somehow similar to the situation just before and during the two World Wars -, otherwise they could not so easily reach their goals. I want you to not believe what your corrupted government and your media is saying to you. We don't want any war, and you don't want any war. But do you know the facts about the port of Havanna, about the Lusitania, about Pearl Harbor, about the Gulf of Tanking, about the Twin Towers?

Your media tells you: lies. What you call the „yesterday's Hamburg demonstration“ (**) was a demonstration of the rulers and their functionaries. It was not against Islamic terror - the reverse is true.

Bismarck was right. If Europe will approach Russia, then it will not work without power. Each country with major power could be called militaristic, thus not only Germany but also Spain, Portugal, Italy, France, Belgium, Holland, England, the British Empire, the Russian Empire, the USA, the Soviet Union, and Russia. USA and Russia are still militaristic - very evil.

If Europe will approach Russia, then it will have to expect a confrontation as well. It will not be easy. And if the Europeans will make too many mistakes in that case, then they will get probably worse times than they have today.

The worst solution would be an economically isolated Europe. Europe has not much natural resources but more and more decadent people. The best European factor of production has always been intelligence. But it has been vanishing sinde the dysgenic politics began. Another worst solution would - currently (!) - be a militarily isolated Europe, because the German government doesn't want nuclear weapons and the French government wants to have more nuclear weapons and not to share them with foreign governments, and that is too dangerous.

Russia (Siberia) has natural resources and nothing else; so it could be a partner of Europe, but an economical partnership without any military partnership can easily be destroyed. So the decision is difficult - but necessary. The NATO and the partnership between Europe and Russia are currently impossible. So the consequences are clear. The decision lacks.

Interestingly, you (**) said „Europe and UK“. Perhaps you want us to conclude that UK is not Europe. USA is not Europe, and it is told that Russia is not Europe, and it is also told that UK is not Europe. Hey! What is going to happen here?

Is that the reason?

Do the Europeans have to build a „Fortress Europe“ again (like in the Second World War) ?

The French newspaper „Le Monde“ shows where the border (yellow) of the „Fortress Europe“ and the main gateways are.

The national parliaments have no power anymore because they have given their power to the dictators of the EU. The problem is the EU itself.

The US people are always told that monarchy is no good governing form, are'nt they? There is no vote for monarchy. We have 0% for „monarchy, 33% for „aristocracy“, 33% for „democracy“, and 33% for „no one“

The Ancient Romans were told as well as the US Americans are. In times of the Ancient Romans it had been the aristocratic senators who didn't want any political competitor, rival; in times of the US Americans it has been the political class (parallel society) for the same reason. This parallel is interesting, isn't it?

Women are not capable of doing that donkey work that men did and partly still do. Most part of this work has been becoming a work of machines, and in future it will be not only most but probably all of this male work and perhaps even of all human work (**|**|**|**). I estimate that the probability that machines replace all humans is about 80% (**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**). **

Peter Sloterdijk says (in his book „Du mußt dein Leben ändern“ - „You Must Change Your Life“, p. 12 and p.133): „es gibt keine Religionen (translation: „there are no religions“), „sondern nur mißverstandene spirituelle Übungssysteme“ (translation: „but misunderstood spiritual exercise systems“).

According to Peter Sloterdijk human beings live in symbolic immune systems and in ritual hulls / shells. If it is right that humans yield or produce humans, then they do it not mainly by work and its products and also not by work on themselves or by „interaction“ or „communication“; they do it by their lives in exercises / trainings. So humans arise out of repetitions /recurrences, Sloterdijk says.

The internet, mass communication, multi-culturalism, feminism, and other isms are the current means or tools of control and - of course - the accompanying symptoms of the current Occident.

I have often thought that it will be one day even forbidden to live outside the cities. So then, anybody and everybody will have to live in cities and will not be allowed to leave the cities. Horrible.

Competing ideologies have not directly but merely indirectly to do with the forms of government. Shadow governments have not directly but merely indirectly to do with the forms of government, because shadow governments are part of other governments or one government. Forms of government are concrete, and if they do not exist, then there is - of course - „no one“, thus anarchy.

The Romans of the republican age were and the US people of the republican age are so much frightened of monarchy. The Romans were frightened of monarchy, so later they got ... monarchy; and the US People are frightened of monarchy, so later they will get ... (... put in the right word ...).

If the Euro or/and the Amero will fail, then they will come with the next - also failing - money: the Globo, the money for the whole globe.

The people of the increasing lower class and of the middle class will become poorer and poorer and at last be one class, the lower class, whilst the people of the upper class will become richer and richer. Thanks Dollar, Yen, Euro, Amero, and last but not least Globo.

et all prices skyrocket up! That will happen anyway! It is better when it happens today! Later the damage will be much more terrible!

Those people who are maniacally frightened of high prices do not want to give up their hedonistic life. That's all.

Life has its price too. You don't want to pay this price; you prefer the hedonistic life. Okay, I let you live that life, but that is not the point.

We all know that rising prices are not good. But hedonistic people are also not good. We have to pay the price(s); otherwise our descendants will have to pay the higher price(s), probably war (compare my thread: „Will there be war in Europe before 2050?“ [**|**]).

I see, you want our descendants to live and die with war just because you and other people don't want to give up your middle class life. I am not the one who demands the lower class life of you. I would never do that. But please understand: this what happens at the moment in this world has a price, and you are the one who has no idea of this price. This price is rising in the background. You do not notice it.

Sometimes one has to pay a price for something now in order to not have to pay the higher price for this something in the future

I did not write „US“ or „USA“ or even „America“. I did not speak about the people of America. I spoke about all humans, especially about hedonistic humans. Maybe that the most hedonistic humans are US humans - but that was not what I said. But you say dangerous stuff; and you are not aware of it.

High prices can't become high prices because they are already high prices. That's logical. High prices can't always remain high prices. That's logical. So high prices can only fall, high prices become low prices. It' s a cycle. We can't annihilate this cycle, but we can reduce the number of its amplitude. But most people don't want to reduce it because of their extreme egoistic and hedonistic behaviour.

But you don't want it. So you help those people who want the US to be destroyed.

The US economic or commercial problems (which are now higher than they were before) were already visible a long time ago, when they were not as huge as they are now. If anybody had offered a painful solution at that time, this one would have been scolded or driven out or even killed. Now, the US economic problems are already huge, but nobody tries to offer any painful solution (because the economic problems are huge, thus too huge for a solution), although such a solution is more necessary than before. That's absolutely crazy.

Why a globo will necessarily fail? Because it is a symptom therapy, thus no real therapy. It is as if you had one broken leg and tried to heal it by breaking a second leg.

But when these limits are reached, then there may be corrective methods to deal with it's monetary implication? Do you know anybody who really wants to deal with that?

Almost all are frightened of it, especially the people of the middle class. Only those who have nothing to lose or/and have other interests or/and benefit from it are not frghtened of it.

They try to expand economically and politically, and if there is no other means possible anymore, then they will start war - as usual. Instead of „war as politics with other means“ we can also say „politics as war with other means“. One phenomenon remains in any case: expansion. Expansion happens because of the will to power.

The example of the Euro shows how the Amero can start and end, but, because they don't want this end, they try to expand in another way, with other means, for example: the Globo, preferentially at last war, because war is the last means, brings the end of this cyclic process; after it a new cycle begins and ends - of course - with war. If they don't expand, then others expand. That seems to be an „unwritten law“.

Adolf Hitler and Mohandas (Mahatma) Karamchand Gandhi were the candidates for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1939. And if the Second World War had not started in 1939, Adolf Hitler would have got the Nobel Peace Prize.

Evolution and history do not „proceed“, do not „run“ in one „linear“, in one so-called „progressive“ direction. Evolution and history move cyclically, spirally - like this:

It's like the circulation of our planet Earth and our Moon, of the other planets and their moons, of asteroids and comets, of our Sun, thus of the whole Sun System, and of all other solar systems in our Milky Way:

The Greeks can do that because they have time enough due to their retirement age: 58 de jure, 50 de facto.

And they should not demonstrate against countries and people, thus nations. They should demonstrate against empires, against the EU, against the ECB, against the dictatorship of the EU , against the Fed and other powerful private banks, against the WTO, against the globalism in general.

Do not concur too quickly (**), because know thyself does not have very much to do with the concrete „others“ due to the fact that it is again yourself who has to know what the others think of you, and the others' judgement can be wrong; they can tell you that you are „too much different“ and therefore „very evil“ - in other words: the others tell you egalitarianistic nonsense, and if you not agree to that nonsense, they will put you in jail, in Gulag, or in psychiatry.

A map of the horrible Gulag camps in the „egalitarian“ (a.k.a.: „communistic“, „socialistic“) Soviet Union:

„A map of the Gulag camps, which existed between 1923 and 1961, based on data from Memorial, a human rights group.“ **

Reportedly, there is a discussion about the division of the Euro (€) into a North-Euro and a South-Euro. If the US (which are similar to the EU anyway), Canada, and Mexico will divide their Amero into a North Amero and a South Amero, then Mexico will have to play the same role the countries of the probably coming South Euro play in the case of the Euro.

In order to prevent or circumvent such a division, they will probably implement the Globo. They will say: „See, the Euro and the Amero do not work, and therefore we need the Globo.“

Before the Euro was established, it was known that the the South Europeans would get problems with the Euro! Most humans do not learn from history. That is the problem!

Do you think that humans do what history has taught them?

Mostly they do what others want them to do, regardless whether it is reasonable or not.
The governments in Canada, USA, and Mexico will probably not reasonably decide. They will decide what the real rulers want them to decide. It is alomost a safe bet that the Amero will be established without a general support, without a real majoritarian support.

Governing forms are implemented by (1) one, (2) few, (3) all (majority of all). Mixed forms are possible because there are several social classes, but, however, at the bottom line there is merely one form for each society possible. It is the upper class that affects the other classes very much more than the other classes affect each other or even the upper class.

Okay, let's talk about „SAM“: „Social Anenthropic Molecularization“. „SAM“ does only work in small societies. So should we reduce the current societies (except those in jungles, deserts, and steppes) to small societies?

The cell is the smallest unity of of a living thing. it is able to fulfill all main functions of an organism. The cromatin in the cell nucleus contains the carrier of the hereditary information: the DNA. The DNA is a long molecule chain with four different bases (A, C, G, T). The RNA is the „translater“. On the DNA chain each amino acid of the later proteins is coded by three successive bases.

So the „basic law“ or „constitution“ of „SAM“ („Social Anenthropic Molecularization“) could be similar to the genetic code.

Many phenomena correlate with each other, thus also the population growth (fertility rate and mortality rate), the economic growth, the cultural development, the development of intelligence. The most important phenomena are summarized in the HDI (Human Development Index). The following map shows the HDI ranking list:

For example: „dark green“ means the highest HDI (?0,900 and higher); „dark red means“ the lowest HDI (0,349 and lower).

Correlation of population and economy.
P=>E) In the short-term the population growth influences the economic development positively; in the long-term it influences it negatively because of other phenomena which are long-term phenomena (culture /education, intelligence).
E=>P) In the short-term the economic growth influences the population development positively; in the long-term it influences it negatively (long-lasting wealth leads to decadence).

Culture it is not the same as nature, but it is a part of nature. I said: »When it comes to distinguish the nature of human beings from the nature of other living beings, then human nature is human culture/s.« (**|**). That does not mean that nature and culture are the same. They are similar, not the same. There are analogies between them.

Naturally human beings are animal beings, but culturally human beings are not animal beings but human beings (just becaue of their culture). Of course, there are feedbacks between nature and culture, thus also between human nature and human culture. But if it comes to distinguish the nature of human beings from the nature of other living beings, then human nature is human culture/s. And one of the main features of human culture/s is luxury.

Obama does what he has to do. The US presidents are paid. That is the reason for their contradictory speeches, their hypocrisy, their double standards, their lies, ..., and so on and so forth ....

Most humans do not always want politicians to say the truth. But what about the others? And sometimes most humans want politicians to say the truth, so that the politicians have no chance anymore with their contradictory speeches, their hypocrisy, their double standards, their lies, ..., and so on and so forth ....

But that is also a question of quantity and quality. Most humans are far too shallow and self interested and subconsciously vote in the qualities that they admire within themselves. But what about the others? And sometimes most humans are not too shallow and self interested and do not subconsciously vote in the qualities that they admire within themselves.

The main problem is that most humans are too late with their awareness, too slow with their bringing to awareness, they know too late, thus they are too stupid or ignorant, or just too decadent and hedonistic. This fact is used / misused by the rulers. The history is full of such examples.

Humans were „born“ in areas of merely two seasons and developed into areas of four seasons and into areas of other two seasons (namely in the polar regions). So originally, thus more (not only) naturally, we are beings of the two seasons in warm or hot areas, but being on our way, thus more (not only) culturally, we are also beings of the four seasons, of the two seasons in the coldest areas (polar regions), and in some sense even of the one „season“ in the outer space. We became beings that can live in both the hottest and the coldest climate zones and in some sense, as I said, even in the outer space. That's great and terrible, fortune and fate, destiny. Isn't it?

The use of tools that do not belong to the own body are alrerady a prestage of luxury; the use of language, if it is close to the value of the human language, as well; games do all mammals have (maybe it is a pre-prestage of luxury). B.t.w.: Luxury can be measured by the degree of insulation. The more living beings are able to live on an own „island“ (meant as a metaphor!), the more they are luxury beings. Or, in other words, the more living beings are able to behave against the Darwinistic evolution, the more they are luxury beings. Insulations give those beings a relative (!) independence of adaptation to nature. The adaptation to nature has not vanished but has been added by dissociation of nature. And the only living being that has achieved this independence in a sufficient extent is the human being.

The question is how we value this relative (!) independence. This relative independence is caused by insulation or dissociation of nature with the main effect: luxury. And this insulation is (a) natuarlly caused by the relatively huge brain and (b) culturally caused by the huge consciousness, awareness, knowkedge, language of human beings.

Whether „alpha males and their mates get the first resources in almost any specie“ (**) or not is obviously not important for luxury beings. Are Occidental humans alpha males and their mates? Do they have the most descendants? No! The reverse is true: They have the least descendants. Do the humans with the most descendants (thus currently the Black humans in Africa) get the first resources? No!

In Europe, especially in West and West-Central Europe the average winter-temperature is often higher than +2° Celsius (35.6° Fahrenheit) - caused by the Gulf Stream.

The natural cause of the relative (!) independence of human beings is their brain, and the cultural cause or reason of the relative (!) independence of human beings is their huge consciousness, awareness, knowkedge, language. So we owe our relative independence (relative free will) to our brain.

The main aspect is the insulation (dissociation of nature) which leads to luxury and is naturally caused by the brain. So we have (1) the brain, (2) the insulation (dissociation of nature), (3) the luxury and also the self-consciousness with its epiphenomenon egoism and many other features, but it is more the luxury that leads to the self-consciousness than it is the self-consciousness that leads to luxury. Some animals have self-consciousness in almost the degree that human children in the age of 1 to 2 years have, but these animals do not have luxury in the degree that human children in the age of 1 to 2 years have. And human children become egoistic in that typical human way (you said: „extreme“) after that age, usually when they are older than 2 years. Luxury is more a communal than a personal matter.The human development is more a communal than a personal („individual“) development. The human development is more a cultural than a natural development, because the natural development of the humans is more (about 98%; see above) an animal development than a human development.

Naturally you need a relative large and a very complex brain, if you want to become a human being, but then, when that brain exists, your further development is more a cultural than a natural development. The huge consciousness (with its accordingly huge self-consciousness), the huge knowledge, the huge and complex language, ... were naturally caused by the brain but would be totally useless, if their development were merely a natural development. The humans are humans very much more because of their cultural development than because of their natural development. Naturally humans are 98%-animals, but culturally humans are 98%-humans.

Evolution is not just about adaptation to nature, to environment, but also about distancing from nature, from environment, thus about the „luxury islands“.

Human beings are the only living beings that can disassociate themselves from nature in such a dimension that they do not completely have to adapt themselves to nature, to their natural environment. They can destroy the nature just for fun. Other living beings can also have a little bit luxury, but their luxury is always embedded in their immediate nature, their natural environment. They are not able to overcome their dependence of nature. They remain living creatures in the sense of Darwinism: those that are successful have the most descendants, and those that are not successful have the less or no descendants and die out. Luxury beings are the only living beings that can show also the opposite direction: being successful and having less or no descendants (children) and beeing unsuccessful and having the most descendants (children). This two cases would immediately lead to extinction, if they were completely embedded in nature, in natural environment. In the case of human beings it does not lead to extinction, if they are in situations of independence of nature; they often are in such situations, and then It depends on human decisions whether a group of human beings or even all human beings die out or not. Humans have two natures: (1) the real nature which all other living beings also have, (2) their own nature as their culture(s) which is (are) much independend of the real nature.

So when I say „human nature is human culture/s“, then I mean that - in a pure natural sense - humans are 98%-animals; so in this sense they have a 98%-animal nature and merely a 2%-human nature, but this 2% are their culture/s. And in a pure cultural sense this relation is inversely proportional.

If humans are humans to 100%, then merely to 2% because of their nature; but to 98% because of their culture/s!

„It will be a peaceful world when humans have eradicated themselves.“ (**) ?

When humans have eradicated themselves there will be no one who knows what a peaceful world is.

„Up until then, so long as we have people who divorce and separate we will also not have syncretistic anything.“ (*) ?

A syncretistic religion does not require an unification of all humans. But nevertheless: if we all get a syncretistic religion, then those who don't want this syncretistic religion will also get a syncretistic religion (that's logical, even tautological!), although they do not want it, although they are not religiously (but for example: economically or politically) unified.

But the question is: Will we get a syncretistic religion? This syncretistic religion would be more syncretistic than all other syncretistic religions before it. Probably a syncretistic religion for all humans (the minority is included) is already in the making but not a complete reality yet, because those who are against it are still a majority.

A minority of students who do not study are nevertheless students - because they are as matriculated as the majority of students who study.

Replace the word „students“ by the word „syncretistic humans“ and the word „study“ by the word „believe in a syncretistic religion“.

Obama said: „No religion is responsible for terrorism.“
Is the system of greed and lust responsible for terrorism?

Obama said: „People are responsible for terrorism.“
Are the globalistic people responsible for terrorism?

Obama said: „The terrorists do not speak for“ all „Muslims.“
Does Obama speak for all US Americans?
...?
Did Truman speak for for all US Americans?
Did Churchill speak for all English / British?
Did Hitler speak for all Germans / Aryans?
Did Stalin speak for all Russians / Soviets?
Did Roosevelt speak for all US Americans?
Did Lenin speak for all Russians / Soviets?
Did Wilson speak for all US Americans?
...?
...?
...?
Did Napoleon speak for all French(men)?
...?
...?
...?
...?
...?
...?
...?
...?
...?
Did Caesar speak for all Ancient Romans?
...?
...?
...?
Did Alexander „the Great“ speak for all Ancient Greeks?

There was a Japanese-Soviet Nonaggression Pact during the whole Second World War, and this Japanese-Soviet Nonaggression Pact was the reason for no aggression in the East of the Soviet Union (Siberia). The Soviets were very much interested in it because of the front in the West of the Soviet Union (Russia): they did not want two fronts. But the Japanese were also very much interested in it because of similar reasons. It would have been very stupid, if one of them had attacked the other one.

Each of the three forms (monarchy, aristocracy, democracy) has its degenerated form which can always be interpreted as the negative form. So each of the three positive or better forms and each of the three negative or worse forms are merely subordinated forms of one form, thus there are three superordinated forms and six subordinated forms:

1) the form of one ruler with (1a) monarchy as the positive subordinated form and (1b) tyranny as the subordinated negative form;
2) the form of few rulers with (2a) aristocracy as the positive subordinated form and (2b) oligarchy as the subordinated negative form;
3) the form of many rulers with (3a) democracy as the positive subordinated form and (3b) ochlocracy as the subordinated negative form.

In reality there are often mixed forms; but, if so, then one form dominates the other forms anyway (you may compare it with a club, i.e. a sports club).

There would never have been any industrial „revolution“ (the better word is „explication“), if the Faustian people had not brought it to them.

The whole culture of the islamic people is a religious culture - that means that their lives are dominated by religion / exercise systems (see above).

In almost all cases cultures have many forms, thus not only religious forms. Religious forms can influence the culture, of course, but the religion of the Faustian culture has never been as powerful as the Islamic religion. The „Abrahamic“ myth is not important for that, and Christianity, which was and is the official but not the real religion of the Faustians, is not as monotheistic or henotheistic as Islam and Jewry are (but that does also not as much matter as each whole culture matters). It makes not very much sense to isolate religions from their cultures and their landscapes they belong to. Christianity is not an original religion of the Occident but of the Orient, especially of the Oriental desert (also Jewry and Islam); but the mix of this Oriental desert religion on the one side and the landscape and climate of the Occident (boreal, nordic, rainy, just mild: not too warm and not too cold) and its original culture on the other side is a successful one. One of many examples is that in the Occident religion and state (secaular politics) are seperated from each other.

Humans lived and live in different (A) cliamte zones and in different (B) cultural zones.

Cultural zones mean cultures that are influenced by the climate zones (see above) and other circumstances. It is no accident that nearly all monotheistic / henotheistic religions arised in deserts, and when they were brought to people in cultural zones without deserts, then the religions changed more or less (depending on where, how much different these zones were). I will not go into details because of the derailing danger.

The group „X“ commits crime, and instead of the group „X“ the group „Y“ gets punishment for that crime.

We ourselves can solve most of our problems and do it in many various ways. We do not need any Freud, Freudian, Freudianist, or other preachers. Most children grow up without any negative results of problems, because they solve their problems themselves and with the help of their parents and other relatives. If the revers were true, then there would be more problematic children or more so-called „experts“ who design problematic children. And indeed: since we have so-called „experts“ the problematic children have been becoming more and more. So-called „experts“ design problems and problematic humans, and I know the reason behind it. For the same reason we also do not need any Marx, Marxian, Marxist, or other preachers. If you start to consult a so-called „expert“, then you start the misuse.

In most cases, a person gets more problems than this person had before the „careful analysis“ you mentioned (**). Such cases are not or mostly not published, because publishing such cases is forbidden or at least a taboo.

In the Land of Lies war is „peace“, ideality is „reality“, dreams are „non-dreams“, deseases are „cures“, ..., and so on.

Would you agree, if I said that language can damage people? You do not need medicines or drugs in order to become damaged, if you have a language. Language is as effective as or even more effective than medicines and drugs are. The effect of language is a lengthy one, is awful long. Therefore it is very suitable when it comes to influence anyone and everyone, each person and a whole society. Look into societies where is no psycho-„market“ (for example in Amazonia or other non-urban regions) - the people of this societies have almost no problems, because they are not damaged by the psycho-„market“, the socio-„market“, and other hyper-modern „markets“ nobody needs. This „markets“ indicate the modern civilisation and its abnormality. Civilisations as urban societies yield such „markets“ which „market“ the abnormality. So again: The Occidental culture in its modern or civilised forms designs, constructs, produces patients in order to „market“ them, because there is no other possibility anymore to control them. The main effect of that is a society of damaged people, of patients.

Patients are made. Therefore some psychiatrists imitated lawyers by calling their patients „clients“.

I mean that people who are normal become abnormal because of the psycho-„market“, the interests of those who become rich and powerful, because they really make patients, problematic humans ... - as I said before. This finding is a historical fact!

But note: We are not only talking about psychiatry but about the whole psycho-„market“.

Human beings are group-living animals - just like pack animals. Since the human beings came into the world - whenever their „birth“ was - they have been being such group-living animals (naturally) and group-living humans (culturally). So it is very difficult for them to not differentiate themselves from others, especially from other group-living animals (naturally) and group-living humans (culturally). They can not give up their attitude of „we-are-not-them“, „we-do-not-want-to-be-like-them“, „we-are-against-them“, „we-fight-against-them“ and so on.

If such a group becomes too large, then it becomes less controllable; if such a group becomes too small, then it also becomes less controllable, because it can easily be conquered /captured by a foreign group. Now, „put 1 and 1 together“ and think of the current Occicental culture which is too large because of its economic restraints (i.e. expansion) and too small because of its individualism, extreme egoism. So you have a too large group with too much too small subgroups as one phenomenon. This group can very easily be conquered /captured by a foreign group.

Cultures, empires, nations and other large societies are too large; but if there are already different cultures, empires, nations and other large societies, then they also have already changed their strategy in order to defend themselves. Ideally a human group should consist of not more than about 100 members, but the history of the last 6000 years shows which strategy more and more humans chose in order to defend their groups: some groups became large (too large!), many groups remained small (in an oriiginally ideal sense which became a disadvantage), and many of this many groups got conquered / captured by the large groups. And each time when this large groups became „civilisations“ with economic restraints (see above) - „expansion is everything“ (Cecil Rhodes) -, then the small groups becamne less and less. So today we have some very large groups and some very small groups, and one of the very large (very much too large) groups is a group of individualsm, thus exists of too much very too small subgroups. That's dangerous. Another very large group which is not a group of individualism behaves like every large group which has not too much very too small subgrous, thus wants to expand and to prevent individualism. That's dangerous. too. - So the Occident has many strategic problems: enemies inside (the very too small subgroups) and outside (foreign groups), economic restraints (i.e. expansion) which strengthen those enemies, .... The West is both very too large and very too small (because of too much individualism), and that means tendentious weakness, thus "feed" for those groups which are strong, large, and intelligent enough to conquere / capture it.

The more a group grows the more strategies are needed to control this group. If a group has its enemies both outside (foreign groups) and inside (i.e. its own subgroups and parts of foreign groups) of itself, then this group is tendentially weak and destroys itself from inside (demographic facts are included - of course), so that this group's enemies just have to await their best chance.

Repetitions or recurrences belong to development like cycles or spiral cycles to change in general. That's fundamental. So the question is whether repetitions or recurrences can really be „caused by a fix“ or „based ... on such ... types of dream content“. If you have a pain and a dream and think they depend on each other, then it is probably not in that way that your dream is the cause of your pain and the repetition or recurrence of your dream and pain, but in that way that your pain causes your dream, and both are under the „control“ of repetition or recurrence. If you try to delete repetition or recurrence, you will fail, because you can not delete them as such, but you can i.e. change „negative“ repetitions or recurrences into „positive“ repetitions or recurrences by changing your actions and thoughts. Try to change your actions and thoughts, so that your dream contents can also change. In that case, a tiny part of your development changes, what means that the repetitions or recurrences also change.

What has really become new since the modern Occidental times is the huge dimension, the technical development, especially the enormous acceleration of the technical development, and - as a result - the possibility that machines replace all human beings (**|**). Humans have always tried to design a new religion, but this time the designers will probably either integrate or exterminate all humans of this planet, and this will probably include a huge reduction of the number of the humans.

„Did history prove him or others right or not?“ (**) is also a complicated question becauss history has not ended yet (**|**). Did history prove (for example) Platon right or not? Who decides this? History decides. And history has not ended yet.

Was it right to invernt enginess, especially steam engines? What does history prove in that case? Huh?

- „Will machines completely replace all human beings?“ ** ** =>
- „Is it possible that machines completely replace all humans?“ ** ** =>

Hedonism leads i.a. to the conclusion that we should just believe whatever gives us the most pleasure to believe.

The dialectic process as Hegel's method is pretty fundamental. One can not deny it. It is true. it is true in the sense that Hegel meant.

And hedonism leads i.a. to more lies and hypocrisy, to any kind of socialism, to any knd of anti-socialism, to any knd of facsism, to any knd of anti-fascism, to any knd of feminism, to any knd of anti-feminism, just to demise.

Hedonism is one of the attributes of modernity (its main attribute is - by the way - any kind of exaggerated mobilisation).

„Isms“ are always extreme / unhealthy forms of decadence / demise. So i.e. hedonism and decadence have very much to do with each other.

The antagonist of the hedonism will not vanish or sublate in a synthesis as long as the hedonism itself will not vanish or sublate in a synthesis. Either both vanish or sublate in a synthesis or no one of them.

The year 1929 was the beginning of a world economic crisis; and if we consider that since the end of the 18th century something like a world economic crisis has been averagely occurring every 70 years, then we can easily calculate when the next world economic crisis after 1929 should have averagely begun: 1999. But 1999 a world economic crisis did not occure, but the Euro was implemented, probably in order to prevent a world economic crisis; howsoever, the next world economic crisis after 1929 began 2007, 78 years after 1929.

The world economic crisis of 1929 was released in the USA by financiers, and the world economic crisis of 2007 was also released in the USA by financiers.

„Do we, really, need to have our dollars backed up by gold?“ (**). No. You do not need to, but you should have your dollars backed up by gold, because gold is much more safe than paper. If it comes to a monetary crisis and your dollars are not backed up by gold, then all your dollars are lost, because of the lack of safety.

„Could society function without it?“ (**). Yes. It could, and it can, because you and I live in such societies, and they function as long as there is no monetary crisis.

The less safe your money is, the more risk you have. The dollar is as safe as the trust (faith, belief) in it is safe. Thus the dollar is one of the least safe currencies of the world. The dollar and other currencies are risk currencies which have their safety merely in paper and people who have trust (faith, belief) in this currencies.

Immaterial money makes the 1% of the humans richer and richer (more powerful and more powerful) and the 99% of the humans poorer and poorer (less powerful and less powerfull). Both groups differ more and more from each other, so that they have nothing to do with each other anymore. Perhaps they will become two different subspecies of the species homo sapiens or even two different species.

If the distinction of the so-called „progressives“ and the so-called „conservatives“ makes any sense (beside the propaganda), then this: only the conservatives can stop the destructive exploitation of all living beings, the whole planet Earth, and its neighborhood (this all has to be concerved!), because the progressives are hedonists , thus the most destructive exploiters. Exploitation is also one of the main reasons and motivations behind Nietzsche's „Umwertung aller Werte“ („trans- or revaluation of all values“). Nietzsche's „Umwerter aller Werte“ are nihilists, antitradionalists (antitgenenealogists), try to exclude all traditions, all conservatives, and if they are successful, then all traditions, all traditoinalists (conservatives) are excluded, sidelined, dropped and relatively soon forgotten.

There are many aspects which refer to the human reproduction: biological differentiation (for example: pregnancy), other differentiations, for example in the sense of specialisation or division of labor (for example: homework versus other works, gathering versus hunting, ... and so on ....), ... and so on ....

The evolution of the human beings implies the differentiations / specialisations. If there had not been such a specialisation, there would never have been any human being.

When these human differentiations / specialisations will vanish, then the human beings will vanish. That's clear.

Males and females should be different in order to prevent the extinction of homo sapiens. Without their differentiations / specialisations they would never have become humans and will never survive.

The Romantic period was a different period to the period of today. Now we have to „judge“ anything and everything „optimistically“ - it is like it was and is in all communistic and other socialistic societies. The period of Romantic was very much different to what happened after it. I do not want a commanded pessimism or a commanded optimism (besides: pessimism and optimism are convertible) or any other kind of depression of communistic and other socialistic societies. The Romantic period has very much to do with irony and also self-irony. Don't confuse your situation with the situation of the people during the Romantic period.

Is the difference between sex and gender already completely hidden behind the English language, namely behind the word „gender“?„Gender“ is a word of rhetoric, of political strategy, of control.

The rulers need the lie in order to rule, and those who are ruled need the lie in order to not tbe pushed over the edge. The truth is that humans need the lie and that humans also need the truth in order to overcome the lie, but the question is whether and, if yes, when they will fully overcome the lie.

Human beings are very specific living beings: animal-not-wannabes on the one side and god-wannabes on the other side. Humans are pretty much animals, but do not want to be animals, and they are not pretty much god(s), but want to be god(s). Humans are not able to be real animals and not able to be real god(s) - they are between the two, so a human being means a being between an animal and a god.

The Ancient Romans said to someone who was as presumptuous as you seem to be: „Remember that you are a mortal being“.

Gods are no mortal beings - this belongs to the definition of „god(s)“.

Some mllion years humans (including some ancestors of homo sapiens) lived together with wild animals. Since about 6000 years humans have been living together - more or less - with pets and other harmless animals and not or hardly with wild animals. You personally have never lived together with wild animals but merely with pets and other harmless animals.

Since the date when humans became „modern“ - whenever it was - they have been following the idea that „something“ should do the work for them, but they have never been considering that that also implies the possibility of their complete replacement by this „something“. Human beings as luxury beings have been considering mostly the comfort but rarely the danger of this development.

Who of the humans is really able to decide in place of every and any human being, especially those of the future?
I answer: No one of the humans. In that case the humans play „God“

In the EU the laws are not read but just signed. They are too complex and very rarely understandable for the human EU representives.

Education is a major point, but the current education seems to tend to its lowest point.

By the way: 2007 the number of humans who do not live in cities was topped for the first time by the number of humans who live in cities. That has never been the case before 2007.

Creating false guilt is always good for those (0.001—1% of all humans) who create and manage it as a moral tenet, but who are „those“ today? If „they“ are really „religious“ people, their „religion“ is a political, governmental, financial, criminal one, a modern ideology for the other 99—99.99% and with idols (false gods) which are called e.g. „Political Correctness“, „Affirmative Action“, „Feminism“, „Genderism“, and other kinds of racism, sexism, communism, capitalism.

The current rhetoric trick is that each of those who create false guilt for profit says e.g.: „I am not religious.“ But each of them is religious, although in a modern manner, thus in an ideological manner.

Should each adult person become a childlike person or/and the species homo sapiens become the species homo erectus or even one species of the genus australopithecus?

„Man sollte nicht überrascht sein, wenn sich zeigt, wie mit fortschreitender Weltvernetzung die Symptome der Misanthropie anwachsen. Wenn Menschenfurcht eine naturwüchsige Antwort auf unwillkommene Nachbarschaft bedeutet, läßt sich angesichts der erzwungenen Fernnachbarschaften der meisten mit den meisten eine misanthropische Epidemie ohne Beispiel vorhersehen. Das wird nur jene in Erstaunen setzen, die vergessen haben, daß die Ausdrücke »Nachbar« und »Feind« herkömmlich nahezu Synonyme waren.“ - Peter Sloterdijk, Im Weltinnenraum des Kapitals, 2005, S. 220.
Translation:
„It should come as no surprise if it transpires that the symptoms of misanthropy increase with the progressive interconnection of the world. If fear of humans means a primal response to unwelcome neighbours, an unprecedented misanthropic epidemic would be the foreseeable result of the imposed long-distance vicinity between most people and most others. This should only amaze those who have forgotten that the words »neighbour« and »enemy« were traditionally almost synonymous.“ - Peter Sloterdijk, The World Interior of Capitalism, 2005, p. 141.

The internet is a digital modernity within the modernity. If you know who did benefit, who benefits, and who will benefit from modernity, then you also know who did benefit, who benefits, and who will benefit from the internet as the digital modernity.

The abilities of human beings are too complex, so if there are, for example, two neighborly human groups (e.g. „X“ and „Y“) and the human group „X“ does „x“ and the human group „Y“ does „y“, then it is very much probable that one of this two human groups will sooner or later change its doing, unless these two groups are isolated from each other. Huamn beings have far more possibilities of doing or behaving, far more capabilities or skills than e.g. ants. Ants are great specialists - but they do always the same.

Evolution is more natural than cultural, wheras history is more cultural than natural. It is a difference - often even a huge difference - whether living beings like the human beings develop naturally or culturally. It is a difference whether the brain of the humans has grown or the constitutional state is established by the Occidental humans. Evolution is more important than history when it comes to naturally survive. Evolution came before history - the revers is not possible. At first you, for example, have to change from an animal to an human before you can change from an natural human with natural and cultural evolution to a cultural human with natural and cultural evolution and then to a cultural human with history, thus with natural and cultural evolution, and - now: of course - cultural history.

Humans are luxury beings; so if you want them to not have luxury, then you do nothing else than the rulers do: make the 1% of all humans (the rulers) richer and richer and the 99% of all humans poorer and poorer.

The „Brazilianisation“ of the world is a process of „3rd-world-isation“ which will lead to a tiny, crowded, and very ugly „islands“ of the 99% of all humans with a tiny luxury and to a huge, sparsely populated, and very beautiful „island“ of the 1% of all humans with a huge luxury.

Don't forget that jobs have also to do with luxury (wealth). So if somemone wants to find a job, this one also needs some things which are usually luxuries and suddenly necessities in order to (get a job to) get more luxury (wealth). So luxuries, although usually not needed, can become necessities, and if they do, then merely in order to get other, thus more luxuries, not in any and every case but in order to reproduce and propagate luxury in general, regardless whether they are for anyone and everyone or not. So luxury can only find its end by disasters, catastrophes, cataclysms.

„Give me the control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws.“

What most people do not understand is the economy, especially the economy of money. So they often confuse economical causes with pure sociological or pure psychological causes, thus with something that has nothing to do with the reality.This misunderstanding is exploited; so those humans who control the other humans have an interest in that misunderstanding and strive to keep the controlled humans in ignorance.

Is DARPA really „independent from other military research and development and reports“ (**)?

„Wo immer das Interesse an Enterbung und Neubeginn aufflammt, stehen wir auf dem Boden der authentischen Moderne.“ - Peter Sloterdijk, Die schrecklichen Kinder der Neuzeit, 2014.
Translation:
„Wherever the interest in disinheritance and a new start flares, we stand on the floor of the authentic modernity.“

Europeans averagely see guns all 70 or 80 years - when the rulers bring their war to Europe.

I was told - many years ago - that two cities in the US with almost the same number of inhabitants had very different criminal statistics because they had different gun laws: one city had a very high crime rate and a very strict / tight gun law, while the other city had a low crime rate and a lax / slack gun law.

If a man (or a woman!) wants to rape a child and to make the rape of children „legally“, then the easiest way is that he (or she!) tells again and again the lie that „children are atheists“, because the probability that this will become a law is not low, if the situation allows it. This was the case in the so-called „comministic“ countries (especially in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia), because all people of this societies had to be „atheists“. If all people are „believed“ (!) and have to be „atheistic“, then it is very easy for the rulers and their functionaries to capture all children by removing them from their allegedly „theistic“ parents and all other allegedly „theistic“ members of their families in order to legally rape this children. The definition of „theist“ is arbitrarily dictated by the dictators, and that means everyone and anyone who does not conform to this dictatorship can be called a „theist“ and be punished by death because of „being a theist“. So the rapists of children can - and do (!) - become more and more.

If anybody had a cow, then this one was called a „bourgeois“ and then killed. This happened, for example, in Ukraine (at that time a part of the Soviet empire) many times, because the Ukranians were not as poor as the other Soviet subjects yet (in other words: they were not „equalised“ yet). And if anybody was suspected (merely suspected!) to be religious or theistic (and the dictator dictated the meaning and interpretation of these words), then this one was also punished and then killed.

Those who do not know or have forgotten what happened in the so-called „communistic“ dictatorships do not change anything of the historical facts. It is this ignorance that opens the floodgates to the demands of all dictatorships.

Did you, your parents, or your grandparents live during the dictatorship of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot or during the dictatorship of other „communistic“ dictators? If one was conformed (not striking, not conspicuous), then this one could have luck, because whether one was punished or not depended on the the other people around this one as well, on the situation, on the fact whether they wanted this one to be punished, ... and so on, thus not only but mainly on the dictators and their functionaries.

How I know this? Not by experience but by science: I have studied history - among other academic disciplines - at the university.

In Cambodia it was not even allowed to wear glasses because that was interpreted as „being intellectual“, and being intellectual was punished by death. Have you never heard of the killing fields?

And China had Mao's terror regime and „cultural revolution“: 100 000 000 people in China were killed, many of them because of theism.

History is science, a science discipline. Of course. And science is also history, because science has its own history. Of course. Studying science history was one of my favorites.

How would you (**) call history then? „Art“? No, history is a science discipline. It is not like physics or chemistry. But that does not matter in order to be a science discipline.

B.t.w.: I also studied economics and linguistics.
Do you not accept that this are science disciplines?
If so, then you are again wrong.

If the greatest degree of stable social freedom is promised, then this promise should also be kept / held.

Culture is a bit different to nature. And the human culture is like an „island“ in a huge „ocean“ (nature).

The capitalistic countries or empires do not always have the same degree of capitalism. Some of them have also a relatively high degree of socialism. But capitalism and socialism are merley the two sides of the same faked coin. If there is merely capitalism, then the market is a liberalistic market or something like a place of Darwin's „survival of the fittest“; but if there is merely socialism, then it is a dead socialism because of the lack of capitalism. So capitalism is always before (although not long before) the socialism. The socialism depends on the capitalism, and the capitalism is not capable of expanding its markets ad infinitum without being stopped by a huge catastrophe. Should it be in the interest of the capitalists, at least the „late“ capitalists, to prevent the disappearance of the socialism (because a coin must have two sides)? Yes and no - because it depends on the development stage of the said faked coin, and e.g. in its last development stage it is not possible anymore to prevent the disappearance of the socialism. The situation of that faked coin is almost a dilemma.

The means of the production can also be controlled by relatively small commons - not merely by states, institutions, or private capitalists.

I often use „communism“ and „leftish socialism“ as hyponyms and „egalitarianism“ as their hyperonym - because in this case it is necessary to differentiate.

Socialism is a form of distributivism. Especially the lefish socialism wants to publicly (via state, thus via taxpayers) distribute like a huge monster of Robin Hood. A small common has nothing to do with states or taxpayers. Commons have a long tradition - but unfortunatley also their tragedy (**). This tragedy is merely then a huge problem, if the commons are no real commons anymore but a cartel / trust or antitrust of so-called „global players“.

I also say that the state-controlled means of production is a bad idea, but nonetheless: socialism is also a form of distributivism. Socialists take money from the taxpayers and give it to the poor („proletariat“, „precariat“). It is a fact which we can also call „distribution“,more precisely „distribution after theft“, or just „redistribution“. One should not deny this fact, although state-controlled means of production is a bad idea. But how can the means of production really be controlled by all people without any help of a powerful institution like state or church?

All authority must be in the form of very small groups / cooperatives. That is important. Otherwise the authority would become corrupt, all economic and political relations and situations would again become the same old (although called "modern") corrupted relations and situations.

If you (**) think that socialism has nothing to do with „distribution“, especially „redistribution“, then you are wrong.

Distributi(vi)sm has to do with distribution. Nobody can change this. And socialism has also to do with distribution, especially redistribution, regardless whether socialists use these words merely rhetorically or not. We know that socialists distribute or, more precisely said, redistribute wealth, and according to this fact we can say that socialism is a form of distributi(vi)sm. Nevertheless it is not the same distributi(vi)sm as the distributi(vi)sm of the Cathoilc social teaching. Did you just notice the word „social“ in the term „Cathoilc social teaching“?

Socialism needs capitalism, although the socialists say that socialism has nothing to do with capitalism. Socialism can also be a form of distributi(vi)sm, although the distributi(vi)sts say that distributi(vi)sm has nothing to do with both capitalism and socialism.

The Catholic social teaching does not have any patent of the meaning of the word „distributi(vi)sm“. Would you say that merely the members of the party „X“ should be allowed to define the word „socialism“? I do not accept this.

The Catholic social teaching is social. Look again at its name: Catholic social teaching. And socialism is a form of distributi(vi)sm, regardless whether socialism is different to the Catholic social teaching. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

Are merely the leaders of capitalism allowed to say what capitalism is? Thus even in a webforum called „I Love Philosophy“ is no other definition allowed?
Are merely the leaders of socialism allowed to say what socialism is? Thus even in a webforum called „I Love Philosophy“ is no other definition allowed?
Are merely the leaders of distributi(vi)sm allowed to say what distributi(vi)sm is? Thus even in a webforum called „I Love Philosophy“ is no other definition allowed?

My definition has to do with logic not with rhetoric like your definition. You do not know anything about the realisation of your odd kind of distributivism, because the statemnets of the Catholic social teaching are not more than theoretical statements - means: that there is no practical example. The only practical examples we have are those of the history where I referred to. The rest must be defined, preferably by logic.

Everyone - except you and some other people who are dense about this topic - know what the word „distribution“ means, what the morpheme „ism“ of the word „distribution“ means, and what the word „distributioni(vi)sm“ means. A philosopher does not have to follow the definition of the Catholic social teaching (I - myself - am a Catholic, but that does not mean that I obey everything what the Catholic church said, says and will say).

Why should it not be allwoed to use the word „distributivism in a very loose and generic way“? Please do not forget that there is no practical evidence. The examples of the premodern economic situations do not count, because we are talking about modern economic situations.

You are wrong. Because of the fact that socialism needs money in order to redistribute wealth, it depends on capitalism. That is logical. Therefore socialism became a part of the economic system.

I would like to read some arguments for the thesis that the distributivism of the Catholic social teaching will have a chance to win in the near future. Are you interested in such arguments or not?

Would you agree, if someone said that most of the human governments are like cancerous ulcers, so that the said cells become more and more ill cells / cells that wrongly handle their environment and will be dead soon?

Humans are not perfect. They are not capable of being 100%-animals and also not capable of being gods.

Africa and Latin America are the prey of the others anyway. They have been being it since the 15th/16th century.

Economically Europe is still much bigger than US, China, India, Indonesia.
Demographically Europe (750 millions) is much bigger than US (317 millions) and Indonesia (238 millions) but much smaller than China (1370 millions) and India (1210 millions).

The European Union (EU) and the Eurozone are also obstacles for some countries, for example for Germany, Austria, Holland. In other words: there is also a brake in the EU and in the Eurozone, and this brake brakes as a motor brake, and the motor of the EU and Eurozone is Germany. So Germany could probably do better without any EU and Eurozone. Like Japan, and Japan is economically comparable with Germany. The EU and especially the Euro is a huge burden for Germany. From the German point of view the EU and the Eurozone have never been economically necessary. The EU and the Eurozone were politically forced - by dictatorship, thus without any democratic processes. Until the early 1990s the economical rank of the top 3 was: 1) US, 2) Germany (until 1990: only West Germany), 3) Japan. And it was not Germany's so-called „reunion“ but the EU that forced Germany into that huge burden. This burden grows and grows, and there is no other country in Europe or elsewhere that is capable of bearing this burden. But some states, especially the United States, are interested in the economical destruction of Europe.

The so-called „Shanghai Cooperation Organisation“ which is a political, economic and military organisation and was founded in 2001 in Shanghai.

Germany is the leader - it did and does not want to be the leader but had and has to be it because of the economical and political facts (that is what I meant by the word „forced“ [**]) . But okay, now we have this facts that have been making and leading to the scapegoat role for so long.

The „price“ you mentioned (**) could be paid in another, namely a better way. That was my main point. No EU, no Eurozone, no NATO but nonetheless a powerful political, economic and mliitary organisation of European countries without any influence of the USA. It is namely a contradiction that there is a military parrtnership with an economic enemy („competitor“) like the USA, because this means the contradictional politics between Europe and the USA.

First of all, the reasons for wars to happen are always given just because of the nature of living beings in general and of human beings in particular. Secondly, econimical wars as several forms of extreme „competitions“ are typical for the modern „humanity“ and always accompanied by media wars (you can even see it here on ILP). Thirdly, the kind of war I am most afraid of is the so-called „civil war“, and this kind of war is what Europe will probably have to face. The contradictional politics of and between Europe and the USA are one of the main reasons why Europe will probably have to face a civil war. I just said „probably“, thus not „certainly“. But the probability is not low.

If you can't defeat your enemy economically, then defeat him demographically. And if you will have defeated him demographically, then it will soon be easy to defeat him economically too. This implies the high probability of a civil war.

Again: I did not say that it is certain but merely probable that there will be war in Europe before 2050 (**).

By the way the current US debt:
US national debt: $ 18 320 000 000 000.
US debt per taxpayer $ 154 500.
US debt per citizen: $ 57 000.
(Cp. US Debt Clock)

Destroy the motor of a car, and this car will not function anymoe.
Destroy Germany as the motor of the EU and the Eurozone, and the EU and Eurozone will not function anymoe.

Since the wars in Central and Southwest Asia and in Africa that are caused by the USA and Israel the number of immigrants in Germany has increased gigantically.
Since the beginning of the huge problems in Greece Germany's debts have also increased gigantically.
This obviously never ending demographical and economical war will lead to the fact that the EU and Eurozone will not function anymoe.

The dasein / existence of the current machines is authentic. If the machines will remain as they currently are and humans will still live then, then the machines will perhaps cause an authentic dasein (existence, life) of the humans by use of SAM.

But if there is a critical difference, if there are others who do not fit SAM, then they will try to infiltrate SAM and perhaps destroy SAM.

Many humans - especailly most of the current humans - do not want to hope. Those humans want everything now!

States as we know them will probably disappear, because they are too expensive and can be easily replaced by a machine network that works much more efficiently than a human state. This is already in works. Feel free to call this machine newtork „state“, but keep in mind that this machine newtork will be much more than a human state.

You (**) told me that you believed in the „world peace“/„perpetual peace“ (Kant), so at least in this way you are a Kantian. .... Do not forget ....

Japan could also have been the place of origin of the Bubonic Plague - think of the many volcanoes in and around Japan. But it is an unanswered question whether the Black Death was caused by a meteorite strike or by a pathogenic germs or viruses.

A society in which only the middle class is taxed (as it is in the U.S.) is almost dead.

That is a good questions, because this thread is not only about Christianity but also about economy, at least capitalism; and mostly all good questions are not easy to answer. I strictly referred to the op of this thread when I wrote the post you are referring to (**|**). So we could ask Ierrellus how he meant the term „early Christianity“ in the op of his thread. But at first I try to answer your question. To me the most authentic Christianity is identical with the Christianity of the Late Antiquity on the one side and of the Early Middle Ages of the other side. But this thread is about both christianity and economy, and Christianity came to its economy in the early Early Middle Ages, beginning with - for example - St. Benedict of Nursia (480–547) who wrote an important rule which became the typical form of the Occidental monkhood (monasticism):

The monasteries became centers of the Occidental culture (science included - of course), economy, and so on. So the earliest typical Occidental form of economy has its roots in the monasteries. Whether this form can also be regarded as the earliest form of capitalism or not is indeed not easy to say, but I would say that this earliest typical Occidental form of economy led to the earliest typical Occidental form of capitalism. And the earliest typical Occidental form of capitalism was already achieved in the 8th century.

But we have to add another aspect, if we want to find out the earliest typical Occidental form of economy and especially the earliest typical Occidental form of capitalism. We have to consider the economy of all Germanic peoples, thus also of those Germanic peoples who conquered and settled the Roman Empire, because the Germanic peoples were the real founder of Europe and had a typical kind of economy, especially a typical kind of sea trade. The combination of their economy and the Christian monastery (cloister) economy led to the the earliest typical Occidental economy and especially the earliest typical Occidental capitalism.

If we seek what the true authentic Christianity is, then we might find it in the Late Antiquity, but because of the fact that this early Christianity was suppressed and pursued until the early 4th century it did not have its own economy style - it had the pure poorness. So economically and socially the Christianity of its first 300 years was the the Roman empire's proletariat, so to speak in modern terms. The proletariat and the modern capitalism are not incompatible, Ierrellus. They are compatible - unfortunately.

I did not deny the fact that other ancient societies did not have economy or even capitalism. They had their economy and capiatlism. Of course. If you really want to know what I was talking about, then you have to read my post more carefully than you did. I said that the mix of the Germanic form of economy and the Christian monastic form of economy led to the typical Occidental capitalism - and not the Greek and Roman form of economy. You did not notice that I was talking about forms of economy - because of the op of this thread.

I was talking about historical facts every schoolchild knows. It is a historical fact that Christianity was a huge part of the Roman empire's proletariat during the first 300 years of Christianity; it is also a historical fact that Christianity became powerful after this first 300 years of Christianity; it is also a fact that the Germanic people conquered and settled the Roman empire and that they had a typical kind of economy, especially a typical kind of sea trade (you do not know which typical kind of economy I meant); and it is also a fact that Benedict of Nursia (480–547) wrote an important rule which became the typical form of the Occidental monkhood (monasticism):

The gap between rich and poor is widening. It is similar to the situation in the Roman empire of the Late Antiquity. And just as decadent. The only difference between the Roman Empire of the Late Antiquity and the current Dollar empire is the extent: currently the injustice is truly global.

„Occidental“ means „Western“, namely „Western Europe“. Did you know this? Greece is not Occidental. „Occidental“ is a geographical and a cultural word. Did you know this? You can find Greece in the South East of Europe - not in the West of Europe. I am sorry, but that is also a fact that you do not want to be true. It is not my „idea“ that Greece is in the South East of Europe. The other point is that „Occidental“ religiously means the Western part of Christianity, thus the Roman Catholic part of Europe. It is not my „idea“ that „Occidental“ religiously means the Western part of Christianity.

During the time I was talking about the said post Germanic peoples settled in the whole Europe; some of them became, for example, Romans which means Rome + Germans = Romans, or they remained Germanic peoples and/or suppressed the peoples of the conquered territories and forced them to speak their language and live according to all their habits, for example in the territory that later was called England. How did they get there? An example: **.

Before the conquests.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_ ... ire_period .

They all were Germanic tribes - except the Huns.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration ... Chronology .

You have to consider the history of the Germanic peoples and of the Christianity in order to understand the Occidental culture - religiously the Roman Catholic and Protestantic Europe, geographically the Central, West, North, Northwest, South, Southwest, and some parts of the East of Europe.

Belisar's success was of short time. The territories in Italy and in South Spain he conquered for a while were completely reconquered by the Germans (at last by the Langobards), by us.

It has been proven that the economy of the Occident (the Christian Occident is meant!) can only be based on both Germanic peoples and Christianity, namely Roman Catholic and later also Protestantic Christianity. So Belisar had nothing to do with it, because he was a Byzantine, an Orthodox Christian, thus a man of the Orient (East Europe and West Asia). This was how the Europeans divided the world at that time as well as later and how they divide it today too: West and East. (And by the way: I am not against the people of the East - the mother of my daughter is Greek, and my current wife has lived in Greece for 12 years).

1) Is robbery also a form of economy?
1,1) Is robbery also a form of capitalism?
2) Has Christianity anything to do with economy and capitalism?
If yes:
2,1) Is the Catholic formula „ORA ET LABORA“ important for economy?
2,1,1) Is the Catholic formula „ORA ET LABORA“ important for capitalism?
2,2) Is the ethics of Protestantic performance / achievement important for economy?
2,2,1) Is the ethics of Protestantic performance / achievement important for capitalism?
3) Is economy avoidable?
If yes:
3,1) Is economy avoidable by Christianity?
4) Is capitalism avoidable?
If yes:
4,1) Is capitalism avoidable by Christianity?

Answers:
1) Yes.
1,1) Yes.
2) Yes.
2,1) Yes.
2,1,1) Probably.
2,2) Yes.
2,2,1) Probably.
3) No.
3,1) No.
4) Perhaps.
4,1) Perhaps.

Even the Roman empire had its German Caesar, for example one of the Franks. More and more Germans became high military generals in the Roman army. The reason for all of this was the fact that the Romans had had no or too less offspring and to let more and more Germans into the empire - additionally there had been to German provinces in the Roman Emipre since Ceasar: Germania Inferior and Germania Superior. This Germans became either Romans or remained Germans. So the whole thing in the Roman empire during its last 5 centuries was the fact that the Romans had not enough children anymore - because of wealth. It was the same problem the Europeans have today. After Rome was conquered by the Germans there was no single territory - except in East Europe which was a steppe and Byzantium, although it had also many German inhabitants. There was a treaty between them. This all is well documented, also the fact that Augustus tried to prevent by law (LEX JULIA, 14 B.C.) that the Romans in his empire died out. After Rome was conquered there was no single place in Europe that was not ruled by Germans. Shall I name all the German kings of the Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages in the whole Europe? That would be a very long list. During the whole Middle Ages the Holy Roman empire of German Nation was the main power. One can say that the whole Occidental culture is a German culture. The nations as we know them today were formed later when the main power changed more and more to the side of the sea power, and the German Hanse was also a great sea power. „Sir“ Francis Drake was a robber, but he was also ennobled by the queen of England. Why? .... So we have to ask whether robbery is also a great business and a form of economy.

This time the danger is a global one, not only in an economical sense but also in a military and survival sense. Maybe this time the humans will not survive.

Natur and culture are not really a dichotomy, because culture is embedded in nature.

The NATO was formed as an alliance of defense, and now it has nothing at all to do with defense but exclusively with aggression.

The City of London is independent. It has nothing to do with London, England, the UK, and os on.

The „flower power society“ of the hippies failed, and your „sexocracy“ (**) will also fail. But some of those who have other desires will welcome your „sexocracy“, because your „sexocracy“ is no competitor for them. In the long run your „sexocracy“ will even lead to more inequality, injustice, frustration, and so on.

Your „sexocracy“ lacks too much of what human beings are with all their hopes, fears, desires, dislikes, and so on. Humans are more than sexual beings.

So you are saying: „Sex is the only fundamental desire where you don't die if you don't get it. It's the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That's why it's called the Sexocracy. The Sexocracy fulfills all human desires, it just prioritises sex.“ (**). It is like saying: (1) „Money is the only fundamental desire where you don't die if you don't get it. It's the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That's why it's called the plutocracy. The plutocracy fulfills all human desires, it just prioritises money.“ (2) „Work is the only fundamental desire where you don't die if you don't get it. It's the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That's why it's called the workocracy. The workocracy fulfills all human desires, it just prioritises work.“ (3) „Love is the only fundamental desire where you don't die if you don't get it. It's the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That's why it's called the loveocracy. The loveocracy fulfills all human desires, it just prioritises love.“ (4) „Music is the only fundamental desire where you don't die if you don't get it. It's the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That's why it's called the musicocracy. The musicocracy fulfills all human desires, it just prioritises music.“ (5) „The Demos is the only fundamental desire where you don't die if you don't get it. It's the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That's why it's called the democracy. The democracy fulfills all human desires, it just prioritises the demos.“ (6) „Nobility is the only fundamental desire where you don't die if you don't get it. It's the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That's why it's called the aristocracy. The aristocracy fulfills all human desires, it just prioritises nobility.“ (7) „A king is the only fundamental desire where you don't die if you don't get it. It's the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That's why it's called the monarchy. The monarchy fulfills all human desires, it just prioritises a king.“ (8) „A drug is the only fundamental desire where you don't die if you don't get it. It's the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That's why it's called the drugocracy. The drugocracy fulfills all human desires, it just prioritises a drug.“ (9) „War is the only fundamental desire where you don't die if you don't get it. It's the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That's why it's called the warocracy. The warocracy fulfills all human desires, it just prioritises a war.“ (10) „Machines are the only fundamental desire where you don't die if you don't get them. It's the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That's why it's called the machinocracy. The machinocracy fulfills all human desires, it just prioritises machines." .... And so on, and os on. .... The world is full of such examples. .... It is always the same error - and always based on a proton pseudos.

Sex is not the only fundamental desire where you don't die if you don't get it. It's not the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That's not why it's called the sexocracy. The sexocracy does not fulfill all human desires, it just does not prioritise sex. .... IIt is just the same old ideology with the same old error - based on the same old proton pseudos.

Equality is not the only fundamental desire where you don't die if you don't get it. It's not the area where society requires the greatest amount of reorganization. That's not why it's called the egalitarianism. The equality does not fulfill all human desires, it just does not prioritise equality. .... It is just the same old ideology with the same old old error - based on the same old proton pseudos.

There are other „drives“ and desires that are more important than sex. Do you not know them? Do you not breathe? Do you not drink? Do you not eat? Is there no metabolism in your body? If not, then you are no living being.

And there are many people who prefer, for example, work or love or money, not sex.

There are even people who hate sex, for eaxmple Anna Nicole Smith who said: „I hate for men to want sex all the time. I hate sex anyway.“

The engineering system and the social engineers of SAM are analogous to the central nervous system and the heart of a living body.

There must be a regulation. All things and phenomena that humans invent mut be regulated, because human inventions belong to culture. Nature has its own regulation.

If you control the money, then you will pretty soon also control almost all of the rest that can be contolled. This would not work, if the possibility of money control was forbidden. But it is not forbidden. The main reason for the possibility of money control is the compounded interest, thus usury, which causes the exponential increase of the debt, namely of those who were, are, and will be more and more indebted, thus controlled.

Demographically armed societies are dangerous to the other socities and also to themselves, because they tend more to violence than the demographically unarmed societies.

„»All problems in the West are due to males .. especially white males. Thus soon there shall be none. All problems in the East can be resolved by not having so many females. Together they will eternally chase each other.«“ (**). You mean that the survived white females and the survived non-white males will eternally chase each other?

Maybe it would have been better, if I had not used the word „explain“ in my opening post. Economics, sociology, and pschology can and do not explain, ... they show, and they show what the common sense already knows (or at least: should know). Economics can show more than sociology and psychology together.

Mathematical formulae do not show and prove or disprove anything and everything. But mathematical formulae are very suited for economics, despite the fact that some of them are completely redundant.The table (**) is not precise.

1) The cumulative share of the global population is not precisely indicated.

2) There are some small and very small but independent countries that have a higher GDP-per-capita than USA or Germany.

I just name Switzerland, Norway, Liechtenstein, Luxemburg, Monaco, Bermuda, Qatar ...

For comparison:
The per capita income in the provinces of the Roman empire in 14 AD:

Since the beginning of the so-called „Neolithic Revolution“ the human beings have been (unconsciously or even consciously) creating something in order to be replaced someday. This „something“ and this „someday“ come nearer and nearer.

Yes, we already have humanism, thus: much more wars than ever before and especially much more terrible / terroristic wars than ever before.

A „youth bulge“ is defined as high number of young people, namely:
1) Aged 0 to 29 years: 50% and more of the whole society;
1a) Aged 0 to 14 years: 30% and more of the whole society;
1b) Aged 15 to 29 years: 20% or more of the whole society.

Monaco has the oldest median age: 52.3 years.
Niger has the youngest median age: 15.2 years.

Africa: 73.3%
Middle East: 68.2%
Asia (excl. China): 42.8%
China: 19.0%
OECD Americas: 27.9%
Non-OECD Americas: 36.6%
OECD Europe: 11.5%
OECD Asia Oceania: 11.1%
Non-OECD Europe and Eurasia: -0.8%

In Gunnar Heinsohn's book „Menschenproduktion“, published in 1979, is mentioned that from a later view the graph of the world population development could look like this:

The world pouplation will become a poluation of a tiny number of very, very, very rich people and a huge number of very, very, very poor people - and nothing (except huge walls) between them.

If there will be no accident like a big failure of the humans or a huge natural catastrophe, then it will be nearly impossible to go back to times before the so-called „industrial revolution“.

What we do and will economically and technically experience with China is and will be the same that we have been economically and technically experiencing with Japan since the early 1970's and with South Corea since the late 1970's. The next one after China will probably be India.

One of the really good historians - Leopold von Ranke (1795-1886) - said once: „The historian has to become old, because one can merely understand great changes, if one has personally experienced great changes“ (loosely translated) ...! Leopold von Ranke became very old ....

The Darwinism is more an sociological/economical than a biological theory. No surprise to me, because Darwin was a Malthusianist, and Malthus was an economist.

When Darwinists talk about Darwinism, then they always talk about sociological and economical aspects.

Humans can never be the same, so the real rulers and their functionaries are always saying „humans must be the same to have peace“, because the real rulers know that that is impossible. It has always to do with the control of the 99%

War has much to do with the market and is one of the most profitable businesses, probably the most profitable business.

Right now, in this moment, as I write this sentence, the daily increase of the world population is about 230000!

A„free market“ must logically be an „absolutely free market“, otherwise it would not be a „free market“ but merely either a „relatively free market“ or „no market at all“. A „free market“ is very similar to what we call „nature“. Nobody can seriously deny that.

Wealth has also to do with demography, yes, but iwealth does not only correlate with demography. The societies with the lowest fertility are not the wealthiest societies:

Wars have much to do with the market. Government actors are not absolutely free; the decision they make are decisions of their money givers who are market actors and mostly also market rulers. Governement actors depend on their money givers. So one should say that the money givers are the real government actors. What is usually called „government actors“ is not much more than a joke. Wars depend on decisions, and those who decide to have war are those who domain and regulate the market, thus also the market of weapons and so on. We do not have a „free market“ but merely a relatively free market. If we had a free market, then we would not be modern humans but merely humans of the Stone Age. Since humans know what a market „is“ or „could be“ they have been regulating it. If one denied that, then this one would not know much about humans, their history, especially the history of the market and most especially of the word „market“.

A market is regulated. If the marekt was not regulated, then it would be free, thus like nature. Economically said, the difference between the so-called „capitalism“ and the so-called „communism“ is not the market but the regulation degree of the market.

A free market is similar to nature, not the same but similar. But the difference between a free market and a market (as we know it, namely regulated by rules/laws) is bigger than the difference between a free market and nature.

I am more competent (more intelligent or/and stronger etc.) than you. Thus: It depends on the competence whether one will be successful or not when it comes to beat another one up and to take another ones things.

Our market is not a free but a regulated market. Our market is regulated by rules (laws).

Your (**) concept of a „free market“ is just like the concept of a „market“ (= „regulated market“). My concept of a „free market“ differs much from the concept of a „regulated market“. We have to make a difference between a free market and a regulated narket. If we have rules (laws) for a market, then that market is already a regulated market, but if we have no single rule (law) for a market, then that market is a free market, thus similar to nature: „A“ is more competent (more intelligent or/and stronger ... and so on) than „B“; so „A“ beats up „B“ and takes „B's“ things.

Other living beings have a market too. But is it a free market? Yes and no. For example: the male bonobos, know that they get sex and offspring if they give emotions / love; the female bonobos refuse, if they can, to have sex with the male bonobos, if they do not give emotions to the bonobo children. This may be interpreted as a prestage of prostitution, and it is a market of sex / love.

If the demographically armed societies are going to remain dangerous, then Europeans will perhaps leave Europe and go to those dangerous countries with racism politics, for example: Australia and New Zealand. These racism countries welcome only those humans who have enough money to enrich these racism countries. These racism countries are the real dangerous countries, especially of the near future, and will become even more dangerous than the current demographically armed societies.

If a child has to give three goodies in order to get one toy from another child, then this child knows the „price“ and can only be stopped „buying“ the wanted toy because of a law that is called „age of consent“ / „capacity to contract“, but this law does not change anything of the fact that there is a market for the said two children. A market does not have to be regulated in order to be a market.

The absolutely free market in nature can be and is not seldom „voluntary“, as I already said several times. The said market of the bonobos is a „voluntary“ market, because the bonobos can decide whether they „buy“ or not. And my example of the children explains the same: the market is voluntary, but the laws of the adults do not or not always allow children to buy things. Your example with the girl that hits the boy because of he toy is an example that simply shows how violent regulations can be. Laws do not have to be written laws in order to be laws. The female bonobo shows the male bonobo the „laws“ as well as the female child shows the male child the „laws“ by hitting him.

„Reprogramming“ always starts with education because the young people are the most influenceable people.

„»Wir haben das Glück erfunden« – sagen die letzten Menschen und blinzeln.“ Translation: „»We have discovered happiness«- say the last men and blink.“ (Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche).

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.

„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).

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.

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.

The main mistake of the modernity is to put the „social question“ in the foreground and to forget to ask the genealogical question.

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.

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.

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

It is just the civilization that shows the way back to nature, because civilization itself is often more barbaric than the barbarity itself. Therefore we have to distinguish between a wild barbarity and a civilized barbarianism. The civilzation has to be more barbaric because it has to find the way back to nature as its next goal.

1) German net contribution: 9,976,038,941 Euro.
2) French net contribution: 3,806,907,859Euro.
3) Italian net contribution: 3,437,179,157 Euro.
4) Dutch net contribution: 3,362,533,781 Euro.
5) Swedish net contribution: 1,259,462,800 Euro.
6) Danish net contribution: 628,960,212 Euro.
7) Austrian net contribution: 478,332,030 Euro.
8) Finnish net contribution: 264,432,284 Euro.
9) British net contribution: 245,700,046 Euro * (* because of the rebate of ca. 5,200,200 Euro).

All other 18 members of the EU an the EU itself (of course!) are net receivers. The biggest ne receivers are Greece and Poland. That is no coincidence.

Germany has always been the biggest net payer of the EU. Therefore the EU was founded.

Edward Harrison is the founder of Credit Writedowns and a former career diplomat, investment banker and technology executive with over twenty years of business experience. He is also a regular economic and financial commentator on BBC World News, CNBC Television, Business News Network, CBC, Fox Television and RT Television. He speaks six languages and reads another five, skills he uses to provide a more global perspective. Edward holds an MBA in Finance from Columbia University and a BA in Economics from Dartmouth College. Edward also writes a premium financial newsletter. Sign up here for a free trial.

The military household belongs to the national household. If there was no EU, then most of the nations would not have enough money for their military. Germany pays the most by far (namely about 40 times more than the UK for example - compare the statistical data), as I said quite several times, and the military is also paid by it, because otherwise there would be no money for the military.

The military household is no household of the moon. It is not possible to separate the military household from the rest of the household.

You (**) can do me the favor and say to your government that it should leave the EU, and you will see that the UK would be there where it was before it joined the EU - with a desolate household. They all depend on German money. That is how the EU works. So each EU „nation“, if one can call it still so, can be blackmailed. That is how the EU works -regardless whether you and I like it or not? I do not like it.

It is also not possible to separate the social household from the rest of the household. No part of the household can be separated from the whole houshold. Like it or not.

You have to to put all that numbers of the several contributions together. Do some mathematics, please. In addition: There is no big difference between the military contributions of the UK and Germany. But looking at the statistics and data does merely make sense then, if you combine them together, because the money they spend does have to come from somewhere, Germany's contribution is 40 times higher than the contribution of the UK.

The UK may sometimes have spent more money on its military than Germany on its but not always.

The UK spent much on ist military during the 1930’s too, but it did not have the capacity of spending more than Germany.

The UK and France did not want Germany to spend much on its military. Then - the more the world had become globalistic - the UK and France noticed that they - bit by bit - had to spend more on their military than Germany on its. And what was their conclusion? „Germany must spend more money on its military!“ That is odd. What has Germany been doing since then? Germany spend more money on its military again. So what you are critizising is nothing more than „peanuts“, a bagatelle. You have to value it in the longer term.

You needed alomost all nations of the world, especially the nations USA and the USSR, to defeat Hitler's invasion, because Hitler stopped the invasion of the Uk in order to invade the USSR and the USA. The whole world against Germany! 6 years agaist the whole world - that is merely possible with a huge military industry, a good military (army, organization, ... etc.), economical and administrative system. By the way: The current Germany has still a huge military industry and also still a good economical and administrativ system, but the difference to earlier times is that Germany exports its weapons, especially to the USA and Israel.

The pro-immigration activists and women's right activists contradict each other, because the immigrants rape women wherever it is possible.

There has been being a dictatorship of inflationism, especially since the 15th of August 1971 when the US president Richard Nixon reversed the gold backing. This is just a bastard economy.

If we hold mathematics up as an example of measuring how much can be explained economics, psychology and sociology, then we can say: economics means much mathematics with many formulas and not merely statistics, whereas psychology and especially sociology mean almost no mathematics except merely some formulas and statistics.

All living beings - especially the human beings - are beings of trying, copying, training (learning), changing (varying, modifying, ... dying). If they were not, they would be not more than genetically programmed beings. So living beings and their doings are always surrounded by variations. So if one is commanded to do „x“ and does „x“ without any variation, then there is no cultural change of doing „x“. During almost the whole Stone Age, many doings happened without any cultural variation resp. with the cultural command of preventing any natural and cultural variation - as far as it is possible, of course. The opposite has been becoming true since the beginning of the Neolithic Revolution, especially since the beginning of the European Industrial Revolution. Variation leads to change (development, evolution, history), and doing the variation means trying.

Modernity means much, probably too much trying. So modern humans should not try too much any more, because they have already changed the world too much. In other words: modern humans should become unmodern again, more genealogical again, more traditional again, more conservative again. If they will not do this, then they will die out. Since the beginning of the Neolithic Revolution, especially since the beginning of the European Industrial Revolution, the humans have been changing the world too much, and the price will probably be the extinction of the humans, if they will not stop changing the world too much. So again: do not try too much, because your offspring will have to pay the price for your trials, your trials as your errors.

Humans are not really capable of being progressive, of being liberal, of being equal, of being fraternal. This is only possible in a spiritual sense of a sphere like a culture. But first of all, humans are natural beings, and nature is not progressive, not liberal, not equal, not fraternal. So being progressive, being liberal, being equal, being fraternal jsut means being ideological (religious in a modern sense) - not more and not less.

By the way: liberalism and egalitarianism contradict each other. They are an oxymoron, a contradiction.

What if 99% of all humans are not allowed to compete and 1% of all humans compete on the whole planet and in the whole solar system?

Globalism stands for the most extreme expansionism and dictatorship (imperialism to a global extent); so the dichotomy globalism versus nationalism (including: regionalism, localism, ... individualism, thus at last any ism of freedom and independence) can also - at least economically - be called debtism (inflationism) versus autarkism (an ism of economical independence), because globalism is mostly based on economical (especially financial) facts, thus: globalistic corruption.

Today there are no real conservatives. If one says these days „I am conservative“, then you can be sure that that one is lying. And politicians are lying anyway. „Being a politician“ and „lying“ are synonyms.

Both giving (for example in order to get peace) and taking (for example in order to get peace) are two sides of the same thing: on the one hand war is behind you and peace in front of you, on the other hand peace is behind you and war in front of you. There is always the same or at least a similar situation; the duration is different, but the question is always merely: what is next?

When being cynic becomes a societal system, so that we can call it „cynism“, then all governers, all politicians, all rich people, all followers behave according to cynism. All others can only fight this cynism by being kynic (= counter-cynic). Many of them do not notice what is wrong with them. Many of those polically correct (pc) cynics do not notice what is wrong with them.

Not being allowed to compete is not competition but a possible consequence of competition. My example was that 99% are forbidden to compete. Your (**) response is that this non-competition „is competition“. That is not possible. Competition and non-competition are never the same. It is like saying „truth is lie“ or „lie is truth“. So you are wrong.

What you mean is the culturally based competition like techno-creditisms (formerly known as „capitalism“), but the naturally based competition will as long as living beings exist not disappear.

And by the way: Sex is a relatively young phenomenon of evolution and also a good example in order to explain what competition means. If you want to please somebody, then you are already a competitor, and sex is also and a special guarantor for that fact. You are saying (in your signature): „Sex is the fundamental principle of Creation.“ That is also not possible, because sex is a relatively young phenomenon of evolution. So the fundamental principle of creation must be an older one.

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) were not predominant but had the most extreme opinion when referring to human nature. Their biographies reflect their opinions on this topic.

When Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) lived there were many terrible wars, for example: (1) the war between England and Spain (1588-1599), (2) a very terrible war, probably the most terrible war of the Occidental history - the Thirty Years' War (1618-1648) -, (3) another war which was terrible too - the English Civil War (1642-1651) - and (4) the also terrible wars started by Louis XIV of France.

When Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) lived the wars were already so called „Kabinettskriege“ („cabinet wars“), thus they were not as terrible as they had been before.

But Rousseau's philosophy about the human nature is wrong, because his „natural human“ as the „wild human“ is not the better human.

The EU and zhe US are only as long „buddies“ (**) as their interests are the same, but their interests are not always the same.

The bankruptcy of the Lehman Brothers, the fourth-largest investment bank in the United States; the filing remains the largest bankruptcy filing in US history, with Lehman holding about $ 640 billion in assets (**).

There are no real „buddies“. In the deepest reality there are only everyone-against-everyone-fighters. Everyone wants to be a monopolist.

The same. The United States need a war because of their extreme debt - like their debt before the 1st and the 2nd World War. After the 1st World War they had no debts anymore (exploitation of Germany - reparations, robbery of German patents, technologies and other German assets, values), and after the 2nd World War they had no debts anymore (exploitation of Germany - reparations, robbery of German patents, technologies [even scientists, engineers and so on {**|**|**|**}] and other German assets, values; and this robbery was the biggest robbery of all time) and their Dollar system became the Dollar Empire.

1) „Where is the NATO?“ ** **
2) „Is the NATO what you call the »theater of the absurd« (**)?“ ** **
3) „Why NATO(**|**)?“ ** **

1) I am asking where the NATO is in that situation you showed from the Greek border, because the NATO was founded as a defensive alliance.
2) If the NATO is no defensive alliance anymore, then it has no right to exist and is - for example - a „theater of the absurd“ (**).
3) The NATO is no defensive alliance anymore, and, economically, the US and the EU are deadly enemies! Therefore the question: Why NATO (**|**)?

The theory of the Big Bank is true, but the theory of the Big Bang is probably not true.

The cynical position is on the side of the beneficiaries and especially of the main beneficiaries of the wars; so they have a cynical position (see above), the most cynical position ever.

The main motive is always power (might; because of always having a will to might and a will to night), and that means: control - by (for example) divide et imperea, panem et circenses, cynism, lies, fraud, violence, murder, wars, terror, terrorism, fear, torture, enslavement, racism, dysgenics, corruption, blackmail, extortion, indoctrination, indignation ... and so on ... and so on ....

Europe has almost twice as many inhabitants as the United States. If the 28 European small armies were under a single command, then Europe had the largest military force in the world. And - of course - the competitors, rivals, enemies of Europe love it to have to deal with a disunited Europe and disunited European nations. The more so-called „refugees“ come to Europe, the more unstable Europe is to the delight of Europe’s rivals (competitors, enemies).

It is not possible to destroy the whole Earth and all living beings on it with all the nuclear weapons we have. The earth has survived much worse disasters - several times. All the nuclear weapons we have can destroy many living beings - but just not all. Many primitives species of the living beings have survived much worse disasters - several times. So this species are still there.

Science has become more and more a function of politics. Scientists have become politically correct functionaries of the cynical rulers.

If those who are not scientists want to have scientific solutions, then they have to use their own brains in the first place.

In reality the Soviet Union and all the other „communistic“/„socialistic“ countries were extreme nationalistic countries.

But if we are honest, we have to admit that the nation is the largest size of a society we humans can somewhat manage - but not more. All larger society sizes turn out repeatedly as empires, thus: dictatorship.

In other words: Multiculturalism does not work. It leads to something like civil wars, anarchy, thus: chaos.

Europe will never become the „United States of Europe“ as some European idiots say but it will become the most chaotic territory of all time if the Europeans will furthermore do what their rivals (competitors) want them to do.

According to leftists, all those who are right from them are rightists, and they call them „fascists“, because they want to be „anti-fascists“. But in reality they are the fascists, the new fascists. The new fascist does not say „I am the new fascist“, the new fascist says „I am the anti-fascist“.

The problem is that in reality there is no pure (100%) communism and no pure (100%) capitalism but always a mix - more or less -, and this mix is full of corruption. So corruption is the main problem.

The communistic leaders and their many, many, many functionaries are corrupt. They do what corrupt humans do.

The difference between the extreme individuality and the extreme community is one of the main differences between Occident and Orient.

Rousseau gave his children in an orphan asylum! He preached water and drank wine.

I guess that you (**) know that hypergamy as based on politics is „only“ a modern phenomenon but is actually based on the fact that women tend to marry men of higher classes. To marry men of higher classes makes sense then, when it comes to motivate both men (to get higher positions) and women (to get men of higher positions). It becomes a problem then, when it becomes a political, institutional, publicly regulated, dictatoral matter - and that is the case in the so-called „Western World“.It is wrong to change the world to the extent as it is done currently. It is logically false, it is ethically false, it is aesthetically false. So it is philosophically false.

Humans should not be free to settle wherever they want to. 1) Unfortunately, it is alraedy a law, a human right, that humans are free to settle wherever they want to, although it is also already a fact that it has been leading to desastrous situations. 2) Owning Earth as the most destructive paradigm and the free settlement of humans belong together, and both have been leading to desastrous situations.

The current human rights (including the right to settle wherever humans want to) are rights that support owning the Earth. So the current human rights are false. No human should de allowed to own the Earth. Most of the human rights begin with the words „every human“ or „everybody“ or „one“ (human - of course) - and that is a huge problem, because these words do not stand for all humans but for those humans who have the most power. So those with the most power are allowed to own the Earth, whereas all other humans settle in concentration camps called „cities“.

When humans are in concentration camps called „cities“, then they are more controllable. Where do humans prefer to settle, if they are allowed to settle wherever they want to? In cities.

Their upright gait, their free arms and hands with fingers than can oppose (=> thumb), their very large brain, their language that leads to philosophy/science and all the technological/technical skills that lead to owning the Earth, the solar system, the universe.

My kynical invitation as a response to a cynical behavior: „Take part in the project »owning the universe«“!

Economics is not the number one. Economicis is subordinated but also superordinated. It depends on to what and whom.

That is really a huge problem: Mental illnesses are fabriacted in an industrial complex of mentally ill brains.

Psychiatry as an arm of the state, and the state as an arm of the multinational corporations and banks.

According to Nigel Farage „the French voice ... in Europe is little more ... than a pipsqueak“.

For the capitalists Henry George was too socialistic, and for the socialists Henry George was too capitalistic.

I do not think that Georgism can successfully change the current globalistic structures, institutions, regulations (laws, rights). Changing the latter is just the basis for the success of the former. But beside that, I do not think that Georgism is the right solution of the current problems, especially the ecological problems which are merely solvable by strong prohibitions and restrictions, probably also accompanied by a new metaphysical system, a new religion and theism (the climate change as the new deity is already in the making). Either we relinquish or we die out. It is like: „comply or die“.

At last the tragedy of the commons leads to the extinction of those who work or contribute otherwise and support those who do not work or do not contribute otherwise and do not supprt anybody, although the latter have own children and the former not. So those who have offspring survive as long as they can have offspring, and the others who have no offspring die out. So it is worthwhile in a commons to be lazy, if a certain number of members is not lazy. But it is to be expected that more and more members of the group will behave lazy and group earnings will fall further, since - morally spoken - a typical human maxim is not the maximization of the own advantage but the avoidance of the own disadvantage. So the tragedy of the commons escalates and escalates, and the whole group gets into a rationality trap in which collective rationality and individual rationality are in conflict. In addition to the rationality trap that I just described, there is also the opposite case in which common resources are increasingly exhausted. In this way, not only many environmental problems, but, interestingly, the population explosion in many countries can be explained.

The Neomalthusianist Garret Hardin believed that a liberal access to public goods will at last be the ruin of all. Therefore he called for corresponding restrictions.

Not some Euroapean nations but the whole Europe has lost the 31 years lasting World War (I and II). The US and the SU (Soviet Union) have one it, but the latter lost the so-called „Cold War“ which the former won also. Now, the problem the US faces is similar to the problem the US faced before the begin of the WW1 and before the begin of the WW2. This similarities are very obvious. So we will have war pretty soon.

The population of ASEAN is approximately 620 million people and its income is about US $ 2.6 trillion (this income is not very high, because is merely as high as the income of the UK).

What if we have no chance anymore to get out of the rationality trap in which collective rationality and individual rationality are in conflict?

Possibly, the machines will prevent the extinction of all human beings, or they will not prevent but accelerate it.

The famous skyline with its banking district is pictured in early evening next to the Main River in Frankfurt, Germany, January 19, 2016 (REUTERS / Kai Pfaffenbach):

„Brazilianization of the World“ means that all nations of the world tend to have the same distribution of wealth that Brazil has.

The richest Finnish 20% have 35% of the Finnish income (GNP).
The poorest Finnish 80% have 65% of the Finnish income (GNP).
The richest German 20% have 40% of the German income (GNP).
The poorest German 80% have 60% of the German income (GNP).
The richest US 20% have 47% of the US income (GNP).
The poorest US 80% have 53% of the US income (GNP).
The richest Brazilian 20% have 65% of the Brazilian income (GNP).
The poorest Brazilian 80% have 35% of the Brazilian income (GNP).

Maybe that the richest Brazilian 20% have already 80% of the Brazilian income (GNP). So at last we will possibly see the following scenario in the world: 20% of all humans have 80% of the global income. So 80% of all humans have merely 20% of the global income. (Cp. Pareto distribution.)

But the „study by the central bank found on Monday, laying bare a wide gap between the richest and the poorest in Europe's biggest economy“ (**) says that „the top 10 percent of Germans have almost 60 percent of the wealth“ (**), and that is not true.

Unfortunately, the economical problems, especially those of the US, have become so huge, that it is not possible anymore to hide the fact that the US and the EU are enemies - sometimes one can have the impression that they are alraedy military enemies too. The economical facts have been dominating the military facts for a long time. That is not good and not the reason why all this alleged „partnerships“ and „mutual securities“ were originally made for. The NATO was built as a defensive alliance, then it changed to an aggressive attacking alliance, now it is a chaotic bunch that still attacks the rest of the world, although more chaotically and sometimes also itself, but is not capable of defensing the societies of the NATO territories.

And the Arabs alone did not cause the alleged „Arab Spring“ that led to the flood of the alleged „refugees“ (young boys willing to conquer Europe with terrible violence).

Catastrophes come again and again. That is a cyclical process. We do not need to make any contribution to catastrophes. But we do. It would be better to relinquish any contribution to catatstrophes or to decisions which lead to catatstrophes, if we were more capable of relinquishing. We should stop changing the world and start protecting the world.

A better world would be a protected world, especially for the offspring. But it is very likely that the human rulers and some other humans will not stop changing the world (thus: destroying the world) and will get the worst world. So the next human-made catastrophe will come sooner as expected.

We should eliminate or at least replace the globalistic institutions, which are merely established for the changers, thus exploiters, destroyers of the world, and also eliminate or at least replace the globalistic „human rights“, which are merely established for the changers, thus exploiters, destroyers of the world. We have to protect the world; we have to protect our chidren and their children and so on; we have to protect our countries; we have to protect the right of domicile (I mean it as the exact opposite of the right we now have: the right to settle wherever one wants to); we have to protect ourselves by protecting our nation, our origin, our traditions ... and so on. We need rights to protect ourselves in the sense that these rights can successfully stop protecting the rights of the globalists.

East Germany is now West Poland and West Russia. Middle Germany is now called „East“ Germany, and that is incorrect. And there is no peace contract. So the Germany as the German Reich (Deutsches Reich) still exists. All the huge reparations and other productive an monetary payments are paid by Germans because of the existence of the German Reich. And I remember well, when the „Iron Curtain“ fell and many Polish and Russian people were willing to give the German territorries back to Germany. So where are those »formidable enemies, very reactionary in their holding and surprising developments as the unification of East and West Germany«. I have never met such „enemies“.

Formerly the conservatives were nationalists, not extreme nationalists but nationalists. Now the „conservatives“ are no conservatives anymore, because they support the globalists. So what we have been experiencing since 1945 or at least since 1989/’90 is an age of globalism.

Both nationalism and internationalism / globalism are part of the Occidental creations, and the Occident will defend its creations, regardless whether they are already destructive or not. So maybe the resistance to globalism will only be successful by coming from outside of the Occident, for example from East Europe.

Globalism does not work in the long term. Perhaps nationalism does also not work in the long term, but the nation is the biggest possible political unit that people can manage (something bigger - like globalism or any other imperialism - is not possible in the long term). So why are we wanted to do something that does not work in the long term? Why are people so stupid or/and crazy to support impossibilities?

he said financial system of Bretton Woods ended 1971, exactly on 15 August 1971 when Nixon relinquished the gold backing of the US Dollar. (And by the way: Keynes said during the Bretton Woods monetary conference that he wanted to relinquish the gold backing, but he meant the gold backing of the British Pound [

], and had no success, because the USA dominated the Bretton Woods monetary conference, so the gold standard was set at $ 35.00 an ounce, as you can see it on the table above.) Since the 15th of August 1971 the gold price and a phantom system of expectations of expectations have been exploding. Of course: it is an instable financial system, probably the most instable financial system of all times.

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

I guess you know the story of the Roman soldier that died at Pompeii, whose bones were found at his post, because someone forgot to relieve him.

„Our duty is to hold on to the lost position, without hope, without rescue, like that Roman soldier whose bones were found in front of a door in Pompeii, who, during the eruption of Vesuvius, died at his post because they forgot to relieve him.“ - Oswald Spengler, Man and Technics: A Contribution to a Philosophy of Life ** (original title: Der Mensch und die Technik - Beitrag zu einer Philosophie des Lebens, 1931, S. 89 **). **

But are the current Westerners (the most individualistic people of all times) more solidary? I mean, the soldier did his „job“, his duty, which was the protection of the Pompeian people, and that was how solidarity was understood by most of the people at that time.

And this means - of course - that less and less people become richer and richer, whereas more and more people become poorer and poorer.

The Herculean task of the opposition (if there is any) of the globalists is, or, better, would be to stop this development without capitalism and without socialism.

An EU nation does not exist. The United States of America are an empire too, but they are also a nation or at least something like that. Yet the European Union is no nation but merely an empire. And there are no „United States of Europe“, because the European nations are not united. If they were, then each of them would be no nation anymore. I know that the rulers of the EU try to eleminate the European nations, because they want to create those "United States of Europe" (after the model of the United States of America). They try it in order to get an European nation (after the model of the US nation). But I am pretty sure that they will not be successful with that attempt. Europe is just Europe, and that means (like it or not): a bunch of many nations.

If you want to create a nation you need (a) time enough, (b) an authoritarian state, (c) both.

Different cultures have different histories, different politics, thus also different philosophies of politics. The respective core of them is very similar, and that is what repeats agin and again, but the rest is different.

Other humans who supposedly would come to harm if they stayed where they came from would less come to harm if they stayed there where they came from, because there is the right of getting help in one's homeland as well as there is the duty of helping for those who do not need help. Help does not depend on changing the permanent residence, unless it is needed because of natural catastrophes. The current immigration politics is a huge business. Many rich people become richer and richer just because of that immigration politics, whereas those who really need help stay in their homelands anyway, because they have no money for the people smugglers. In addition, such an immigration politics leads to more and more poorness for more and more people, probably at last for 99% of all humans.

The globalism means both capitalism and socialism. The intersection of both is huge corruption. The more and the longer both work together the more and the longer the huge corruption exists.

The numbers of those who are de facto unemployed and de jure employed is huge. The latter are, for example, part of job-creation measures or something like that, so they are publicly classified as employed, although they are unemployed in reality. This number is pretty huge. In other words: If we divided the said humans in those who are economically active (officially called „employed“) and those who are economically passive (officially called „unemployed“) or lazy, then the numbers and thus also the ratio would be others. In other words: I am talking about the true numbers versus the faked statistics.

Mercedes Self Driving Car Recreates World's First Car Journey Mercedes S Class 2016 CARJAM TV: **

I do not think that it is possible to be completely cut off from a globalized civilization. It is only possible to be relatively cut off from a globalized civilization.

I just want to point the problem out that people can easily get, if they are not ready for the change from high(est) civilization to low(est) civilization.

It is difficult to exactly predict such a break down - not only because the globalists have many scenarios of break downs in their calculations too.

All European communists were hopefully awaiting the arrival of the First World War, because they thought that war would lead to communism.

According to the communistic theory communism should appear when a nation was industrialized enough. So it was expected to appear in Germany or England.

Sex is not necessary for reproduction. There are many living beings which have no sex and nonetheless offspring. They reproduce themselves without sex, and they are very successful without sex.

I have been told that punishment and circumstances in prison are bad in the United States, at least worse than in Europe, where prisons are - comparatively (!) - like paradises.

Because of the lack of economic development in Russia it was not the communistic revolution that the communistic philosophers/ideologists had predicted. It wa just a terroristic „revolution“ in the name of a „communistic revolution“ but not the communistic revolution the communist communistic philosophers/ideologists had predicted.

It is ethnocentric, when „Y“, who belongs to the non-ethnocentric part of the ethnocentrism ethnos, says that „X“, who belongs to the ethnocentric part of the ethnocentrism ethnos, is ethnocentric. Both do the same: propagating ethnocentris.

The so-called „Neolithic Revolution“ was a process of settling, husbandry (agriculture and stock breeding), urbanisation. And parts of this process have not ended yet.

All totalitarian ideologies are largely wrong. The error magnitude of egalitarianism is as high as the error magnitude of liberalism. Humans are not equal, they are merely relatively equal (relatively unequal); and they are not free, they are merely relatively free (relatively unfree).

It does not make egalitarianism and liberalism more „right“ just because they have become migfhtful ideologies. And if they have become mightful enough, they always turn out as dictatorships.

Also sexuality has always been a subject of politics. Formerly everyone had to learn that all humans were or had to be heterosexual. Now everyone has to learn that all humans are or have to be homosexual.

So: What about those who have no homosexual tendencies? Why does who want everyone to have homosexual tendencies, although most humans do not have such tendencies? In other words: Why are heterosexual humans discriminated? Formerly the homosexuals were discriminated, but they obviously did not learn from history. Now the heterosexuals are discriminated, and this shows that the homosexuals, and probably many heterosexuals too, have not learned from history. Most humans are probably not capable of learning from history.

The eugenic politics for 1%, the dysgenic politics for 99% of all humans. That is like the increasingly opening scissors, the increasing difference between rich and poor, between capitalism (techno-creditism) and socialism (communism). Most of the humans of the dysgenic politics confuse and shall confuse this dysgenic politics with eugenic politics. Other examples of such confusions are war/peace, man/woman, male/female, hate/love, good/evil, friend/foe, native/foreign, true/untrue, truth/lie, progressive/regressive, real/ideal, belief/knowledge, yes/no, strong/weak, more/less, big/small, thick/thin, ..., and son and so forth ... (almost everything).

It is possible, yeah probable, that the difference between the 1% and the 99% of all humans will lead to two different species in the future.

According to Edward N. Wolff the following chart sums up the difference across US wealth:

„The top 1 percent only have about 40 percent debt-to-income and hold onto a large portion of assets. This group also controls most stock wealth in the US ....“ **

I suppose that change itself is the problem (in any case: too much change) and what you need is anti-change, for example: protection against change!

This world is controlled by males, only by males. The relatively few males of this higher „class“ (later becoming an own species?) organize, thus control their lives according to an old patriarchal system.

But note: Not all men but only a few men are meant here. And this few men are enough to control the world. That is the problem we have.

„Do we own ourselves?“ (**). We must distinguish between „ownership“ („Besitz“) and the „right of ownership“ („Eigentum“).

There are so-called „human rights“. So my answer is a doubled one:
1) „No“ for 99% of all humans.
2) „Yes“ for 1% of all humans.

The root of the reproducers are both males and females. I guess you mean the current Occidental females (because most of the current Occidental males and females are told and thus falsely think that females are the only „reproducers“), not the others, especially not the black and islamic females, because black and islamic males and females reproduce themselves very much (because both still know that both are the reproducers) and are poorer than Occidental males and females.

The black and islamic people can be found at the top on the left, whereas the occidental people can be found at the bottom on the right.

The very first group of human beings had at least one moral law: being a member of the group. Leaving the group was only possible by becomig the foe / enemy of the group. This often meant the death of that foe / enemy. Each member of the group knew this moral law, its breach, the comsequences of this breach, thus the punishment. So the very first human group was already moral, although in a primitive sense.

Moral has to do with knowlewdge of it or of something that is like moral or law and its consequences like punishment.

The first moral is a means of surviving: one’s surviving depends on the group’s surviving. Leaving the group can lead to a new group and new morals, of course, but that does not change the meaning of the first moral law: means of surviving.

By the way: The main problem that modern humans have with morality has not to do with this first moral law or other laws of the primitive morality. It has to do with the fact that modern humans are not capable of acting and reacting according to the consequences of the facts that humans created by inventing things, especially technological things. In other words: Humans have a problem with living on the same level that they have reached technologically - the human nature is always far behind the human spirit (including moral), because the human brain is made for surving, at least primarily. The first moral law has to do with surviving. But the modern humans have created moral systems that have not much or even nothing to with surving.

Homo sapiens is a species that has reached a stage of development of a huge difference between nature and culture.

The question whether something has happened with or without a human's own „free will“ is redundant, because the human's will is not free but relatively free. All „rights“ that are based on a the false „free will“, especially the so-called „human rights“, have to be rewritten, because they are not right but nonetheless „rights“, because they are very profitable, very efficient, very repressive, very destructive (which means that they are even more profitable, even more efficient ... and so on and so forth).

If you are poor or economically supported by a social state (see also my text below), then you have enough time to reproduce yourself. If you always work and make a career all day long, then you have not much time to reproduce yourself. If you are rich, then you can choose whether you are industrious (diligent, hardworking, busy) or lazy, so also being rich in spite of having much time can but does not have to mean the lack of reproduction, because reproduction depends on the interest in it. So most of those who have no or almost no offspring are those who are very industrious (hardworking and making a career all day long). Who are very industrious (diligent, hardworking, busy) and very career driven? .... Of course: the occidental humans. That is why they can be found at the bottom on the right in in my above chart (**).

It is not merely industriousness (industry, diligence, smartness, business acumen) that works against the reproduction and especially against the interest of reproduction; it is also, for example, feminism (including sexism, genderism). Isms are modern ideologies, and almost all modern ideologies are based on main modern ideologies like cynicism and techno-creditsm (formerly known as „capitalism“) that are based on the machine revolution (formerly known as „industrial revolution“). The machine revolution did not cause the first cynics (cynics are much older) but cynicism (cyn[ic]ism) in combination with the techno-creditism, which both led to all other isms we had, have, and will have for a while. (Please note the suffix „ism“!) So the machine revolution caused what we can call „occidental moderinity“ in the narrow sense of the word, and - insofar as reproduction is concerned - modernity means a shrinking interest in reproduction. Feminism is just one of the great many cultural consequences of a great technical invention (which is certainly based on cultural skills, by the way). We should not overestimate but also not underestimate all this isms.

So the interest in reproduction can be influenced by many phenomena variously.

Without feminism the European numbers of the birthrates would be optimal (about 2,13 children per woman), but in reality they are suboptimal, disastrous: very much too low. In Europe very much too low, in the so-called „Third World“ very much too high.

Lazy people who are economically supported by those who are industrious (diligent, hardworking, busy) and pay taxes (cp. „social state“) are not always but very often those who have children, many children, at least enough children. Industrious (diligent, hardworking, busy) people are not always but very often those who have not enough children or even no children. This demographical fact means an economical tragedy: the so called „tragedy of the commons“ (**|**).

Lies are told again and again. Most of the success of lies is based on repetition.

The number of jobs does not increase (workers are replaced by workers and by machines, so the number of jobs decreases) but decreases very quickly, so that the number of the workless persons and welfare recipients (social benefit claimants) increases very quickly - let alone the higher cost of the repair of destroyment, vandalism, of more prisons, more police actions, more policemen, more social workers, more courts, more officers, more judges, more prosecutors, more lawyers ... and so on.

The unemployment rate and the immigration rate are exponentially increasing in Old Europe - and I am pretty sure: in North America (USA and Canada) as well.

The „higher“ (thus: more decadent, more nihilistic, closer to anarchy/chaos) so-called „civilizations“ are the more their people have to be weak, have to be cynical, have to lie, and consequently have to invert values. So „suddenly“ - for example - „strength“ seems to be „weakness“, „weakness“ seems to be „strength“, „war“ seems to be „peace“, „peace“ seems to be „war“, a „tiger“ seems to be a „pussycat“, a „pussycat“ seems to be a „tiger“, ... and so on and so forth. This is an answer to the question why the person B confuses the tiger with a pussycat: B is „high civilized“.

That's the question, yes (**). No one of the real powerful ones is capable of teaching in that way, and no one of those who are capable of teaching in that way is allowed to teach the real powerful ones. It seems to be a dilemma.

If there will be no battle, then there will be something like a „perpetual peace“, but that will merely be possible with enslaved humans (probably comparable with the Eloi in the science fiction novel „Time Machine“).

The slogan „Gib AIDS keine Chance“ („give AIDS no chance“) has been changed into „Gib TTIP keine Chance“ („give TTIP no chance“). But politically a condom does not help much.

During the Victorian era (in the 19th century) in the UK it was forbidden to talk about sex. In the current UK (and in the whole Western „world“, by the way) it is a must to talk about sex, but it is forbidden to talk about politics.

Wild tribes have indeed less but very much stronger social constructs than „city tribes“.

If you consider all man-made technical things as the extended parts of man’s body, then man’s body has almost everything you can imagine.

We are coming closer to the „highest civilization“ ever: a society without any natural relatedness and without any difference between anything and everything; a society in which everything is equal, indifferent; a society like hell (confused with heaven).

The new fascist does not say: „I am the new fascist“. The new fascist says: „I am the anti-fascist“.

The non-segregation of the sexes is a part of life praxis only in the occidental culture.

Do you know men that would only be happy to »get rid« of the women for a while and have some boy time?

The segregation of sexes is the old custom and part of life praxis in the so-called „Third World“, the non-segregation is the new custom and part of life praxis in the so-called „First World“ (the occidental culture) and partly also in the so-called „Second World“. So about 80% of all humans have nothing to do with the non-segregation of sexes, and, perhaps, most of the occidental humans want or believe that they „want“ to become non-occidental humans.

Occidental humans are more and more confused by their so-called „civilization“?

Back to the 98% nature that humans have lost, because they have transfered it to human culture. Humans have merely 2% nature, so to say.

Combine the human's fight against nature (exploitation of nature) with the techno-creditism, and you will get the reasons for the huge chaos in the future, regardless whether the „Olduvai Theory“ (**) is false or not.

The question is whether farming will be still possible after a globalistic destruction, thus also the destruction of all soils of our planet. If it will be not possible, then you do will not get „trade and commerce and the eventual machinations of civilisation“.

What if bows and arrows are useless, because there are merely very small animals left?

Should the segregation or the non-segregation of the sexes be the „way of life“?

When I analyze and interpret some certain current behaviors, I tend to answer: „segregate them immediately!“; but when I analyze and interpret some other current behaviors, I tend to answer: „go on with the non-segregation“. I think that we can't stop or change this development by keeping forms like liberalism, egalitarianism, fraternalism (or its female equivalent), or a form of governing like democracy, because, as far as they are all typical forms of western modernity, they are also reasons for this non-segregation. So if I value it as a historical fact resp. as a truth, then I deductively conclude that we shouldn't change it, because this process will change by itself, thus will end sometime anyway. Having said that, there are also arguments that cause me to think it would be better to stop this process or to go forewards by also going backwards (like a crab).

I honestly think that most human's lives are better when men and women are more segregated than not segregated. My main argument for this thesis is a natural/evolutionary resp. cultural/historical one. Humans try to overcome nature/evolution by their culture/history, but at last they always fail, because they have to - due to their incapability of being gods. So this trial will end up just like an error - and probably cause a huge disaster. I do not see how this can be avoided or prevented - to delay it is at least no real solution (our offspring will have to pay the prize - namely the more the more we delay and will delay it). Our current rulers do not and will not change their behavior. They want and will want this huge disaster. 99% of all humans will not be needed anymore but considered as the „global problem“. Machines can and will replace them (and later possibly take over [**|**]).

And be honest: Would you like to give up machines, for example: an automobile or a washing machine? We do not really need computers, cellphones and other high tech machines. So we could give them up. But we do not want to give up many other machines, namely those that are invented in the late 18th, the 19th, and the early 20th century. In other words: We will not get rid of the ghosts we have asked for (freely based on J. W. von Goethe).

Very certain people invent nonsensical reforms, and if it comes to the consequences of those nonsensical reforms they just say „I don't care“ and hide themselves behind „egalitarianism“. Doom. In the long run, „carelessness“ means „death“. „Carelessness“ is just another word for „equality“ resp. „egalitarianism“. „Death“ is the deeper, the actual meaning of „egalitarianism“.

In order to take from someone this someone must be someone who has already taken. But if this seomeone becomes the one who gives or has to give, then another someone becomes the one who takes.

More than two thirds of the US-Americans are overweight, more than one third of the US-Americans is obese.

Nutritionists are part of the problem!
Psychologists are also part of the problem!
All other ists are also part of the problem!
Media folks are also part of the problem!
Advertising folks are also part of the problem!
....
Rulers are the main problem!

People are influenced. This influence is part of a program, so the problem is largely a purpose, a part of a plan, of a program.

Maybe the human culture in general is just too much erroneous and their cultures in particular are just too old, as Oswald Spengler (1880-1936) already pointed out. According to Spengler every culture becomes senile - and then it is called „civilization“ (

). Civilizations are the icy forms of cultures. When a culture is old it just wants peace - „world peace“ - and does anything for it. It wants to die (note: not each person but the whole culture), and it wants it by enjoying peace. Also isms are invented by civilizations (old cultures) in order to live and rest in peace (R.I.P.).

The globalists (glozis) have been murdering millions of unborn and born children, of youngsters, of adults, and billions of other living beings; they have been destroying the whole planet by poisoning it, by exploiting it, by inflicting it with war, by putting species, races, and people in environments where they not belong to with the consequence of dying out; and this all will lead to a huge chaos.

Is it justified to kill 1% of all humans (for example by war), if it is the only possibility to rescue the lives of 99% of all humans and many other lives too?

Now, this is an important question, and it is a philosophical question, because it is an ethical question.

You probably know that the EU has almost nothing to do with democracy. Someone who says that the EU „uses a kind of parliamentary system“ just shows again nothing else than a huge ignorance, cluelessness. The president and the council of the EU are the only decision makers in the EU, and nobody has elected them. I hope that at least youzh know this ....

We can foresee that there will be a huge chaos with an also huge number of dead innocent humans and other innocent living beings.

If there were no young people, the sellers of many high tech products would probably have some problems.

Humans have always had more choices than other living beings - and the increasingly intrusive ads are also and especially, as I interpret it, an issue of total control.

1) Wealth is not knowledge. Knowledge can but does not necessarily and not always lead to wealth, and wealth can but does not necessarily and not always lead to knowledge. So Gilder’s equation „wealth = knowledge“ is FALSE.

2) Growth is not learning. Learning can but does not necessarily mean growth, and growth can but does not necessarily mean learning. So Gilder’s „growth = learning“ is FALSE.

3) Money is not time. Merely some economists and propagandists think that money would be time. Money is a means that can but does not necessarily lead to wealth and to power, and time can but does not necessarily run short (cp. date of redemption of debts because of credits, interests, compound interests). So Gilder’s „money = time“ is FALSE.

When science becomes independent of religion, then it is not or at least hardly because of money; but when science becomes dependend of religion again (it is a cycle) or itself a religion depending on a political state or corporation, super-organization, then it is solely or at least mainly because of money, because it needs much money, it has become corrupt, susceptible to blackmail.

Would you prefer a system in which the value of the money would be different from the current one? A society with an economy that is based upon information (including knowledge and belief) is much more environment-sparing than a society with a money economy that is based upon energetic resources. Information (but not energy and resources) can be reproduced arbitrarily. So information is the better money basis. I would suggest a money system of two monetary units: „I“ („Information“) and „E“ („Energy“), so that, for example, 100 cents would consist of 98 I-cent and 2 E-cent.

In that system science would be - by far - not as much dependent as it is currently.

What about the projections people make and actually show that there are others who do what those who are projecting like to do?

What if the leftists are in that said „center“ (**) ? And they think that they are. Don't they? According to them everything and everybody is a rightist. And so it is. In other words: Rightist are a minority (at least in Europe) that becomes more and more tiny. And that is what the west really is currently: a world of leftists. A world of all-leftists is not a „better world“ but the hell.

Leftists have occupied the center and the right wing, but they would never admit this, they would never say that they are rightists, but they are. The new rightist will never say „I am the rightist“ but will always say „I am the anti-rightist“. Leftists live on the hardship of the poor people, and the poor people are becoming more and more, which is what the leftists want, must want, because they live on them. Just because others do not want to bite the dust (to lose their competences), they become leftists too. If there were no poor people, the leftists would immediately invent them. Leftist need the poor people because they live on their hardship.

This, what I just described, is the situation in Europe, at least in Old Europe, and I am pretty sure that it is not much different in the USA.

The current fashion is still being a leftist, and in modern times the fashion dictates the moral. So „being a rightist“ means currently „being evil“. But what does that mean if a leftist is also a rightist and no one wants to publicly admit being a rightist (just because the fashion forbids it).

You may elect as much as you want, you will never get a true left or a true right politics, becaue both are currently the same when it comes to the real politics, since the global rulers who blackmail the politicians do the real politics.

The reasons for the non-sex-segregation, feminism, genderism, .... (and so on and so forth) are not only the sexes themselves but also and especially the interest in the human resources.

If the societies of the west do not stop using the human resources like a common property, then the Tragedy of the Commons will go on and lead to the death of that societies.

You hopefully know that your so-called „Federal Reserve Bank“ is a private bank, althought it is also called the national central bank, which is normally not private but statist, thus public. So „your“ Federal Reserve Bank does not represent the interests of your nation.

Since about 1970 there have been existing almost no children of the middle-class anymore but almost exclusively children of the under-class which are financially supported by the taxpyers, thus the middle-class.

So it turns out that the „entire purpose of money is not to create a strong, healthy economy, but a powerful, wealthy monarchy“ (**), a monopoly, namely the monopoly of one of the super-organisms (super-organisations / super-corporations).

As a juridical statement the wording „all people are equal“ means „all people are or should be equal before the law“, „people have or should have the same rights“. People are not really equal.

- Markets are never really „free“.
- Globalism means that the global banks / corporations (super-organisms) dominate and blackmail the states (nations).
- Unregulated competition leads to the plunder of all resources, especially of all human resources.
- This leads to the situation that all acquirable resources of this planet are owned by very few persons or super-organisms.

Banks and corporations are super-organisms. Since the occidental - thus industrial - modernity these super-organisms have been becoming the dominating super-organisms, and since at least the beginning of the globalism they have been dominating the older super-organisms like the churches or the states. This implies that since then the newer super-organisms have been blackmailing the older super-organisms more and more. One of the symptoms that have been increasing since then is the female part of the human resources as a commons (compare: the tragedy of the commons).

The church is a super-organism too, but if one compares it with the current super-organisms - one of them can buy and has bought almost all states of this planet - and take the money or monetary assets as a comparison, then one has to say: „the church is merely a small super-organism“.

Glozis want their „people“ to be brainwashed and to eat all the poison (get more and more into illness) they have to buy (get more and more into debt).

So here is again someone (**) who is saying that all Non-German people of the EU are too stupid, at least not intelligent enough to leave the EU. They have always had the option to leave the EU.

The UK was totally down before it joined the EU. Guess why Heath wanted to join the EU at that bad time of the UK.

England does not want the immigration, also and especially the Polish immigration.

Scotland and Northern Ireland want to remain n the EU. So there is no „Brexit“ but merely an „Enexit“.

(By the way: „Br(exit)“ is nonsense anyway. There are no British people in the UK. They died out in the early Middle Ages. Rests of them fled to what is now called „Bretagne“.)

The very rich people of the so-called „upper-class“ can have tax havens in the same state too, so they do not pay any tax, whereas you and others (mostly of the so-called „middle class“) have to pay all or almost all taxes.

The European males have become too weak; so they are currently not able to be extreme - unless their extreme weakness is meant.

The people of the media - the „mediots“ (from: die „Medioten“ - Udo Lindenberg) - should be punished for their sins.

The super-organisms, especially the huge banks and the huge corporations, are the real governments; so they also control every other politics and - of course - the media. In other words: the modern media is a huge propaganda machine of some super-organisms (which are owned by merely a few men).

„After having put all the european countries in deep red ink, ECB blows €400billion on »Brexit Black Friday« bank bailouts... and who is paying for this: taxpayers/consumers who will see their purchasing power going down even more.“ **

Europe has become too different and thus too problematic because of the East-extension (May 2004). This was foreseeable because of the European history.

But extension is something that no super-organism (the EU is such a super-organism) can really refuse - politicians belittle this by using the word „practical constraint“ („Sachzwang“). So the EU has got a problem which has to do with overstretching. It has been overstretched since the Euro and the East-expansion. At the latest.

If all governing people (the public and the hidden ones) and all other people who are more than the average people are nihilistic resp cynic, what can most of the average people and most of those who are less than the average people do except being nihlisic and cynic too? They just copy them - more or less. Resistance is something for a minority - as always.

The government nihilists have more power - that is all. It is not a question of the intelligence in this case, because the almost powerless people have more intelligent people than the powerful people, not only because of the fact that the almost powerless people are 99 times more than the powerful people. Even the most intelligent 1% of the 99% who are almost powerless are averagely more intelligent than the 1% who are powerful. It really is a question of power. If you have power, than you do not need to be very intelligent, an average intelligence is enough, the rest is a question of power itself and that you are capable of keeping it (and for this capability an average intelligence is sufficient).

Wallstreet and the Federal Reserve are private companies / corporations and have been dominating the states, the governments, and all people of the US since 1913 (at the latest). These and other globalists are the real rulers and thus most responsible for all the wars and other catastrophes (including the demographic and economic ones), thus also for the fact that the middle class has almost vanished in the US - the globalists become richer and richer and all the other 99% become poorer and poorer.

Economically, inflation means a sustained increase in the general price level of goods and services in an economy over a period of time. Inflation reflects a reduction in the purchasing power per unit of money.

It is probable that those who claim that they are not conservative are even more religious (because of their ideologies and ideological exercises) than those who claim to be conservative.

Since the globalism has become the winner, the nationalism is out and thus not as dangerous anymore as it once was. Globalism is far more dangerous than nationalism.

„Make America strong“ means „make the globalists richer and thus more powerful“ (the globalists are not „Americans“ but merely globalists).

The Greek-Roman culture collapsed after it has become a civilization in a Spenglerian sense (perhaps you remember what Spengler wrote in his main work). Long before that collapse the same happened, for example, in Egypt, much later also in the region of the Mayas, for example.

Culture is the successful or/and unsuccessful implementation of the trial to escape from nature.

I can guarantee you, that, genetically resp. biologically, the „birth“ of the „I“ is the fertilization.

The French started the so-called „Indochina War“ (the correct name is „French War“ again), but the other war, the war of the US in Vietnam was a different one, because it was a war of the US interest and not of the French interest who had already lost this war (they lost almost all wars). The US were the aggressor and started their war.

It is easy to find a scapegoat. But when you look at, for example, the First World War, then you will not find one causer but merely many causers on both sides. Those who are blamed by victor's justice are often innocent. But in the case of the US wars the US were the aggressor, faked, and started their wars. So they are to blame, they are not innocent, but they were not occupied, so that nobody could tell them by victor's justice that they and only they are to blame.

It was more than just an „US war against Vietnam“ (** ) - a world super power against a small third world nation, and it was in the interest of the US and their money givers. So it was an attack with the risk to cause the third world war - not for the first and not for the last time.

Europe has no chance to come together, if the poblems are not solved. Again: The Holy Roman Empire of German Nation existed for more than 1000 years. No other political entity has reached such a great age - except the unholy Imperium Romanum that has reached the same age.

Another good example is the German Hanse (Hansa), the Hanseatic League inside (and later also outside) the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation.

„Hanse“ („Hansa“) was the Middle Low German word for a convoy, and this word was applied to bands of merchants traveling between the Hanseatic cities whether by land or by sea. Hanse means a union of towns (hanse towns) that started in Lübeck (North Germany).It was very successful, and only the discovery of America could gradually stop it.

This gas pipeline politics is primarily directed against Russia. .... Do you smell the coming war?

The following map shows pipelines in Europe, including cross-border, international pipelines which originate or end in European countries. You can click the map to see an enlarged version. On the map and table, pipeline label codes are colored green for oil, red for gas and blue for products, such as gasoline and ethylene. The diameter, length and capacity of the pipelines, if known, are shown on the tables.

In former days the working class was the underclass (lower class) and also called „prolelariat“ (at least by communistic socialists), but this underclass has been changing and calling „precariat“ since the 1990's (at the latest!).

Unfortunately, they are currently trying to destroy the whole middle class, so that there will be merely two classes in the relatively near future: (1) upper class and (2) lower class. The number of this lower class will increase more than ever before, and this may lead to the „argument“ that „this number must be reduced urgently“.

I did not experience much of the „Law of Jante“ when I was in Scandinavia. I merely had much fun there.

Max Weher's „Leistungsethik“ must be translated by „performance ethic“ or „achievement ethic“, because he did not mean „Arbeitsethik“ which is correctly translated by „work ethic“.

hose who emigrate are those who can pay the people smuggler, so that the left homelands become even poorer than before.

The „knowledge is power“ model is not absolutely but merely relatively right.

The wishful thinking that „knowledge leads to the most powerful position ever“ is similar to the wishful thinking that „one can be absolutely free“.

What I mean is that in an early human group an „I“ could not behave individually in a modern sense, thus like a modern „I“, because every „I“ had to be like the „we“ , every son had to be like his father and former ancestors, every daughter had to be like her mother and former ancestors. If someone tried to not follow this main rule of that early human culture, then this one would be killed. Someone who broke this rule was punished to death. There was no way out of the group.

And there is stiil a cultural „we“ for us Westerners, but it is not as strong as it was in former times. Our „we“ has been becoming weak.

Do you know, for example, the rules of modern „gangs“? What do this „modern“ gangs do when it comes to breaking their rules (this rules are like „laws“ for them)? They punish their members to death, if they trie to break their rules. So they are referring to one of the first human rules. Why are they doing that? They are doing that, because they do not want any member of the gang to leave the gang. They are going back to early times of the humans. Development is more cyclical or spiral than just linear („progressive“).

You may call it „regression“ (**), but what I mean is more the cyclic or spiral aspect of any development, thus also any cultural development (evolution, history). So any development means much of analogical repetition, retry, iterance. So this behavior is not pathological but normal in the sense of the respective cultural development. If there had been „modern gangs“ during the 18th century in the Occidental culture, then their members would have been punished to death before joining, so they would have had no chance at all. But the same thing at the same place but at a different time (for example the current time or the time of the late antique Imperium Romanum) is possible. Societies must be decadent enough to have such „modern gangs“. this „modern gangs“ or other examples show very clearly that the development is backward („regressive“), although it is forward („progressive“).

The Occidental culture is an „I“ -culture, thus it is very much more individualistic than all other cultures. So in the Occidental culture the „I“ is more considered than in all other cultures. But this does not mean that the Occidental culture does not consider the „we“- it merely means that it considers the „I“ much more than all other cultures do. And this is especially due to the reformation (protestantism).

There is an increasing number of lost jobs.
There is an increasing number of machines that replace the jobs of humans.
There is an increasing number of immigrants that replace the jobs of natives.
There is an increasing number of women that replace the jobs of men.

According to this facts there can only be an increasing number of unemployed humans. The said machines, immigrants and women have never been a part of the employment-market before entereing it. So, for the Western societies, it is not possible anymore to add so many jobs that are needed to - at least - hold the number of enemployment on the same level. The politicians of this societies have no other choice than letting the number of unemployment increase more and more. Or do you believe in wizards and wonders? It seems that only a catastrophe can stop this insane politics.

Heidegger’s „man“ does not exactly mean what the English „man“ means.

Each one is the other, and no one is her-/himself. Being-with-one-another manages averageness, inauthenticity.

Consumerism appeals to the „I“ in order to get the whole „we“. So in the medium run the „we“ is always more appealed than the „I“. If there was only one consumer, namely the „I“, then there would be almost no profit for the provider. So we - as the „we“ - have to be the consumers. Consumerism wants the „we“ as the consumerist society.

So the rulers (regardless whether they are economical rulers or political rulers) are always trying to put the „I“ and the „we“ together. This does not completely but partly work. And this was why I mentioned Heidegger's „man“ („man“ does not mean the same as in English here). Each one is the other, and no one is her-/himself. Being-with-one-another manages averageness, inauthenticity. And if there is no authentic „I“ but an „I“, namely the inauthentic „I“, then it is easier for the rulers to influence the whole „we“. They can use the „we“ (including the „I“ - the inauthentic „I“ of course) for wars, for consume, ... for whatever they want to.

he unemployment rate in the United States is currently about 23% (tending upwards - of course), I guess. So about every fourth US citizen has currently no job.

The meaning of feminism has not to do with females as such but with cheap wages, which means the replacement of expensive male work by cheap female work. If you compare feminism and immigration with the machine revolution we have been experiencing since the last third of the 18th century, then you will see that both feminism and Immigration have the same economical and demographical function as the machines have: replacing the espensive occidental male workers by cheap workers, destroying the occidental patriarchalism, thus destroying the occidental families and reducing the occidental birthrates.

After a recession there is always a positive trend. Duh. In other advanced nations the nadir of the said recession occurred later than in the US, just because of the fact that the cause of that recession came from the US. There is time between the cause and its effect.

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

Life is not limbo, life is not hovering, life is, at least sometimes, a burden that one has to bear. And if there are people that are not capable of bearing it, then they must be belped, for example by good politicians. Our „liberal“ and „social“ politicians are not good, because they are leftists. They are just saying: „life is hovering, and if it is not, then we give you money and, yes, more money“ - not mentioning that this all means: DEBTS!

Debts over and over again - that is the real meaning of Keynesianism and Neo-Keynesianism, of inflationism. It is not possible to solve all problems by creating money out of the blue, because it is not possible to create something out of nothing. „Von nichts kommt nichts“ is a German saying. You can't make something out of nothing. Thus: You can't make money out of nothing. And if you try it, you will only get DEBTS.

If I had to choose only one attribute for describing the Occidental culture, then I would always choose „faustic“ (just like Spengler did with reference to Goethe’s „Faust“).

I mean that crime is caused by both nature and nurture. Crime has its roots in nature. All living beings are criminal, but only human beings are capable of knowing what crime is. Also this human capability has its roots in nature but must be passed on by nurture. You need a brain in order to understand what crime is. If nurture can but does not let you know what crime is, then nurture causes crime. If nurture does let you know what crime is, then nurture does not cause crime, but if you nevertheless become criminal in that case, then nature, namely the nature in you, causes crime, and you yourself are responsible for it, since you can (know what crime is), and therefore you must (know what crime is). You can, so you must (cp. Kant).

In the Mesopotamian or Sumerian culture the „I“ did not matter much, in the Egyptian culture the „I“ did not matter much, in the Chinese culture the „I“ did not and does not matter much, in the Indian culture the „I“ did not and does not matter much, in the Apollinian (Greek-Roman) culture the „I“ did not matter much, in the Old-South-and-Middle-American culture the „I“ did not matter much, in the Arabic/Islamic culture the „I“ did not and does not matter much. It was and is only the Faustian Occidental culture where the „I“ did and does matter much (at least relatively to all other cultures).

Other middle or large collective forms are - for example - „gangs“, churches, states, cooperations/companies (super-organisms / organisation-systems).

There has always been more „I“ in the culture of the Occident than in all other cultures. Even the current „human rights“ are based on this typical Occidental issue, and note: I am not judging here - I am talking about facts.

The Lutheran reformation was a revolution of both (1) about the „I“ itself and (2) how we think about the „I“.

It is certainly no coincidence that two similar beliefs occured and became dogmas at the same time: (1) the belief that the big bank can create the money out of nothing; (2) the bielef that the big bang can create the universe out of nothing.

The United Statess have the worst healthcare system of all so-called „first world“ nations.

History has shown that all so-called „human rights“ have almost always been hidden rationales and hidden justifications for exploitation everything and everyone the exploiters want to exploit.

The more rhetoric laws amd rhetoric rights the humans invent the more human they are. This is meant in a negative and a positive way, but the negative one prevails the positive one the more the more laws or rights are invented. At least, this is the case in modernity. So, if we use your way of morality, we have merely two small „chances“ (it is questionable whether they are chances or not): (1) we stop inventing rhetoric laws and rhetoric rights, (2) we stop modernity.

The said laws and rights are full of rhetoric, elocution, thus: speaking technique (it is more or less the same as faking technique).

Globalism is the synthesis of techno-creditism (capitalism) and socialism (communism). It is easier and more efficient to enslave the masses by both than by merely one of both.

Capitalism will not completely be replaced by anything, at least not in the near future. We have to ask what „capitalism“ really means and come to the answer that it is not less but also not more than a „techno-creditism“, because credit is needed in order to accumulate capital and to pay the also needed technological inventions and investments. Globalism as the currently dominating system is already a synthesis of capitalism (techno-creditism) and socialism (communism). So capitalism is more replaced than it was in the past (from about the last thrird of the 18th till about the end of the first half of the 20th century, when the Keynesianism began), but it also has been increasing. Keynesianistic capitalism means making, contracting debts in an exponentially increasing way.

In the long run, capitalism will probably be replaced by something (perhaps a new feudalism) coming after a disaster.

If Europe will continue its self-destructiv politics, then there will be no future for it.

Change is not always morally good but often morally bad, evil. The problem is that change is happening anyway. So we would have to do the change also in order to prevent change, a different change, or to live according to something like an amor fati as the alternative choice. We are experiencing the change either actively or passively.

There has never been so much violence (compare alone the current number of wars and warlike events) in the world than today (which roughly means from 1990 till now).

What you (**) are describing there can also be said about the Occidental nations, especially the US nation: „... birth control ..., ... effectively causing large scale human right violations ..., ... natural disaster ..., ... end up in Swiss bank accounts belonging to various politicians ..., ... drug lords, rake in huge profits, causing further economic decline, poverty ap, illness and death, ... unemployment ..., ... in the name of good will, human rights , and the insincerity of alleged foreign aid“ (**).

Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot were no real communists but most extreme terrorists, totalitarianists, mass murderers (more than 100 million humans were killed) who could stabilize their system only by murdering more and more people. Mao said to Stalin in 1949 that he would donate further 100 million dead people, if they were needed for the victory of what they called „communism“, thus their totalitarian terrorism by killing. If that added wish of Mao had also come true, then the number of the „communistic“ victims would have been more than 200 million killed humans.

Imagine, many nations in East, South, North, and Central Asia, some nations in West Asia, many nations in Africa found a second UNO, an Eastern-and-Southern-UNO, a Second-and-Third-World-UNO.

If we can take the President Rodrigo Roa Duterte seriously (in dubio pro re), then we have to face two facts according to the BBC text (see above):

Duterte does not want drugs, drug dealers, drug lords, thus drug-related deaths in his country. The current UNO (thus mainly the „Western World“) wants drugs, thus drug lords, drug dealers, drug-related deaths in all countries of the world.

Why is it not possible to seriously talk about this global problems? Drugs are everywhere in this world, are expensive, cause many, many, many dying people, thus much death and much money.

Economically and politically said, drugs are like wars and terrorism (civil wars). They bring much money resp. power.

There is a business cycle. A cycle means that the parts of the cycle are returning parts. You can also speak of „waves“. Recession is always a part of the business cycle. So it is correct to say that there is always a positive trend after a recession.

Bankers and other businessmen, also politicians, suggest that „money can be made out of nothing“, regardless whether they know or not know what they suggest. And this suggestion is relevant, especially in societies that economically live according to Keynesian(istic) or Neo-Keynesian(istic) politics: making DEBTS - and nothing else.

Obama depends as much on the money givers as or even more than those politicians of the „American right wing“. And what is the „American right wing“, if not a rhetorical word again? Do you mean, for example, the Chilean, Mexican, Canadian, or which one of the so-called „American right wing“? What is it exactly?

The best one can do, if one wants to have power over as much people as possible, is to rule over them as covertly as possible.

The Apollinic culture was pretty much attached to homsexuality and especially to pederasty.

Interestingly, Christianity originated from a desert of the Arabian Peninsula where later the Islam also orginated from, but the former conquered the Europeans (their souls and their climate), whereas the latter did not. I think that is the main difference between the both, because the Europeans as an intelligent and industrial populace conquered the whole world, became wealthy and powerful, got a guilty conscience and the Islamic immigrants (economic refugees and conquerers). And this Islamic immigrants - accompanied by other immigrants and the European feminists - shall stop the said European development. That is the idea behind feminisation, immigration, islamisation. The Europeans become more and more feminine/feministic and then - via immigration - more and more islamic/islamistic too - and the result will be the greatest chaos of the last 6000 years or even of all times.

„»In Sweden at first I was appalled by all the rapes of us Swedish women especially as a feminist but later I discovered that these rapes are justified in that it makes up for the white guilt of us Swedes where possibly it might be morally justified on the part of Muslim men. Now I've converted to Islam and wear a Hijab everyday. Everyday is a real struggle reconciling my western feminist beliefs with Islam but slowly I am being able to. Down with the sexist white Christian Swedish patriarchy! Allah Akbar!«“ (** ). The one who said that seems to make money (thus: to get recognition and power) out of that politically correct text or/and to suffer from the Stockholm syndrome. Another politically correct text with the following question as its title: „Why are there high rape crimes in Sweden, Norway and Denmark compared to the rest of the world?“ (**). One of the politically incorrect and thus forbidden questions is: „Why are Vikings no longer allowed to be Vikings?“

Feminism is another religion of hate, a modern religion of hate and other modern and ancient religions of hate threaten an ancient religion of love (that has more than 2 billion believers [**|**|**|**]) and a whole culture (of about 1 billion people). This threat is part of what Oswald Spengler (1880-1936) predicted and called „Farbige Weltrevolution“ („Colored World Revolution“).

There is always coincidence too in history, but currently the tendency is pretty clear. This tendency is a great chaos.

There is an unadapted minority within the silent majority, and sometimes this unadapted people are even the majority. It depends on how the times are, how the respective situation is.

With regard to the belief in an anthropogenic greenhouse effect, there is a vocal minority and a silent minority behind the vocal minority, and this two want the majority to believe in an anthropogenic greenhouse effect as if it should become a part of their new religion - other parts of tis new religion are: globalism (although it mainly contradicts the anthropogenic greenhouse effect) feminism, system of guilt complex (guilty conscience, thus: guiltism [does that word exist already?]), ... and so on. The question is whether it is already a majority or still a minority that believes in an anthropogenic greenhouse effect. The number of that believers still increases.

Cities like that are abnormal, but they exist. They are architectural facts of human history.

Like I said: Humans are not made for big cities or cities at all but for thorps, villages; because they are living beings of relatively small groups (like packs, prides, flocks, herds).

Homicide rate per 100,000 inhabitants in 2012 (#### 0-1, #### 1-2, #### 2-5, #### 5-10, #### 10-20, #### >20):

The current number of the world population is 7,447,916,555. So we currently have 1,495,833,110 humans as the 20% of the current world population. I think this is probably a realistic number of those you mean. And 20% are enough for those who are managing „it“.

There is an unadapted minority within the silent majority, and sometimes this unadapted people are even the majority. It depends on how the times are, how the respective situation is.

The humans of the Occidental culture and merely some others are probabaly the only humans (probably in fact about 20%) who are interested in the anthropogenic greenhouse effect.

Humans are the only species that really fights against the nature. But when it comes to accusing humans to be responsible for the greenhouse effect, we must also say that there is much money in play. The greenhouse effect is not automatically anthropogenic, because it is a natural effect by definition and caused by the sun and some other cosmic effects. So the question ist whether humans are really capable of causing a greenhouse effect. It is no question that humans are ecological destroyers, that they destroy their natural environment, but it remains a question whether the greenhouse effect is caused by them, in other words: whether the anthropogenic greenhouse effect is a criminal fact or a criminal fake (caused by some certain humans who make much money out of it) or both.

Note: The money that is payed as a fine (=> penance) by the polluters (=> sinners) goes to the „eco-popes“, the banksters.

But modernity itself is a problem too or, at least, more and more people believe that modernity is a problem, and its people, the Occidental people, are responsible for all problems people have been facing since the end of the 18th century. Therefore many people think or shall think that they have the right for any „revolution“ they want to make - with the result of an endless „revolution“ of almost all kinds. Almost! Since these „revolutions“ make no sense except one: they are always happening under control, so that senseful revolutions do not happen. What senseless „revolutions“ achieve is a more and more problematic world. Senseless revolutions are like wars, civil wars, and they are merely senseful for those who are supposed to be the enemy: the rulers, because they become richer and more powerful by these senseless „revolutions“.

Antagonistic isms like feminism and Islamism are in the interest of the rulers and their puppets. The majority is usually not but is ought to be interested in them, because both the puppet minority and the majority are permanently bombarded by those antagonistic isms via mass media and education systems like kindergartens, schools, universities. So at last there will be the following distribution of interests: (1) 1% with interests being self-interests, (2) 99% with interests being no self-interests (because they are the interests of the 1%).

Modernity stands for a modern society / culture. It does not necessarily stand for a ruling system. The current ruling system is not really new, not really modern, it is as old as human history, and merely some of its instruments are modern, which does not mean that the current rulers are modern minded. So modernity does not automatically mean that those who are ruling are really modern. The rulers themselves do not have to be modern, they have to have the control over everything and everyone who is modern and who is not modern. And indeed: The rulers are „merely“ interested in controlling, having power, regardless whether those who are controlled are modern or not. And that is a very old one and thus not a typically modern attitude.

If „feminism weakens the West for Islamic conquest“ (**), we have also to mention that Islamism weakens the West for Islamic conquest, because its terrorism weakens the West, at least currently. There is still no real Western resistance to Islamism. There is more and more Western weakness. And furthermore: there is also much Western conversion to Islam, especially to Islamism.

So if both feminism and Islamism weaken the West, then they are strategically compatible for those who benefit from this development, because actually feminism and Islamism are not compatible.

Currently there is only Western weakness. The Western people do nothing against terrorism. If their rulers speak of „terrorism“ and „Islamism“ they want to frighten and weaken their people. So their „war on terror“ means „war against their own people“.

Europeans find themselves in a dilemma. If they refuse feminism, they (actively or passively) support Islamism; if they refuse Islamism, they (actively or passively) support feminism; and if they refuse both, they are suspected of being both islamophobic racists and misogynistic sexists - regardless of the fact that it is almost always known that they are neither islamophobic racists nor misogynistic sexists. This is how Globalism works, because Globalism is much more socialistic than market based. The Globalistic socialism is an anti-national-socialism resp. inter-national-socialism (as long as nations are needed, because nations shall disappear in the medium to long term).

Morality has to be learned. It is a matter of education. The DNA says nothing about morality but merely about the potential to learn. If a human learns morality in a wrong or an evil way, then it is because of a false learning. Not morality but learning morality is in the DNA.

Norms, morality, ethics are not based on DNA, but the learning of what norms, morality, ethics mean (note: they change) is based on DNA. Learning, which is mainly based on DNA, is not the same as norms, morality, ethics, which are not based on DNA but on culture, education, learning.

There is no gene for morality, for ethics, for philosophy. All what humans can do when it comes to good or evil is to learn what it means, and that is also the reason why it is absolutely useless to educate little children before they have reached the age of the acquisition of the adult language. Language (I mean the adult language - not the „baby talk“) is required for e.g. the learning what good or evil means.

If a human who has reached the child/adult border, thus an adolescent age of about 14 years or some years more (it depends on each case), and does not knwo what morality in the sense of a good-and-evil-system means, then this human will probably never leran what it means. That is the point.

Does „right wing“ really mean „to hate black people“?
If yes, then „left wing“ means „to love black people“. Right?

If one has no chance of getting out of the feminism/islamism dilemma, then this means, at least to those who control this dilemma, that feminism and islamism are compatible, at least temporarily.

Globalists are in Europe too. Europeans would have to become absolutely capable of defending themselves and their whole territory. War is lucrative, and many actors, especially the most powerful ones - the Globalists -, know that they will benefit, become more powerful or at least remain powerful.

So I guess that Europe will probably remain relatively passive and weak, in an oddly awaiting position, then be coerced into war pretty soon (at least long before 2050), and the result will be a huge loss and a huge chaos. The beginning of it can alraedy be seen (although many people do not want to see it, because they shall not want to see it - which means that this first little circle is complete, because the plan of the Globalists is reached again).

„Islam's incorporation into Europe, as it is right now, is too forced and quick, meaning that someone is pushing for war. (A war which will benefit US).“ (** ). Yes. And it is also true that that war will benefit the US (like other wars did before).

You will have to pay not only for your atoms but also for each of your elementary (fundamental) particles.

Do you know the story of Plotin (Plotinos, Plotinus [205-270]) who was so much spiritualized, that he was ashamed of having a body?

Lost jobs are caused more by socialism than by markets. An example: Who was and is most responsible for the very high wages (also known as very high personnel costs): the markets or the socialism (unions, trade unions, labor unions, states, municipalities, churches, ...)?

When the human history began, the first cities and states were built, thus about 6000 years ago, the real market (free market) ended and the ideal market (social market), thus the very first form of socialism, began.

If it is said that the market requires more this and more that, then it is mostly the social state, thus socialism, that needs more money in order to socialize the market, which means to control people. This is because of the sinister partnership of market and socialism (mediated by laws and money), which always means that the strong market becomes weak and the weak socialism becomes strong.

Lost jobs are also caused by markets, of course, but, as if this was not problematic enough, socialism set one above on it by making that problem a huge problem.

The medical industry has no interest in feminization but in illness, has no interest in reducing the population but in reducing the health.

Those who want to control or do control all others are interested in feminization, illness, reducing the population, reducing the health, reducing the fertility, reducing the intelligence, reducing the wealth, ... and many other things the controllers benefit from.

The medical industry exists because of illness resp. reduced health and the techn(olog)ical revolution (machine revolution) in combination with the credit revolution.

So there also exists a medical cynism and a scientifical/techn(olog)ical cynism.

Compare wages of the „1st world“ with wages of the „2nd and 3rd world“. Wages of the „1st world“ have become high in a relatively short time, whereas wages of the „2nd and 3rd world“ have not become high. The „partnership“ of market and socialism causes relatively high wages, and they are caused more by the „partner“ socialism than by the „partner“ market. That is my thesis. The precondition is this „partnership“.

Note: I am not saying that wages are too high from (for example) a worker's point of view .

The wages of the 2nd world were/are too low because of communism - compared with the wages in capitalistic societies. The communistic wages were/are not competitive resp. competitively viable.

It depends on whether both capitalism (techno-creditism) and socialism (communism) work together or not. If a society has merely one of the both, then the wages are low, unless its living costs are cheaper than its wages. So the fact that wages are relatively high or relatively low depends on two comparisons: (1.) the comparison with the living costs of the same society, (2.) the comparison with wages of other societies. If your society has a high inflation (like many Western societies currently have - because of the [Neo-]Keynesianistic system / Debtism / Globalism), then its living costs are high, and it is most likely in that case that its wages are low compared with its living costs, but it can nevertheless be the case that its wages are high compared with the wages of other societies.

Democracy is mor a form of government than a form of state. - Anyway. - There has never been a real or 100% democracy in history.

Maybe it is better to define „democracy“ in order to avoid misunderstandings.

„Democracy“ means „popular government“ / „popular sovereignty“, thus that the „people“ („demos“) „govern“ („kratein“), that people have the „power“ or at least the main power. This already shows that the word „democracy“ is based more on wishful thinking than on real action. In other words: A 100% democracy is not possible. There are always others who have an interest in government but no interest at all in democracy. Therefore other mechanisms are needed to implement democracy, for eample: state of law (constitutional state - as I already said) and division of powers. But there are nevertheless not enough mechanisms for a 100% democracy. It is just not possible because of nature, of life, especially of the human nature and life.

The best prospects for having a democracy are: homogeneity, a common enemy (a natural or a cultural one) or something like a (seemingly) permanent danger, and everyone must be needed (compare: „SAM“).

Modern people know that they live and have to live in this world, not in a „world“ beyond this world, and so they live according to the conditions and principles of this world ....

Most of the modern people want to live according to a principle that can guarantee them a wealthy life. They want promises in this world, thus not in a „world“ beyond this world, because they know that nobody currently knows whether there is a „world“ beyond this world. And they believe that money is the best one of those promises.

I am not an anarchist, but I always take anarchy / anarchism in account, because anarchy / anarchism belongs to history (it has occured again and again in history). Anarchy is historically / culturally what chaos / entropy is evolutionarily / naturally. It happens again and again - either historically / culturally (anarchy) or evolutionarily / naturally (chaos / entropy) - after a relatively long period of its (relative) absence.

Life is the resistance to or struggle against entropy, and culture is the resistance to or struggle against anarchy. Both can merely be temporarily successful.

Maybe there will happen some relevant events (for example the collapse of the Keynesianistic/Neo-Keynesianistic system [„fiat“ money system], a disaster as a consequence of the global war, a natural disaster, the take-over of the androids) at almost the same time.

That diagram shows which empire has been existing since Bretton Woods: the US Dollar Empire.

Even the other strong currencies like Deutsche Mark (DM), what is now called „Euro“ (and does not really work), or Yen support the US Dollar Empire.

At the end of 1990 it was like this:
US Dollar: 428.8 US $ (55%).
Deutsche Mark (DM): 160.9 US $ (21%).
Yen: 75.0 US $ (10%).
Pound Sterling: 24.3 US $ (3%).
French Franc: 15.4 US $ (2%).
Swiss Franken: 14.5 US $ (2%).
Dutch Gulden: 8.5 US $ (1%).
...

In 2015 the IMF declared the Remnimbi (Yuan) as the fifth reserve currency after US Dollar, Euro (Deutsche Mark), Yen, Pound Sterling.

What did they do when they wanted to come into war? Think, for example, of the USS Maine (1898), the RMS Lusitania (1915), Pearl Harbour (1941), Tongking (1964) ... and so on. .... Psst .... Top secret.

In every group there are always some who live at the cost of the others, and this fact is called the tragedy of the commons.

In the USA the „Green Party“ was founded in 1991. In Germany the „Greens“ as a party were already founded in the 1970s, and in the 1990s they had already overtaken all other parties in being evil. So let me tell you that there is no hope at all for the global problems when it comes to such allegedly „green“ parties. It is just the other way around.

It is a difference whether a heterosexual white man, a heterosexaul black man, a homosexual white man, a homosexual black man, a heterosexual white woman, a heterosexual black woman, a homosexual white woman, or a a homosexual black woman wants the war and says this publicly.

Soon it will be possible to carry the zygote, the embryo, and the fetus in an extrauterine way. Then we will have totally arrived at the point of the more insecure, the more primitve reproduction again. We will no longer need any intrauterine thing then.

The natural womb as the realization of the the natural idea to lay the egg into the inside of the body will have become obsolete. There will be no natural birth any longer, since the natural uterus will not be needed any longer. Humans will not be needed any longer - their natural reproduction will be replaced by genetic engineering and artificial „wombs“, their economical production will be replaced by machines and perhaps by artificial humans (cyborgs) .... So humans will either become artificial humans or die out.

America is not the US, America is a double continent. It is not a country or even a nation. To say „America is the US“ is an imperialistic, thus an aggressive, attacking, enslaving statement.

And the US bombs were and are thrown in the name of the US and not in the name of the GOP.

1945: On August 6, the U.S. dropped an uranium gun-type atomic bomb (Little Boy) on Hiroshima. Three days later, on August 9, the U.S. dropped a plutonium implosion-type bomb (Fat Man) on Nagasaki. Within the first two to four months of the bombings, the acute effects of the atomic bombings killed 90,000–146,000 people in Hiroshima and 39,000–80,000 in Nagasaki; roughly half of the deaths in each city occurred on the first day. During the following months, large numbers died from the effect of burns, radiation sickness, and other injuries, compounded by illness and malnutrition. In both cities, most of the dead were civilians, although Hiroshima had a sizable military garrison. There are still sickness, illness, and other injuries because of that war crime.

On August 15, six days after the bombing of Nagasaki and the Soviet Union's declaration of war, Japan announced its surrender to the Allies.

Philosophically said, the Marxistic communism, which is based on Hegel's dialectic, says that the capitalism is the thesis, the dictatorship of the proletariat is the antithesis, and classless equality and equal happiness for all is the synthesis. But if it is right that history is class struggle (war), then it is not - or at least only without history - possible to get a classless equality and equal happiness for all. Okay, Hegel already claimed the end of history (**|**), also Marx who was a Left-Hegelian, and many others (mostly Hegelians, some Nietzscheans, some others). So, as long as there is history there is no classless equality and equal happiness for all, so that the classes, the inequality, thus the class struggles (war) remain.

There are different climates, different weathers, different cultures, different languages, different thoughts. So why should there not be differences in thinking systems, philosophies? There are such differences.

Our leaders of the party „Die Grünen“ („The Greens“) told the same lies during the 1970's and 1980's. And then in the 1990's they have been telling other lies, because they had been becoming the loudest warmongers.

The experiences the Green Party in the U.S. is currenly making are very similar to those of the Green Party in Germany during the 1970's and 1980's.

The „electing“ people do not count, because those who should be „elected“ by them are already elected by a few others.

War requires weapons. Either they are part of the body, or they need to be made resp. bought from someone else. So war is a business too. This means that war becomes more and more lucrative and that nobody of the big war business has an interest in giving it up.

Especially in modern times the contradiction between the war business of a very few people and the wish of living in peace and harmony of the most people is very obvious. So the rhetorical lies are on top, since the few people of the war business are powerful, whereas the most people are powerless.

One of the most interesting questions is: What was first: war and disharmony or peace and harmony?

One can try to apply the dialectic process to Hegel’s dialectic itself. If we say that Hegel’s dialectic is anti-analytic and the analytic philosophy anti-dialectic, then there are thesis and antithesis in two ways, but we do not really know which one of them starts at first as thesis. Starting at first is an advantage in this case. So which one is the one with that advantage? If we will never know this, then we will have to state that both remain just opposites, because it would be unfair to say this or that one starts at first. But, in that case, it is also problematic to say what the synthesis is. The first one (thesis) with the advantage will always say that the second one (antithesis) is somehow „false“ or „evil“, so that the first one will always make a major contribution to the synthesis.

Another possibility is to give the advantage to the second one, the antithesis, for example to the dictatorship of the proletariat - as we know not only from history. Principally, everyone and not only egalitarianists like the communists, can „argue“ in this way.

My point is that it is not theoretically decidable who is on first, because, apparently, that decision is given by history (resp. evolution) itself, and that means by powerful people (resp. nature).

Dialectic processes are not nonsense, because they really happen. So they are, philosophically said, ontological, thus not only logical.

Humans always place something (e.g. „Big Bang“) or someone (e.g. God) at the beginning. So according to most humans this placed one came first. Let us take the following example for a dialectic process in a religious and theological sense: (1) the thesis God came first, (2) the antithesis Devil was the second one who came, (3) the synthesis Man came as the thrid one. If we exchange the first one (thesis God) and and the second one (antithesis Devil) for each other, then we will pretty soon notice that the third one (synthesis Man) would have other properties than in the first example.

So we better should assume that there was neither a first one nor a second one, but both existed already at that time which we want to be the first time or the beginning of time?!?. They were, are, and will be in conflict with each other. And it is up to the third one - the synthesis - (as „the smiling third“?) to make the best of it, e.g. to gain from the polemic, the struggle, the war of the first and the second one?!?. Good for the human rulers ....

If you have made the Hegel's dialectic your own and are powerful enough, then you can do with the less powerful people whatever you want. You just play the historical game called „dialectic process“ by using them like chess-men.

If you want to rhetorically use these polemical two (thesis and antithesis), you merely have to jump into the synthesis as the smiling third by supporting the thesis and pretending that the antithesis is considered too, although in reality the antithesis is much more suppressed than considered.

(The polemical two are certainly misused, because we live in an era of much misuse.)

It is not possible to get rid of Hegel. Take, for example, his dialectic. The dialectic process is not unreal and not merely logical (theoretical) but also ontological (factual).

These days, you should not be white, not be male, not be heterosexual, not be Christian - and all those who are still white, male, heterosexual Christians should never be fathers, thus never have children.

If you are a White-who-officially-hates-Whites, or, just for example, a Nazi-who-officially-hates-Nazis, a man-who-officially-hates-men, a Christian-who-officially-hates-Christians, a capitalist-who-officially-hates-capitalists, ... and so on, then you have good prospects to get respect - at least officially. The more you are officially (thus: not really) a self-criticist, the more respect you get - at least officially.

The method is very easy: You jump with your „thesis“ (e.g.: „X is evil“) into your „synthesis“ (e.g.: „if X is [not] well treated, then X [remains evil] is good“) - the role of the smiling third - by suppressing the „antithesis“ (e.g.: „X is good“) and telling the lie that „the antithesis has always the chance to oppose and is always using its opposing role“.

Unfortunately, most humans are not interested or/and do not understand the technological development and its consequences.

Alleged „oppositionists“ use other „ists“ not because they like them but because they hate the same „object“. There is the same example with all alleged „Greens“ who are political not because they like the green nature but because they hate people who drive cars or have factories ... and so on. .... The deepest reason for that is the fact that they hate themselves.

Marx’ philosophical development went from philosophy to political economy - but not back from political economy to philosophy. His mistake was that he did not go back to philosophy where he began. This mistake left a gap, and it was just this gap that Lenin later used disastrously for his terrorism.

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

Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling said that nature casts up its eyes in the human being. So I am saying that culture casts up its eyes in the current phase of the Occidental culture, which means the trend to transhuman beings.

„MEPHISTOPHELES : Was gibt es denn? // WAGNER (leiser) : Es wird ein Mensch gemacht.
....
WAGNER : So muß der Mensch mit seinen großen Gaben // Doch künftig höher’n, höher’n Ursprung haben.
....
HOMUNCULUS (in der Phiole zu Wagner) : Nun, Väterchen! wie steht’s? es war kein Scherz // Komm, drücke mich recht zärtlich an dein Herz.
....
WAGNER (betrübt) : Am Ende hängen wir doch ab // Von Kreaturen, die wir machten.“ - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust (II), S. 114, 115 und 122.
Translation:
„MEPHISTOPHELES : What is happening? // WAGNER (quieter) : A man is being made.
....
WAGNER : So man with his great skills shall have // To have a higher, higher origin in the future.
....
HOMUNCULUS (in the phial to Wagner) : Well, Daddy! how’s things? it was no joke // Come, press close to my heart tenderly.
....
WAGNER (saddened) : In the end, we do depend // On creatures that we made.“ - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust (II), p. 114, 115 and 122.

The younger group (born after the 1960s) wants to become more wealthy by getting money and other things from the older group (so-called „baby-boomers“ - born before the 1970s). The reason for that is the greed! Greed is supported by greedy politicians and greedy lobbyists, if they benefit from it, and they do, because the younger group elects those politicians and lobbyists who promise them everything by benefitting from them and the promised „everything“. By this „Robin-Hood-politics“, the younger group, their „Robin-Hood“-lobbyists and their „Robin-Hood“-politicians benefit, because the older group is averagely wealthier than the younger group.

But it is not the respective younger group alone, it is the whole greed system that benefits from an alleged(ly) „social injustice“ by expropriating those who are allegedly „responsible“ for that „problem“. The fact is almost always that this allegedly „responsible“ people (here in this example: the older people in the West) are victims of this greed system. The example of the older people in the West shows this clearly. They are or will soon be retired, thus get money and services for not working, not being needed anymore. The greed system is an expropriation system; so it must and does always find a group for expropriation. Regardless which kind of group it is: the greed system is merely interested in expropriation and the legalization of expropriation, thus in getting rich and powerful by lies and deception (Lug und Trug).

To want „basic comfort“ and „not wealth,“ as you (**) said, is the normal way of most bourgeois or middle-class people. That is absoluetely okay - in my opinion. Globalism economically means the synthesis of capitalism and communism, and no one knows which one of the both is more considered in globalism. Is it capitalism, or is it communism, or is it exactly a „50%/50%-thing“? - Howsoever. The formerly creeping expropriation of the Western bourgeois or middle-class people has been accelerating its speed more and more.

As almost all other questions, those eight questions mostly - and not accidentally - lead to „politically »correct«“ answers:

Is really nobody tired of political correctness?
Is really nobody wondering why only white countries have to become „multicultural“?
Has really nobody figured out that diversity only means „less white people“?
Is really nobody sick of being blamed for all the world’s problems?
Is really nobody tired of being told that he is „racist“ for celebrating his heritage?
Is really nobody disgusted by the garbage on televison?
Does really nobody see no future for himself or his family?
Is really nobody questioning when immigration will stop?

The greed system works creepingly, but it is nevertheless obvious how it works. The situation in the US is perhaps not like the situation in Europe, but demographical aspects have always played an important role in economy and politics, and the greed system strikes its terror into people's hearts in the USA too, probably even more than in Europe.

The biological basis of all economical interests are urges; and the physical basis of all biological urges is causality. **

So the finality is that the super-rich rulers of the upperclass and the poor people of the underclass benefit from the rich people of the middleclass. „Whites are rich“ means that they are the „much predominantly worldwide middleclass“. So all what the super-rich rulers, their politicians, their journalists, „their“ poor people of the worldwide underclass have to do is to find „arguments“ in order to benefit from the middle-rich people of the much predominantly worldwide middleclass. The goal is: to have a 1% mega-super-rich upperclass (perhaps a new species [

]) and a 99% mega-super-poor underclass. The middleclass of this globe shall vanish for ever.

In other words: The more real communism was not the „communism“ of the past, is not the „communism“ of the present, but will be the communism of the future.

Real history makers are seldom a kind of party, and the one who sides unilaterally, is seldom a real maker or driver / leader of the history. Real world drivers / leaders are true masters of dialectic processes, in particular they know how to push these processes and how to drive them to a desired and advance-calculated synthesis.

Those few who have enough power to make use of that method have an advantage over the many others.

The fall - meant as the seasonal fall or as the setting of the sun (sundown, sunset). At least we as the westerners - but perhaps even all humans - are now at the beginning of the last phase of autumn (fall).

That image shows what debt really means, yes. It is the opposite of the intergenerational justice, thus the intergenerational injustice: the generations of the future pay for the generations of the present. And it is a process that proceeds exponentially.

Nobody of them really knows what „responsibility“ means and what „criminality“ means. No wonder, because they are like their rulers (want them to be: weak, helpless, depressed, suicidal, dead).

As long as there is capitalism (techno-creditism), there is communism (egalitarianism) too. Their „Synthesis“ (cp. Hegel) is globalism or „humanitarianism“ where communism and/or capitalism are/is not gone, but merely „aufgehoben“ (Hegel).

Marx was a Links-Hegelianer (Left-Hegelian). He turned many parts of Hegel's conception upside down - so, for example, Marx said „das Sein bestimmt das Bewußtsein“ („the Sein [being] determines the consciousness“), which was just the opposite of what Hegel had said before him: „das Bewußtsein bestimmt das Sein“ („the consciousness determines the Sein [being]“").

The reason why I am saying that „communism is not dead“ has to do with Hegel's Dialektik, which is - by the way - not turned upside down by Marx. So we do not have to consider Hegel and Marx separately in this case. I think this is well considered in the thread I linked to. So I would prefer to continue the discussion in that said thread.

On the internet, 20% of all nodes attract 80% of all links. All this seems to obey the 80/20 rule (**).

Almost all US presidents have been gangsters who support their gangsters. Trump is just the current one.

Honeybees are very successful and efficient. In one point - offspring (!) - they are even more efficient than humans.

„Reactionary“ as it is defined by „Wikipedia“ is one that refers to the so-called „French revolution“, but the French „revolutionaries“ were not better than those they fightet against, all other revolutionaries after them have given evidence, because they were even more terroristic. In addition: All revolutionaries react! So they themselves are reactionaries.

What remains if all those definitions of „reactionary“ are not really convincing?

This relations and the fact of blackmailing are the reasons why the EU and the Euro still exist. The EU net payers as the EU losers should leave the EU. There should be an EU net payers exit.

The first who discovered America were the Vikings under Leif Eriksson who lived from 970 to 1020. They discovered it around the year 1000.

In 1473, an expedition under the command of the Germans Didrik Pining und Hans Pothorst with their navigator Johannes Scolvus and the Portuguese João Vaz Corte-Real discovered America also before Christopher Columbus (1492).

First your governers sold the gas to the islam terrorists, then they lied about that fact and many other facts - as usual. Do you remember what was told (1) about the port of Havanna, (2) about the Lusitania, (3) about Pearl Harbor, (4) about the Gulf of Tanking, (5) about the Twin Towers, (6) about the chemical weapons in Iraq, (7) about the gas in Syria? Answer: (1) Lies, (2) lies, (3) lies, (4) lies, (5) lies, (6) lies, (7) lies.

Being a super power means being a super liar. Saddam Hussein said that Bush’s lie about the chemical weapons in Iraq was „the mother of all lies“.

„It is better to fall alone with the free than to go in triumph with the slaves.“ - Ernst Jünger, On the Marble Cliffs (original: Auf den Marmorklippen), 1939. Translated by me.

Egosim/individualism (e.g. the one of Max Stirner) is the opposite of communism/socialism. According to communists/socialists an ego/individual is like any other subject and as a such a part of a class, has nothing to say, is almost nothing. According to egoists/individualists a class is like any other non-ego and as a such an oppressor of the ego, an opponent of the individual, an enemy of the one as the free one, a dictator of the subject.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think that Hegel’s „desire to get recognition (appreciation)“ is the basis.

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

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

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

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

How many of the U.S. citizens hate their country, for example because of the unjustice in the world?

All European countries and the countries with people of European origin have such haters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By giving up the gold standard they made the nonsensical debt polilcy even more nonsensical. And in addition, they used the gold standard as an rhetorical „argument“, as if they were capable of „casting out the demons with the ruler of the demons“. But that is what the majority of neuroactive drugs still do.

There is no absolute or optimal solution; but as I said (see above): if the gold standard is one of the demons, then the debt policy is the ruler of the demons. What they did in 1971 was casting out the demons with the ruler of the demons.

It takes more debt to eventually get out of debt.

Or:

1 + 2 = 0 *

WE ALL + IN THE LONG RUN = DEAD *

NO WOMAN + NO CHILDREN = NO PROBLEM *
______________________________

It is very important to let the people know that the whole Occidental culture has become nihilistic, decadent, and one of many political weapons for destroying the own culture is an extreme anti-family policy, which includes an extreme anti-genealogistic, thus also an extreme anti-tradionalistic policy, an extreme hostility to children, an extreme support of abortion, of divorces, of misandry, of homosexuality, of genderism, of autoracism (racism against the own race), of multiculturalism, of »non-traditional marriages«, of individualism in the sense of singledom, isolation ... and so on. We can call this the „dictatorship of the modern totaliarianism with its three main parts liberalism, communism, fascism/globalism (global-fascism).

First of all, „liberalism“ is just a word. And it is a word that is almost always used rhetorically. The lies and deception of the totalitarian liberalism are quite obvious. Almost everyone can now know that „liberty“ in the sense of freedom is only meant for merely a few people, whereas the rest as the mass of all people have to accept that, so that one can rightly say: „liberalism is just another bad totalitarianism - akin to communism (socialism of the extreme leftists) and fascism (socialism of the extreme rightists)“. Liberalism is the first one of the three main totalitarian ideologies of modern times. So one can dialectically say that liberalism is the thesis, communism the antithesis, global-fascism (a.k.a.: globalism) the synthesis. Globalism (a.k.a.. global-fascism) contains liberalism and communism. This synthesis is the current era of the Occidental culture.

You have less health care and other cares in countries (e.g. in the USA) where liberalism is more (more than communism) integrated in globalism than you have in countries (e.g. in EU countries) where communism is more (more than liberalism) integrated in globalism. This does not mean that communism is better than liberalism, but it means that if the first and the third evil come together more closely (which is much more likely) than the first and the second or the second and the third evil there is always less health care and other cares. All three evils have nevertheless some good parts and play their rules in the evil game, and if one evil is more integrated than the other evil, then one evil is more missed than the other evil, which means that also the good parts of the evil that is more missed are more missed than those of the other evil.

We - the Occidentals - have our own, our special forms, thus our Occidental forms of those evil ideologies of our modernity.

When they tell you that you should be „optimistic“, then just do not care, because all totalitarians say that, and they say that, because they want you to be stupid!

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

It is typical for the Occidental culture, especially in these days, that thou shalt not found out who the ruler is. Preferably, the real ruler should not be more known than a variable in a functional equation of an infinitesimal calculus. This means that you have to do a certain mathematical homework before you can find out who the real ruler is. Since: Thou shalt not found out who the ruler is!

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

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

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

It is pretty obvious that one day this Occidental civilization will either get overtaken or get „frozen“. So then and regardless which of the two possibilities will become reality, it will partly (thus: not absolutely) become more natural again - in other words: it will partly get overtaken by nature. But it is pretty probable too that going back to nature will be forbidden someday: about 99% of all people will have to live in ghettos - now known as „cities“. So the result of the so-called „New World Order“ will be either a new feudalism of a global kind or even two globally seperated human species (comparable with - for examle - the Morlocks and the Eloi).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We should distinguish between the news of the natural media or primitive cultural media and the news of the high cultural media or modern mass media.

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

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

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

The „Christianization“ happened to all those who were later called „Europeans“, then to almost all Black-Africans, to all native Americans, to all Australians, to many Asians; thus: to almost all humans of the world.

Then the „White World Revolution“, which had already existed since the end of the 18th century, and the „Colored World Revolution“ (Oswald Spengler’s concept [„Farbige Welt-Revolution“] reacted.

The modern colonisation and imperialism through the Europeans were perhaps indirectly but not directly motivated by certain foreign invasions. By „indirectly“ I mean „through their own earlier history“ when they were probably or perhaps motivated by those invasions. So, if the reference is (A) the earliest beginning of the Europeans as the Occidental Christians, then we have to talk about the change from the pagan German tribes to those Occidental Christians and the proabability that they were motivated (1.) with a very high probability by the Ancient Roman empire and invasions, (2.) with a relatively high probability by the Byzantine empire and invasions, (3.) with medium or low probability by the Arabo-Islamis empire and invasions; if the reference is the (B) earliest beginning of a self, a self-assurance, a self-consciousness of those Occidental Christians, then we do not have to talk about the Mongolian invasion, because the probaility is very low that the Mongolian invasion was such a motivation at that time, but nevertheless: it was not without any effect and may have motivated in some aspects. The main motivation for colonisation and imperialism through the Europeans as the Occidental Christians is their origin, their own being and becoming, and this is something that is not Christian - but Faustian which means e.g. dynamic, highest risk, adventure, technology, science, intelligence, striving for all this till endlessness, regardless whether this striving is possible or not (Faustians just do it).

So I do not think that the Faustians were and are real Christians, they have always conserved something that was before their Christianisation. And by the way: „Occidental Christians“ does not mean „like all other Christians“.

Faustians (Occidentals, Westerners) are no real Christians, because they have been conserving their soul and mind since their origin. They had to „work Christianity off“ after they had become Christians nominally. So deep in their soul and mind Faustians have always remained Faustians. Their real religion or soul image is Faustian (regardless which one the other sprachregelung [convention of speech] is, be it „Occidental Christian“, thus „Catholic“ and „Protestantic“ or whatever).

The people of the European politics and media are talking about Trump as somebody who is an enemy of Europe or, at least, has nothing to do with Europe. Also, the people of the European politics and media are saying about the last occurrences in Charlottesville (Virginia) that the leftist are harmless and the rightists are guilty of the volence. In other words: Europe has become the new USA as the new USSR. I think, there is merely a slight difference between the Europe and the USA when it comes to politics and media.

In former times, there were the dualism of nations and regions, later the dualism of nationalism and regionalism, then the dualism of internationalism and nationalism, then the dualism of globalism and regionalism that has become what it has always tended to: the dualism of globalism and nationalism. So the last dualism is the current one.

The goal of globalism is the destroying all nations, thus also all cores of the nations (families for example, especially because of the tradition, genealogy, history etc. - everything that constitutes a nation). „Antifa“ and other extremely violent organizations are of course paid by the globalists (glozis).

Unfortunately, conservatives are more and more suspected to be nationalists, national socialists (fascists), racists, although everyone could know that that is not the truth about conservatives. It is extremely cynical to lump conservatives and extreme right-wingers together. Doing this has another reason, because it is the goal of the globalists to destroy all genealogy, origin, inheritance, traditions, national history etc.. The fight can be called „globalism versus nationalism“. So the globalists have to lump conservatives and extreme right-wingers together; otherwise they would never achieve their goal.

Globalists belong to the terrible people of modernity and are the most powerful terrorists of the present.

Conservatives are less racist than all other political groups. But conservatives are the ENEMY of the current globalistic system we have. As I said before: the globalistic goal is to destroy ALL nations and everything that has to do with nations, nationalism, national history, traditions, origin, genealogy, biological and economical heritage, inheritance ... and so on; so globalists have to lump conservatives and extreme right-wingers together in order to achieve the globalistic goal.

Note (for the US citizens, Canadians, Australians, partly also the UK citizens and the Irsih people): The word „conservative“ does not so much refer to the meaning that it has in your countries, because it refers to the meaning that it has in Europe, especially in continental Europe.

Except Germany itself and a few others, almost all EU countries will never be able to „survive“ without the European Union (= Germany), thus German money (Germoney). They depend on that „Union“. That is why that „Union“ was founded (and later the Euro as well of course, by the way). Even the Brexit will not destroy the EU. The only chance would be a German exit (Gexit), because in that case all other EU members could not benefit from it anymore.

And the Gexit is prevented by Germany's membership of the NATO and other organizations that have already become organizations of the globalists.

I also think that „this world needs more sovereign independence everywhere“ (**), but I am afraid that this will only happen after the next catastrophe.

The destruction of personal identities (as well as family or other „core“ identities) will cause the destruction of nationhood.

The most important argument against the globalistic dictatorship is freedom, especially in the sense of free thought, free speech, and autarky.

My username stands for freedom. In the year 9, Arminius decided to fight for freedom (with a bit less wealth) and against slavery (wtih a bit more wealth). The German tribes on the other side of the Rhine and (later) also of the limes had more wealth but less freedom. The German tribes of the free Germania Magna had more freedom but less wealth. So what? Who cares? The price for it was it worth. In any case: the trade between free German tribes and the Roman empire grew.

Sometimes it is just better to fight than to always look after more and more wealth.

Okay, we know that humans have never been and will never be absoulutely free. But humans can and should be relatively free. This relative freedom requires a permanent fight. Are you ready for that fight?

A nation is the largest political, societal and economical form that is capable of guaranteeing a relatively freedom - especially free thought, free speech and autarky - of its population. A „global society“ would not be capable of guaranteeing all that. In practice, there is no „global state“, no „global society“, no „global human kind“, no „global humanity“. A „global political and societal form“ is only theory, an ideal that the globalistic dictators are using in order to get more and more control over their slaves.

Globalism with its side effects does not only accelerate the global warming but also (think of its other side effects lztike Balkanization, Brazilianization, Islamization) makes everyone dumber, everything cheaper, especially the lives of almost all humans. Then, almost all humans can be bought in a very much easier way than before. They become cheaper and cheaper, cheaper than ever before, become use-and-throw things. So at last they will be thrown away forever. The globalists will not need them anymore then.

Globalism is an era, and this era will not last forever. Either it will be the last era, or it will be replaced by an era of an old kind.

In the following video (**), Helmuth Nyborg (**) points out the clear relationship between distance from the equator and both brain size and intelligence. At or close to the equator, the average IQ is 69, whereas at a latitude of 54 degrees the average IQ is 98. Nyborg observes that races could logically be classified as „eco-types“ (**), since their traits reflect the ecological niches in which they evolved. He also notes that unlike the North/South gradient in IQ there is no East/West gradient, virtually proving that it is the challenges of a cold climate that have forced northern peoples to evolve higher intelligence and a greater capacity for cooperation. He points out that e.g. Arabs have lower-than-expected IQs relative to the latitudes in which they evolved, probably due to the dysgenic effects of frequent cousin marriages. **

Two forces could destroy the Western Civilization. One is a social system that taxes the competent to subsidize the proliferation of the incompetent. As Nyborg notes, „the welfare-state debases what created high civilization in the first place - this is the first time in history that the less fit are reproducing more than the more fit“ (**). At the same time, lower-IQ non-Europeans are pouring into the continent, bringing with them alien practices and religions. Nyborg concludes with a warning: Unless Europeans are able to reverse these two trends, „the result could be the undoing of the Enlightenment - we may be on the precipice of a new dark era“ (**).

My personal fear is that we face civil war.“ - Helmuth Nyborg (cp. in the said video **).

„I personally find that our children deserve a better future than that ....“ - Helmuth Nyborg (cp. in the said video **).

I want to add something to Nyborg’s statements in the said video (**), where Nyborg notes that e.g. „the welfare-state debases what created high civilization in the first place - this is the first time in history that the less fit are reproducing more than the more fit“ (**). We know from e.g. the schoolyard that high-IQ pupils and low-IQ pupils behave very differently. The high-IQ pupils behave in a more reasonable way and think that intelligence is the best way to get success, whereas the low-IQ pupils behave in a more violent way and think that violence is the only way to get success. **

The behavior of the high-IQ pupils is very similar to the behavior of the Faustians which Nyborg, referring to Charles Murray’s book „Human accomplishment“ (2003), calls „High Civilization“ / „European Core“ / „males born in a small area of northern Europe“ (the entire area of the Germanic speaking people and the north-northwest area of the Romanic speaking people **), thus: the area where the Occidental culture (a.k.a.: Faustian culture) originated with its soul (according to Spengler: „die faustische Seele“ [„the Faustian soul“]). **

What Nyborg describes is a scientifically secured version of the Faustian story / history.

Back to the schoolyard: Very often, the low-IQ pupils win against the high-IQ pupils who are, in addition to that, often called „Streber“ (German) or „nerd“/„geek“ (English). It depends on the number: if low-IQ pupils are many more than the high-IQ pupils, then the high-IQ pupils have no chance to win against the low-IQ pupils. (Then proverbs come true: „The wiser head gives in.“ „The cleverer gives in.“) **

Politically said: By welfare and immigration politics, the welfare states help the low-IQ people win against the high-IQ people. What Spengler predicted as „die farbige Weltrevolution“ ([**|**] „the colored world revolution“ [**|**]) has become reality since the end of the second world war or, at the latest, since the end of the cold war. Very likely, this will lead to a civil war, if not to more than a civil war.

The reason why many Faustian people are scared these days is a real threat (!) - not the foreign race of the immigrants or the sex or something like that.

If Europeans become a minority, then intelligence (high IQ’s), technology, science, wealthy, democracy, welfare become a minority too, will drop below sustainable levels. All this means stupidness, dark ages, eternal-civil-war-like situations or even the Stone Age again, in the worst case the disappearance of all humans.

The ticking time bomb is the demographic development - which is negative on the White side and positive on the Non-White side.

And we know that all the immigration to Europe is kicked off and organized by the USA as the main state vassal of the globalists and by certain non-governmental organizations as the main non-state vassals of the globalists.

The enemy is Germany (again; two world wars are obviously not enough; cf.: „Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam“ - Cato the Elder), regardless whether it is a member of the same military alliance or not. They try to weaken Germany and to drive a wedge between Germany and the other EU members. The EU itself is such a wedge. The Euro too. They want the German wealth, the German money, the Germoney. This war is a huge economical war and the globalists and their US politicians do not care about the fact that Germany is a member of the NATO. Quite the contrary: Germany and Russia as a possible alliance has always been has always been being globalists’ and their US politicians’ fear, at least according to George Friedman ([**] Note the title: „Stratfor: The US Main Interest is to Stop Alliance Between Russia and Germany“. To STOP? To stop WHAT? An „Alliance Between Russia and Germany“? There is not such an „alliance“! There is only the absolutely unfounded „fear“ of it! – And by the way: It would be very much more understandable if the Germans had the fear of an alliance between USA and Russia! There was such an alliance in both the first and the second world war! – Again: Remember what Cato the Elder [234-149] said before the third Punic war [149-146]: „Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam“ („Besides, I am of the opinion that Carthage must be destroyed“). There was no real „reason“, no „alliance“, but only the Romans’absolutely unfounded „fear“ of Carthage! – But then [146 B.C.] .... [**|**]).

I have been saying it for a long time: Antifa, even the Russian Antifa, is a paid terrorist group.

According to that video (**) the richest 20% of the US have more than 80% of all the US wealth (**), the richest 1% of the US have 40% all the US wealth (**), the poorest 80% of the US have more merely 7% of all the US wealth (**).

Maybe I will have to change my thoughts about the wealth inequality in the USA. **

Humans regulate or intervene. That shows clearly that the natural selection can be circumvented, and that the free market has never existed in human history (but only a relatively free market).

Humans are both natural and cultural („artificial“). Humans are partly their own selectors (**), also the selectors of pets and many other living beings, and they can survive in very extreme and artificial environments, thus in environments that are not natural.

As for the relatively free market or relatively unfree market, humans have always had rules („laws“) in order to regulate their markets.

If you want to have a „capitalistic“ system, you need rules; if you want to have an „anti-capitalistic“ system, you need rules.

We are the only species that is capable of being relatively independent of natural selection. We can live without any natural environment and can determine that e.g. the unfit survive and the fit do not survive. **

Humans have invented machines that will perhaps take over sooner or later. Machines are artificial, an invention of humans, so they are not natural, not even as natural as humans or their culture. **

The number of human offspring is partly determined by humans (by their technology, their artificial practice and their social policy), whereas the number of all other living beings is determined by nature. If the number of human offspring was regulated only by nature, then the current number of the humans would be merely one billion or one million or even less.

Intelligence (**) is an advantage and can lead to a culture that circumvents nature successfully (**). Note that intelligence is one advantage of many advantages. So there are other advantages too.

Capitalism is not the „absence of regulation“. If it was, then it would be anarchy, chaos.

The Wild West Europeans in North America and the Indians as the Native North Americans traded partly but not completely according to natural rules. The rules of historical humans are written rules. But the rules of the Indians as the Native North were just orally transmitted and comparable with the rules of the Stone Age humans. So the Wild West Europeans in North America had no other choice than to trade according to the older rules, which does not mean that they traded completely according to natural rules. The rules of the Indians as the Native North Americans were mostly but not merely like natural rules.

Gangs have rules.
Mafia organizations have rules.
Mafia states have rules.
Global organizations have rules.

Hard times create strong men (winter leads to spring), strong men create good times (spring leads to summer), good times create weak men (summer leads to autumn), weak men create hard times (autumn leads to winter).

By the way: (1) „night/winter“, (2) „morning/spring“, (3) „afternoon/summer“, (4) „evening/autumn“ are also comparable with (1) being in the uterus (or egg/ovum, soil/ground/earth), (2) being in the family and kindergarten, (3) being in the school, (4) being in the adult's world as one of the adults, so that at last the death can be seen as a new (1) „night/winter“ that leads you to a new (2) „morning/spring“ that leads you to a new (3) „afternoon/summer“, that leads you to a new (4) „evening/autumn“ ... and so on.

When it comes to nuclear attacks, mega cities are probably the worst and rural areas probably the best places in order to survive. So in the nuclear age, a relatively small tribe, if it is located in rural areas, is probably the best kind of togetherness.

I guess that e.g. the relatively small tribes of the Amazon River region have probably good prospects to survive a nuclear attack.

It is a relatively huge difference whether you ask „will you fight a war for your liberal, feminist, multicultural country?“ or just „will you fight a war for your country?“ !

There is one main reason, all others are subordinated to it. This one main reason is the decline of the West (cp. Spengler). The negative demographic development, the said „smarmy, smirky people in managerial positions“ (**), the said „objective ... to weaken European power“ (**) are some examples for the consequences of the decline of the West. The weaker you are, the more blackmailable you are. Those who decide to weaken European power (thus: German power) are mostly Europeans or at least of European origin.

Europeans would resist this development, if they were politically unified. But they are not politically unified. The more „EU“ and „Euro“ they get, the less politically unified they are. There are too many powerful people who want to weaken Europe. So the political unification of Europe will probably never happen.

What will happen in Europe is a WAR (**) in order to weaken Europe (thus: Germany). This was the result of the both world wars too. Each result led to more European weakness.

I think that the Europeans should take the option of insulation or isolation („what the Chinese have worked diligently to protect for thousands of years“) into account.

1] The motto of Xi is what the Westerners (Europeans [with or without the Europeans in North America, Australia and other regions]) could and should imitate. But this is what the current globalists do not want to be realized.

2] Trump is probably not able and not powerful enough to do what I just have said (=> 1]). Also, he is probably a traitor.

3] Putin is probably the best example when it comes to restricting those globalists who own most major banks and/or major coporations. But Russia is - by far - less powerful than the USA.

4] The Brexit is no good example when it comes to a political union and a military alliance of Europe (at least: Old Europe), but the Brexit is a good example when it comes to the collapse of the EU, although the UK is - by far - not powerful enough to achieve this collapse. So, the Brexit is a good sign, if the Europeans want to see how the EU must be reformed. What Europe needs is a military alliance, the goal must be a political union, a federation, with borders like the Chinese wall, if necessary. The economic union must be included, of course. This all is not easy to do. At first there must be probably given a speech like Churchill's „blood, sweat and tears“ speech of 1940. What we now have in Old Europe is neither a militarty alliance of a political union nor an economic union for Europeans (but merely for globalists). Currently there is no chance for such an European fortress to be realized. But wait and see. Did you expect during the so-called „cold war“ that the Soviet Union and its satellite states would start collapsing in 1989?

Before the Chinese regions became unified and the first Chinese empire under , there was a long-lasting time of war, the so-called „Warring States period“.

Maybe we will get the European unification after a civil war as it has taken place in the Ancient Roman times. So we will get „Marius“, a „Sulla“, a „Ceasar“ and at last an „Augustus“.

Our Crisis as an extended period of political instability and social unrest has already begun.

Actually, they are, yes. But are Donald Trump and Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus really comparable?

Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus
Donald John Trump

Economic interests, especially monetary interests have become dominant. So politics is dominated by monetary interests. Actually, we do not have national politics or European politics, we only have globalistic politics, and this politics is monetary politics, because it is determined by monetary interests.

Why do we - for example - have such a global immigration into Western countries?

1)	The globalists are interested in a great crisis with a great war, because they gain from it very much.	Result: They become more powerful.
2)	The large companies are interested in cheap workers.	Result: They become more powerful.
3)	The immigrants are interested in using their children as demographic weapons for the conquest of all Western countries and in becoming as wealthy as the Westerners.	Result: They become more powerful.
4)	The politicians of the Western countries are interested in continuance in their offices; so they have to support the other three main interests (see: 1), 2), 3)).	Result: They remain as powerful as they are.

The first two (see: 1), 2)) are super organisms.
The last two (see: 3), 4)) are organisms and „organs like puppets on a string“ of the first two (see: 1), 2)).

So the losers of this four groups are the politicians of the western countries (=> 4)).

And the only thing these „losers“ can do is to obey and to discriminate and fight against the people who originally come from western countries and have elected this „losers“. They and the people who elected them obey their globalists. So almost all of the western people obey their globalists - except those who offer resistance, of course.

That's really sad. Those who believe that they are actually middle-class are mostly ex middle class. Having been middle class, they know the habit of lying without shame. Beyond an income of „x“, almost everyone is cynical and denies reality, partly or absolutely.

Please, watch the following video (especially: 4:42–4:54). According to that video (**) the richest 20% of the US have more than 80% of all the US wealth (**), the richest 1% of the US have 40% all the US wealth (**), the poorest 80% of the US have more merely 7% of all the US wealth (**).

The upper class is as rich as never before, is almost completely separated from the other classes.

Many former middle class people have become lower class people. The middle class has decreased, the lower class has increased.

The United States have one of the developed world's largest income gap between rich and poor.

All other countries of the first world (developed countries) have a more equitable distribution of wealth than the United States of America have.

In the posted video (**|**) certain people had to say what the ideal situation of wealth distribution in the United States should be (**). 92% of them said that for instance the richest 20% should have 30% and the poorest 20% should have 10% of the nation’s wealth. This is not even the case in Finland, one of the nations that have a much fairer distribution than the United States have.

The richest 20% have moved up, all others (80%) have moved down. Exponentially! The increase of the gap between rich and poor is an accelerating one!

Riots are no solution. They are not more than the antithesis in a Hegelian dialectic sense.

Catastrophes bring new starts. But in the case of our globalism, the catastophe needs to be a global one, highly likely.

I am not saying that I prefer a catastrophe as a solution. I am only saying that a catastrophe is a solution.

Violence is always an option, though riots and revolutions are mostly no real solution..

It depends on the extend and on the quality of the kind of change whether nothing or something changes.

Would it have been better, if the people of the posterior United States of America had defeated their colonial masters?

All this so-called „liberals“ or „leftists“ are living in a fantasy world and denying reality.

Think of the many problems we already have currently: 7.45 billion humans, a polluted planet, injustice almost everywhere, a lot of wars and of any kind, terrorism ... and so on and so forth. And now there are plenty of so-called „experts“ who want to live according to their megalomania (as if they were gods) and want to tell you how you should live.

Immigrant groups from foreign cultures don’t assimilate, and it is well known that just the second or (more likely) the third generation doesn’t assimilate at all and does just the opposite.

And at last all are poor and dump, equally poor and equally dumb. That’s the goal of egalitarianism what these liberals or leftists are working for, and many of them don’t even know this fact.

They need to equalize all people in order to weaken Europeans / Whites. This equalization as an idealstic goal can never be achieved, but it is rhetorically useful. They have almost all non-Whites on their side. You can probably imagine how many these are and will be because of the demographic situation.

The globalistic phase will end in this or in the next century, I guess, and before its end there will be a lot of terror attacks, a lot of civil wars, wars with atom bomb explosions and other disasters.

In the future, the liberal offspring will say (no, there will be no liberal offspring anymore), the offspring will say: „once, evil humans lived on this planet, they had white skin, the sign of evil“.

How I can know this? Just listen to what the current „liberals“ or „leftists“ as the anti-whites are saying. They are the real racists, the real discriminators, the real personal attackers.

People without accountability and without conscience have become more and more. So you (**) should be afraid of those people.

According to the majority of the Non-Europeans, „trying to make Non-Europeans rich“ means „trying to make Europeans out of Non-Europeans“, thus: „trying to insult Non-Europeans“. They want money, yes, but they know how to get it without being insulted. They do not want any advice coming from Europeans (Whites). And this fact increases the more, the more Non Europeans and especially the more generations of Non-Europeans Europe has.

The United States are only one of the nearly pseudo governments working for the globalists and has even less to ay than non-governmental organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Trilateral Commission (TC), the UNO and the EU for example, because they are the institutions of the globalists, whereas governments of states (nations) range on second or even third place (level).

If people in developed countries have to economically live like people in not-deceloped countries, they are much poorer than the poorest in not-deceloped countries.

It’s hardly possible, isn’t it?
And if it’s possible, it leads to war, doesn’t it?
But war is something that we get in any case, don’t we?

„As the Liberty lads o’er the sea
Bought their freedom, and cheaply, with blood,
So we, boys, we
Will die fighting, or live free,
And down with all kings but King Ludd!
When the web that we weave is complete,
And the shuttle exchanged for the sword,
We will fling the winding-sheet
O'er the despot at our feet,
And dye it deep in the gore he has pour'd.
Though black as his heart its hue,
Since his veins are corrupted to mud,
Yet this is the dew
Which the tree shall renew
Of Liberty, planted by Ludd!“

During the Victorian Era the people of the British empire were not allowed to speak about sex (except in the sense of reproduction), today the people of West Europe, North America and Australia - at least the white people - are not allowed to speak about politics (except in the sense of political correctness), but forced to speak about sex. In the case of sexuality they are now allowed to do whatever they want to, but in the case of politics it is just the other way around. So it’s no surprise that we have got more and more politicians who are sexually perverse, extreme criminal and disgusting.

We should have more than one currency, and the first one should be a currency of knowledge, wisdom, information.

If we do not get that first currency of knowledge, wisdom, information and do not take another direction and slow down, then we will get the huge catastrophe. It is possible to avoid this. But it requires responsible rulers instead of the current ones who are godwannabes, too greedy, too corrupt and going to bring the huge catastrophe to the humans.

Keynes & Co. thought that debt was nonetheless the best „solution“. But it is an error too. It's something like communistic capitalism and similar to capitalistic communism: an unworkable program, at least in the long run.

And they always have excuses. This time it is „complexity“ (**), „... those who try to help are simply overwhelmed with the complexity and so much of their efforts are submarined by »issues« that they cannot control“ (**) ... and so on and so forth.

Schools, universities and mass media are intended to damage the intelligence of people.

(1) Cooptation of schools, universities and mass media as institutions working for the globalists who want the monopoly and monarchy..
(2) If the economic and - in particular (!) - the demographic situation is like the one we have in our western countries, then the average intelligence decreases, and teachers, professors, journalists which do not go along with the mainstream have to damage the intelligence, otherwise the colleagues will punish them by mobbing and firing.

Someone asked me recently whether one needs education. The answer depends on whether one means (A) the education as such or (B) the school education which is basically a state education.

Somebody who really decides and acts as ruler responsiblly, according to Kant’s categorical imperative. A responsible ruler is never corrupt, is never greedy, is never a godwannabe. But most modern politicians are just what responsible rulers can never be, and the other few modern politicians have no chance to become rulers.

Most modern politicians have as real rulers never shown real responsibility, and the other few modern politicians have never become real rulers.

What should and would a responsible ruler do if machines were replacing all humans?

„A responsible ruler would destroy all bad robot power sources so the machines would stop running and stop replacing humans“ (**)?

But would this ruler still be a responsible ruler then, if many people said „we want to be replaced by machines“?M

aybe or even likely, because many people do not know what is better for them and what not. So a responsible ruler must also be a wise one with foresight. He must know what is the best for the people now and in future, despite of the fact that many of them do not know this. But this could and probably would lead to the fact that the responsible ruler gets fired by the people, at least in democracies.

So this leads to the unavoidable conclusion that democracy may be not good for many people. Probably democracy (at least as we know it today) is not really or not merely meant for the demos, but for those irresponsible rulers who rule because of their money, because the money has made them powerful.

Howsoever, a responsible ruler would - because he should - destroy all bad robot power sources so the machines would stop running and stop replacing humans. Why? It is the only chance to save humans in that case, otherwise the ruler would not be a responsible ruler.

One of many, many examples: Food Manufacturing: McKinsey Report: „Where will Automation Replace Humans in Food Manufacturing“ (**):

At last, the percentage of the replaced humans will be 100% everywhere, if this development will not be stopped.

In the past, it was said that machines would not replace humans who serve, repair and invent machines. Now, most of these humans are already replaced by machines.

Destroying our own environment does not make sense to me. We should only take as many things from nature as nature can reproduce in the same time. So there must be a sustainable development. But therefor we need responsible rulers. And responsible rulers are those we do not have. I am for politics of real sustainability and real responsibility.

.... Havana (USS Maine), Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, Tonkin, Iraq (I), New York (cue: „Nine Eleven“), Taleban (cue: „Terrorists“), Iraq (II) and other examples. ....

You can never be sure that the leaders and the people of your country are always loyal and deciding and acting in the interests of your country.

Just an example: Trump. Does Trump decide and act for or against the interests of the US? Can you trust Trump? If Trump is a globalist or a marionette of the globalists, then he does not decide and act for the interests of the US people.

Money is something that can be exchanged between things, between living beings, between things and living beings, provided that these living beings confide, trust, believe in it as a means of exchange (barter). Money is a promise, in which you have to confide, trust, believe, if it shall work. So, if the money shall work, the promise shall be fulfilled in the future, one has to confide, trust, believe in it; and if one really confides, trusts, believes in it, it will work, the promise will be fulfilled.

Those who want the seperation of Catalonia from Spain want to weaken Spain and to let come a conflict or even a war (civil war). History repeats somehow.

Neither the Ukrainians and Russians nor the Catalans and the other Spanirads are those who want this conflicts and wars. They actually have no say. But others, who have the say, have interests in those conflicts and wars.

Humans and machines are in state of competition, and many of the humans help the machines to win this competition in a similar way as the white humans help all other humans to eliminate the white humans, although or because the white humans have brought the progress to all humans, thus also to the non-white humans. And now white humans as the inventors of machines are not needed anymore, since other humans and even machines can already invent machines.

This situation seems to be paradoxical. There is the same seeming paradox between two groups of humans too: Those who give benefit and help and those who get this benefit and help. The disappearance of those who give benefit and help is affirmed by those who get this benefit and help from the former. So, this is in spite of the fact that the latter are benefitting and getting help from the former. This seeming paradox can be solved, since those who give benefit and help are too expensive and not needed any longer, and those who get benefit and help are still cheaper and still needed (this will likely change in the future too). There is a similar seeming paradox between machines and certain (and later likely all) humans.

So, not only can and do e.g. feminists and islamists or e.g. white white-haters and non-white white-haters have the same enemy, this can and do e.g. intelligent machines and stupid people too. They all have only one enemy: the white men.

Why should machines not do what living beings do? Machines are products of humans. Being like purely rational humans, machines are more rational and thus more efficient than humans. Humans are not purely rational, but only relatively rational, since they are emotional too. So, the sentence „humans invented machines“ can be interpreted as „humans invented purely rational humans who lack a biological system“. This „purely rational humans who lack a biological system“ are the machines. If they get a biological system, then they are „merely“ androids, not humans. And if humans become more like machines, they are „merely“ cyborgs, not machines. Maybe humans and machines will become similar to each other in the future, but they will never become the same. The only chance for the humans’ survival in the future will be to get more and more similar to the machines, because otherwise humans will likely disappear.

Humans tend to destroy their environemt, tend to destroy nature, tend to eradicate their competitors.

Machines as the product of humans tend to do the same. The difference is that machines are capable of doing this much more effectively than humans. If they will do it, is a different issue. What I have said is that there is this tendency to eradicate all competitors.

Except only the non-powerful majority of the white race, all other races and the powerful minority of the white race have a victim mentality. And this victim mentality is the powerful one these days. The global rulers as a tiny minority uses the victim mentality, and the global non-white mass as a huge majority uses the victim mentality. But the non-powerful majority of the white race as a global minority does not use the victim mentality, or, if this global minority tries to do it, it is accused of being racist, whereby the non-whites and the global rulers are excused and therefore not punishable. So the non-powerful white mass is not allowed to use the victim mentality. To the non-powerful white mass the victim mentality is a taboo these days. To all others it is just the other way round.

In times of globalism, the white mass is a minority (about 16%), whereas the non-white mass is a majority (about 83%; plus the minority of the global rulers: about 84%). To the globalists as the global rulers (about 1%) it is much easier, more advantageous, more usefull to be in „agreement“ with the global majority (about 83%).

An increasing majority of the white race (= a global minority) tries to use the victim mentality too; but whites are not allowed to do it in their own name; so they do it to in the name of the non-white global majority and/or in the name of the ruling white globalists by supporting and obeying them.

The purpose is power. This power is meant as mono-power over all others; and this mono-power is, economically said, a monopoly and, politcally said, a monarchy.

The other point is that humans are more and more replaced by machines, thus less and less needed (**|**).

Humans tend to destroy their environemt, tend to destroy nature, tend to eradicate their competitors.

Phase / stage		Average machine rate	Average economic status (living standard / wealth / welfare)	Average fertility rate
1)	1770-1870	LOW	LOW	HIGH
2)	1870-1970	MIDDLE	MIDDLE	MIDDLE
3)	1970-	HIGH	HIGH	LOW

What I know for sure in this case is that the third phase will end with the end of the average high economic status.

If the average machine rate will remain high and the average fertility rate will remain low, but the average economic status will shrink, then it will become clear that machines are in the long run a bad thing.

The shrunken average economic status will perhaps (thus: not certainly) cause a shrinking average machine rate. The answer to the question whether the average machine rate will shrink then or not will probably depend on the development of the machines. If they will not sufficiently enough be developed then, then the average machine rate will certainly shrink. But the crux is that the humans will try to avoid a shrinking average economic status, although, if they will do, this will lead to an even higher average machine rate and at last to the extinction of all humans. Nevertheless, there are many reasons to believe that the average economic status will shrink and cause a shrinking average machine rate. Like I said: I know that the everage economic status will shrink, but I do not know whether this will really lead to a shrinking average machine rate or not, since the development status of the machines at that time in the future is currently quite unknown.

The increased prices of everything can be caused by giving everyone more and more money or by the raising of wgaes, thus also by minimum wages. Then ( a new) immigration of poor people has to start in order to curb this process a bit, only a bit, and for a short time, only for a short time. So, indeed, in the long run, more and more humans become poorer and poorer, whereas less and less humans become richer and richer.

This development is unfair, destructive, dangerous, stupid, and it is going to be stopped (the question is only: when?). Even the question of how is not relevant, because at last nature is going to stop it.

If not the human beings, then nature itself is going to stop that unfair, destructive, dangerous and - last but not least - stupid development.

Infinite growth is not possible on our planet. So, globalism also means the last step of ecnomic growth on our globe.

Privatizing of sectors often looks like this: expensive, thus non-efficient subsectors of the sector remain in possession of the state, whereas the cheap, thus efficient subsectors of the sector become privatized. There are many examples, at least in Europe. The loosers are the states, thus the tax payers, thus especially the middle class, but at last also the lower class (because: if there is no state anymore, then there will be no tax payers anymore who can pay for the lower class). The problem is typical for the whole economy of the globalistic system. And the extinction of the states and the middle class is a problem. I think it is going to end up in societies having no or just very inefficient states, no or just very inefficient institutions, no or just a very inefficient midlle class. So, at last, 99% of all humans will live in „Third World“ societies.

Just look at the globalistic process we have experienced since about 1990. There is no single state and no single middle class of the „First World“ that has benefitted from this globalistic process.

Sure, states can be monsters (according to Nietzsche, states are the coldest of all cold monsters), but if you compare them with the current private globalistic institutions, companies/corporations, then you will likely support the statement that these kinds of monsters are even colder than each kind of the states. Both are like superorganisms in which humans are working like supercells - comparable with the cells in their own bodies.

Currently it seems that the fight between those superorganisms will end up with a victory of the private globalists. But that is only how it seems. Who really knows how it will end up? More and more people will miss a functionable state, will wish it back, hopely not when it will be too late. I hope that humans will someday be able again to say about a state what Hegel already said about it in the end of the 18th century.

If the states function efficiently, thus work efficiently, then they are not as bad as the private institutions, companies/corporations of the globalists. Private institutions, companies/corporations of the globalists do not care about nature, do not care about culture, do not care about humans, do not care about living beings at all. Infinite growth is not possible on our planet. We should not accept that more and more humans become poorer and poorer, whereas less and less humans become richer and richer. If not the human beings, then nature itself will stop that unfair, destructive, dangerous and stupid development.

I guess, the reason why many people do not understand this (**) is that they do not really know the logic, especially the mathematics behind it. The „universal basic income“ will never lead to a better economic/social status, but always to more injustice, because the same minority will become even richer, whereas the same poor majority will become even poorer.

„Amercia first“ is problematic, Firstly, America is not „USA“, but a double continent; so, the term „Amercia first“ does not only address the US citizens, but all Americans. Secondly, the term „Amercia first“ does not mean that an unification would be needed in order to replace all other regional loyalties; so, others can easily think this is indeed meant as a militant idea of conquest of foreign countries. Thirdly, the term „Amercia first“ is an anachronistic term.

So, I can only give the advice to the US citizens that they should avoid the term „Amercia first“. In any case, it is more intelligent to avoid it than to use it these days.

The current ruling system - the globalism - is more like communism than many usually think it is. The only difference between the both is merely a surface one; the globalistic one works by privatization, the communistic one by deprivatization (communization, socialization); the economic meaning of both is always exploitation, thus impoverishment; the political result of both is always wars (all kind of wars), anarchy, chaos, afterwards change, if not extinction.

If you're going to be exploited, at least ensure that it is by someone you know. And if you're going to be exploited by someone you do not know, ask yourself how and why this could happen and get knowledge about that someone.

.... Today, there is a story in Market Watch that robots will take half of today’s jobs in 10 to 20 years (**). It even has a graphic to prove the numbers.

.... For instance, it appears to say that we will go from 1 million grounds and maintenance workers in the US to only 50,000 in 10 to 20 years, because robots will take over those jobs. How many robots are currently operational in those jobs? ZERO. How many realistic demonstrations have there been of robots working in this arena? ZERO. Similar stories apply to all the other job categories in this diagram where it is suggested that there will be massive disruptions of 90%, and even as much as 97%, in jobs that currently require physical presence at some particular job site.“ ** (**)

Martin Waldseemüller (1470-1520), Universalis Cosmographia, Waldseemüller’s 1507 world map which was the first to show the Americas.

Fact is that there are several cultures. In certain cultures it is not allowed to be homosexual, in ceratin other cultures it is allowed to be homosexual.

So, if you are saying that homosexuality is somehow „unnatural“ or „abnormal“, then you are in conflict with those certain cultures in which homsexuality is allowed.
So, if you are saying that homosexuality is somehow „natural“ or „normal“, then you are in conflict with those certain cultures in which homsexuality is not allowed.

The so-called „values“ can be used/misused by almost everyone. So, for example, responsibility, honesty, cooperation can be misused by, for example, leftists, centrists, rightists. Think of the current leftist dictatorship of „political correctness“ which requires from the children to think and say, for example, that „non-whites are good“ and or even because „whites are evil“, that it is everyone’s „responsibility“ and „honesty“ to think and say this over and over again, also to do this in „cooperation“ over and over again.

Religion is likely more capable of saving us than science is. How likely is it? Which kind of religion would or should it have to be? Would or should this religilion be a theistic one? If yes: Would or should it be a religion of pantheism (is already very close to atheism), of monotheism, of polytheism. If no: Would it or should it be a primitve religion, at least a heathenish religion?

If the demographic, economic and political development we have been experiencing for a pretty long time will go on, then we will get a syncretistic religion (**|**) or just the islamic religion which is a monotheistic religion and currently increasing the most. This is possible and probable, but not what I would like to have.

These days, ruling or having the most power has not much to do with the formal government, for example the public government of a state or a nation. And I was not talking about such a public government. I was talking about a dictatorship of a ruling system. The rulers of this ruling system do not rule in a public way, but in a private and secret way. They are more like drug dealers of a global extent than like politicians of a national extent.

If, for example, A equals B, then there is no quantitative difference between them, so: A = B then. I believe that in real life equality has the tendency to make also a qualitative difference indifferent, thus equal, so that there is at last a qualitative indifference. In other words: if you have no quantitative difference, then you have to expect that you will - sooner or later - have no qualitative difference either.

The use of others as „scapegoats“ is part of an old strategy. In a more primitive way, „higher“ animals also use others as „scapegoats“.

My translation: „At the end, nevertheless, we depend, on the creatures which we made.“

Donald Trump is dangerous since the US nation is dangerous. The US nation has been starting wars since a long time over and over again. More and more people have been learning how to justifiably hate the US nation for this fact.

Communists are always saying that they want to „make the world a better place“ (**) and that therefore „adult-education seminars“ (**) and many similar things are needed (also the belief in the false conclusion „God is impossible“ [**]), thus: they want even more dictatorship.

Currently, liberalists and communists are in the same globalistic boat called „humanitarianism“ - not knowing what „humanitarianism“ means, what „humanity“ means, what „human“ means. They are confusing „good“ and „bad“ („evil“), „true“ and „false“ („wrong“), „objective“ and „subjective“, „ideal“ and „real“, „possible“ and „impossible“, „progressive“ and „regressive“.

So, in 1970 you got mourning as the second reason for celebrating a national day of remembrance on the same calendar day. In other words: Since 1970 you have been celebrating Thanksgiving and Thankstaking on the same calendar day.

And there is an interesting hierarchy (which is an absolutely „democratic“ one

(1) 1%. Rulers.
(2) 19%. Governmental and other functionaries (protect the 1% and buffer between the 1% and the 80% - in favor of the 1% of course)
(3) 80%. Enemies (cynically called „people“ or „humans“; powerless; always turned against each other and played off against each other).

Those „modern“ guys who say „religion is opium for the people“ want to give them their religion, a modern religion (examples: „liberalism“, „egalitarianism“/„communism“, „fascism“, „humanitarianism“/„globalism“), which has always to do with the elimination of the old religion and with antitheism (with slogans like „religion is opium for the people“, „God is an impossibility“ ...). The main problem ist that the new, the „modern“ religion is even worse than the old one.

The end of art could be a sign, an omen for the end of history in the relatively soon future.

A sign or omen for the end of states in the relatively soon future could be the following impression:

It will likely take time before this description will become reality. But the thing is that some certain indicators have been being perceptible for a relatively long time.

And for example: Is a welfare state with billions of debts still a well working state? If so: For how long will this last? A huge crisis - and this state is really bankrupt!

Globalism means - amongst other things - the elimination of nations, of states. And the fact that we are living in a globalistic era means - as long as this era lasts - that globalism is more powerful and thus seems to win. But who knows who will really win in the end? Globalism will end someday.

Just think for example of a company or any kind of corporation where you can find the same structure (mostly with the Pareto distribution of 20%/80% and a ruling 1%). Not wanting to value here, I am just saying that this is a structure that you can find very often.

So, we should not claim that nobody is making art any more, but that a certain history of western art has come to an end, in about the way that Hegel suggested it would. The „end of art“ refers to the beginning of our modern era of art in which art no longer adheres to the constraints of imitation theory but serves a new purpose. But what exactly serves this new purpose?

The worldwirde currency could be called „Globo“. Am I the first one with the idea of this „Globo“?

Communists have to be optimists. They have no other choice - except death, caused either by a bullet or by Gulag. And they have no arguments and evidences, but only ideology (modern religion). Their „arguments“ and „evidences“ are not more than merely ideology (modern religion), in praxis: terror, thus death again. When their terror system crashes, they are so much depressed that it is not possible ot find them on the surface of this planet. So in reality, communists are those pessimists who are using optimism as a mask for power reasons.

What about a „Holy Dollar Empire of the One World Nation“ as the new Thousand-Year-Empire?

The Holy Roman Emipre of German Nation lasted 1000 years: from 843 to 1806. The Frankish empire that Karl der Große (Charles the Graet) established was the predecessor of the Holy Roman Emipre of German Nation. Both had not really to do with the Ancient Roman empire - unless one accepts wishful thinking as reality. All of this Kaisers wanted to be like the Caesars were, but the Holy Fathers (popes) of the Christian Church wanted the same. So, we have two sides of this mytho-motivity: a more secular one and a more sacral one. This time was over in 1806, when almost everything became secularized, although after this secularization there was the Restoration, namely from 1815 till 1848 or, in some regions, even till 1870.

The following tree (lime) is far more than 1000 years old and can be found in Puch (near Fürstenfeldbruck):

Far More Than 1000 Years Old Tree (Lime) in Puch (near Fürstenfeldbruck), Germany.

Leaving out survival, leaving out thymos, leaving out rage, leaving out threat ... and so on and so forth - all this means leaving out a complete side (which is mostly called „the negative side“, „the bad side“, „the evil side“, „the haevy side“, „the difficult side“) of the issue. So, this leaving out leads only to more problems.

Your (**) two questions are not new; they are pretty old; and the history is full of failed trials of answers.

We should not only consider the light and easy things, but also the heavy and difficult things.

Money has to do with belief, with religion, with theology, theism, with God. Money is a secularized God (false god), buying in the sense of spending money and accelerating the circulation of money is a secularized religion, the constant jurisdiction in favor of money is a secularized theology or theism. And each bank is a secularized church.

Goethe was capable of foreseeing the end of our industrial modernity, the Faustian modernity. He knew that this modernity has a good and a bad side.

Especially, the „animal kingdom“ lacks promises for the remote future, lacks belief or trust in those promises, lacks institutions like banks that hords those promises and works with them (mostly by misusing those promises).

But all those promises for the remote future need the belief or trust, faith, hope, cofidence in them. So, there are two sides needed: (1) the promise and (2) the belief in it. Just think analogously of the coin or banknote (paper money): both have two sides too. Look:

And before you can believe in such an abstract phenomenon like a promise, you must have a pretty large brain with a pretty large consciousness and the capability of understanding highly abtract conceptions.

The reason for all the abnormality is the fact that the Occidental Culture is decadent. This can be seen in each form, thus also and especially if it is related to demography, economy, technology, intelligence (all four are correlated with ech other). No wonder that mental disturbance is already a component of the US army.

Interestingly, islamic terrorists do not fight against the fascistic terror state Israel like the Palestinians do. Almost all Palestinians are shiites, almost all islamic terrorists are sunnis. It is well known that shiites and sunnis are enemies too. Who supports the Palestinians? Who supports the islamic terrorists?

Almost all bankers are cynics. So, if you (**) want to be their opponent by being cynical, then you should also linguistically clarify this difference and call yourself a „kynik“. (Cp. Peter Sloterdijk, „Kritik der zynischen Vernunft“ [translation: „Critique of Cynical Reason“], 1983.) But you are right with your statement: „not everybody can speak the fatherland's tongue“ (**).

A „kynik“ is a „counter-cynic“, an opponent of the cynic. And I can only hope that kyniks will not succumb to the danger of becoming their counterpart, the cynics.

Especially dramatic is the external debt per capita in the USA: it is 52.09 times more than in China (!).

Countries by military expenditures (absolute) in 2014 (**), based on data from the World Bank.

Beginning again (**) is possible only then, if something has already ended. So, you have to wait, if it has not ended yet. If you try to begin again before it has ended, then you just help deconstruct it and can only achieve that the end will perhaps come earlier, but this does not mean beginning but merely deconstructing.

The inevitable way that modernity has been following since the so-called „industrial revolution“ has reached a point where the very much accelerated development gets even more accelerated. Can we slow down the modern velocity? If the answer is „no“, what does this mean for the future? It is likely that this does not mean that the people will sit there and be sad, no, they will likely be happy according to their situation in general and their spiritually limited capabilities in particular.

One of the examples could be a cyborg with many artificially optimized muscles and joints but a consciousness that does not work better and more than the consciousness of a dog.

The above example was already anticipated in the last decades of the 18th and the first decades of the 19th century when Johann Wolfgang von Goethe studied the real Faust, designed his story of Faust and wrote it down. And his Faust of the second part died, because he had reached his goal.

Another example could be the humans of the end of history as Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel described it in his main work „Phänomenologie des Geistes“, published in 1807.

A further example could be the „last men“ who became famous in 1883: „»Wir haben das Glück erfunden« – sagen die letzten Menschen und blinzeln.“ - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche. („»We have discovered happiness« – say the last men and blink.“)

However, these humans or „post-humans“ will not be unhappy. They will live without history (**) and without work. We - the current humans - think that this will be very sad, and we are absolutely right about that. But they will not think so. And they will not think much but believe much on a very low level. They will be almost absolutely dependent and very naively believe in the opposite.

To me, this development is the most probable one for the future (although presignals have been becoming apparent since the beginning of our modernity). One of the presignals of this situation in the future is the increasing replacement of the human nature by the artificially human technology, thus machines.

The humans will have merely two options or chances in order to stop the continuation of this development or, at least, to slow down the modern velocity. One option or chance is the avoidance of the complete replacement of humans by machines, because this complete replacement will lead to the lost of the human control over the machines, so that the machines will control or even kill the humans. The other option or chance is a huge catastrophe in the very near future that will lead to a new beginning, provided that there will be enough survivors of that catastrophe. The difference between this two scenarios and the most probable scenario is that the humans will not lose their relatively freedom and the extent and independence of their consciousness in the case of the said two scenarios and the exact opposite in the case of the most probably scenario. What will be the worst case scenario then?

According to the Pareto distribution, 20% of those who have income pay 80% of the income tax; 20% of the employees of a company are responsible for 80% of the profit; 20% of the products of a supermarket represent 80% of the sales; 20% of the scientists get 80% of the quotations, 20% of the scientists write 80% of the scientific texts. And just: 80% of the links on the internet point to 20% of the webpages. So the 80%/20% distribution concerns the world wide web as well. 20% of all internet links attrac 80% of all internet links

....

....

It takes more debt to eventually get out of debt.

Or:

1 + 2 = 0 *

WE ALL + IN THE LONG RUN = DEAD *

NO WOMAN + NO CHILDREN = NO PROBLEM * ______________________________

- Register -

NO WOMAN + NO CHILDREN = NO PROBLEM *
______________________________