401) Arminius, 16.03.2014, 00:34, 00:55, 01:00, 01:54, 02:07, 02:11, 14:26, 14:43, 16:33 (770-778)

Has the internet had its day?

Maybe that there will be an „»internetian« colosseum“ - otherwise there is no constructive future for the internet because we've got many comparisons and analogies, for example: every kind of bread-and-games-techniques or (as an occidental not-old-example) telephone, radio, television in their significance for the behaviour of the people („humans“) and their relationship to each other. All this shows us the „goal“.

In short: the internet has and will have no harmonious future.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Well, it isn't just lore or tradition. You can tell merely from the phonetics. The German accented sound from »her« (or »hier«) sounds like »air« to the Romans. So to the Romans and English that high German dialect gets spelled differently to reflect the sound. The German »Hier« is merely remnants of the tradesman's »higher« (in English).“ **

Yes, that’s right, but it got „spelled differently“ only to the Romans, not to the English because the English at that time were Germans (at home in the north-west of Germany).

You know much about linguistics (especially phonetics). Well done!

James S. Saint wrote:

„Only an honest government can allow free speech.“ **

Yes, but what would „an honest government“ be, if the basic for government is only lie?

James S. Saint wrote:

„And the Anglish were stationed as the »Western Corner of the World« by Moses to be the »Angels«, »messengers of god« establishing the trade language, now called »English«.“ **

Los Angeles did get its name from the Spanish conquerors. The story of the „Angels“ seems to be a retrospectively constructed old-testament-story.

James S. Saint wrote:

„And when the Americas were discovered, the »Angels« were stationed again to the far West to become »Los Angeles« or »The Angels« assigned to be the messengers in the new form of films, »Hollywood«.“ **

Interesting! It fits to the retrospectively constructed old-testament-story (=> Jewish story) because that „Angels“ of „Hollywood“ were / are (mostly) Jews.

James S. Saint wrote:

„The Aristocracy and Royal Families are merely Apes with secrets.“ **

But now:

James S. Saint wrote:

„The Internet is no different, as you have pointed out.“ **

Please some more words, because that's the topic here.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Although the English were more originally the Anglish in western Germania (the Latin word for »land of small tribes« from which we got the word »germ«), there was no actual »Germany« for many years. None of the Germanic tribes referred to themselves as »Germans«.“ **

The English lived - as Angeln („Angels“) and as Sachsen („Saxons“) - in the north-west of Germany, namlely in a part, which is called Altsachsen (Old Saxony) or Niedersachsen (Nether Saxony = Lower Saxony and Netherlands), and in a part, which is called Angeln (a part of Schleswig-Holstein). The land which was called Germania by the Latins was probably the „»land of small tribes« from which we got the word »germ«“, as you have said, but nevertheless: There was an actual Germany at that time, when this land was called Germania by the Latins, because the Germans referred to themselves as a community of fate, although they often (which also means: not at any time) were at odds with themselves. So the Germans referred to themselves sometimes as Germans and sometimes not - as they still do.

Altsachsen = Old Saxony

Just as the globalist economics, politics, technology, science, art etc. already arrived in dictatorship or will arrive soon, so it is and will be with the internet too.

402) Arminius, 17.03.2014, 03:08 (779)

Insightfoul wrote:

„Do you think she wants to be a petty sex object, model, who gets ogled by men for her career? No, she obviously wants to be an NFL football player, or perhaps a philosopher.“ **

And she also wants to be a cowboy, a digger, a boxer, and a weightlifter !

403) Arminius, 18.03.2014, 00:12, 00:50, 01:13, 01:32, 01:39, 02:09, 04:36, 05:19, 15:57, 16:57, 20:44 (780-790)

Only Humean wrote:

„In the context of having a self-determined life relatively free from violent coercion, the modern liberal view of equal society (as opposed to most other arrangements) is useful for women, and also for the men who care about them as more than possessions - fathers, sons, maybe brothers and male friends, even if the husband doesn't care.“ **

No! It is not useful!

Liberalism and egalitarism are antagonists, extreme enemies. Each of both leads to its contrary. Each struggle (against the other and against itself) leads to anarchy, very much anarchy, which can only be stopped temporariliy (!) by another modern totalitarianism, another dictatorship: the synthesis of liberalism and egalitarism. But this another dictatorship leads also to anarchy - merely just later. At last only monarchy is able to end the anarchy, otherwise there is no survival because at last anarchy only means death, and thus leads to death. This shows us the history, especially the history of the Imperium Romanum.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Should women (and children) be made into anything without their express permission?“ **

No!

James S. Saint wrote:

„And who should have that right?“ **

Nobody!

Why are the most posts send by cowards?

Only Mithus has answered Insightfoul's questions (**), and only James S. Saint has tried to understand Insightfoul's statements (**).

Insightfoul wrote:

„Race and gender are taboo topics for liberals.“ **

And for egalitarians as well. Both - liberalism and egalitarism - are fighting each other, and each of them fights itself. That is stupid and hardly to change.Their results are similar because of there contradictions. .... Oxymoron.

James S. Saint wrote:

Arminius wrote:

»Liberalism and egalitarism are antagonists, extreme enemies. Each of both leads to its contrary. Each struggle (against the other and against itself) leads to anarchy, very much anarchy, which can only be stopped temporariliy (!) by another modern totalitarianism, another dictatorship: the synthesis of liberalism and egalitarism. But this another dictatorship leads also to anarchy - merely just later. At last only monarchy is able to end the anarchy, otherwise there is no survival because at last anarchy only means death, and thus leads to death. This shows us the history, especially the history of the Imperium Romanum.« **

„Hmmm ..., have you been seeking peeks into my »bible«?“ **

I do not know your „bible“, What ist it?

Mr. Reasonable wrote:

„Sockpuppet.“ **

Excuse me, but what is a „sockpuppet“ in the language of the Internet? Is it a kind of drug? I really don't know.

James S. Saint wrote:

„It is to mean that you are speaking for someone else, saying only what they want you to say (or pretending to be someone new) ..., obviously, they don't know you.“ **

Thank you very much, James!

Now I know what it is, and I think I have probably found a „sockpuppet“: Mr. Reasonable. Mr. Reasonable knows what all and everyone know and think, because he said: „Everyone knows what you're saying they just think it's a little bland and repetitive and it's all based on unfounded assertions.“ (Mr. Reasonable **). Propably Mr. Reasonable is „saying only what they want“ (James S. Saint), then he ist a sockpuppet of everyone and all, because Mr. Reasonable knows what they know, think, and want. So either Mr. Reasonable is a sockpuppet of everyone and all, or everyone and all are sockpuppets of Mr. Reasonable. Probably not the latter.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»I do not know your „bible“, What ist it?« **

You should know. You seem to be writing it.“ **

Are you sure?

Ecclesiastes wrote:

„I mean Wikipedia, that's a politically and culturally neutral website, right?“ **

No! That is not right. Wikipedia is not neutral.

James S. Saint wrote:

„That story, like many things on the internet, keeps changing.“ **

What do you exactly mean with „that story“? Which reference does the word „that“ have in your text (or context?) ?

Only Humean wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Why are the most posts send by cowards« **

I'm afraid trying to goad people into talking about things they find uninteresting by calling them cowards is going to be counterproductive. US politics doesn't interest me, Insightfoul's trying to be »edgy« for attention, as he's done several times in the past, and I am talking to someone else about something else.“ **

Okay, but it is also counterproductive, if nobody is answering questions which are asked by the person, who has opened a thread an has asked again and again the questions which belong to this thread.

It doesn't primarily matter who the person is, but here in this thread it is shown that the most posting people always refer merely to the person and not to the topic which is set in the thread. And that behavior of those most posting people here is counterproductive!

Only Humean wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Liberalism and egalitarism are antagonists, extreme enemies. Each of both leads to its contrary. Each struggle (against the other and against itself) leads to anarchy, very much anarchy, which can only be stopped temporariliy (!) by another modern totalitarianism, another dictatorship: the synthesis of liberalism and egalitarism. But this another dictatorship leads also to anarchy - merely just later. At last only monarchy is able to end the anarchy, otherwise there is no survival because at last anarchy only means death, and thus leads to death. This shows us the history, especially the history of the Imperium Romanum.« **

So far, so Hegel .... Why is monarchy a logically stable dictatorship, and others not? And if it is stable, why has it had such a bad run in the last 200 years? Why has anarchy failed to evolve inevitably out of the inherent contradictions in the majority of nations that have left sovereign monarchy as a system? Why have anarchies (which are indeed unstable) generally not been replaced by monarchies.“ **

Others are also a logically stable dictatorship, but not in this case! Monarchy has not had a bad run in the last 200 years, and the most governments which called themselves monarchies, were not really monarchies. Is the British monarchy really a monarchy? No!

It is a question of time (age, epoch, zeitgeist etc.), space (landscape, region etc.), and people of this time and space, whether anarchies can be replaced by monarchies or not. Anarchy can also be replaced by oligarchy or democracy, but in almost the best case it is replaced by monarchy because anarchy is - as well as chaos - the opposite to order, and after many, many years of chaos the people want order.

The „best“ for the actual rulers is to wait until the western world and probably even the whole world will be absolutely delivered to anarchy.

Only Humean wrote:

„I'm all for logical arguments, but when they contradict the evidence before one, there's a problem with the logic.“ **

There is no problem with the logic, and many philosophers have written about the forms of government and their historical return, e.g.: Aristoteles, Polybios, Poseidonios, Ibn Chaldun, G. Vico, Karl Friedrich Vollgraff, Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, Oswald A. G. Spengler, to name only the most important.

„Olduvai-Theorie“ **

Have you heard about the „Olduvai Theory“?

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.

404) Arminius, 19.03.2014, 00:40, 02:43, 03:24, 03:32, 04:18, 18:19, 20:10, 21:59 (791-798)

James S. Saint wrote:

„Socialism and Communism propose that »you must behave THIS way«. Conceptually that demands prepackaged decisions concerning almost everything, including decisions based on race. Depending on which socialistic regime one is serving, that might mean to favor your own race or it might mean to disfavor your own race. Either way is racism.

Capitalism represents more of a »make your own choice based upon your own priorities«. Your individual choice might favor your own race and it might not. It might have nothing at all to do with race. But it is not being dictated based upon race, »racism«.

A single individual exercising his own personal choices is called »life«. It is not »racism«. Racism is formed only as a collective dictate. And that includes the dictate to favor anything other than your own race, »anti-racism« is the worst kind of racism. It intentionally seek to destroy your personal choices and your race. And anti-racism is strictly a socialistic endeavor with serious malignant intent.

And don't confuse your current state of the union as »Capitalism«. The USA hasn't been capitalist for decades. Capitalism, like the Constitution these days, is merely being used as a veil to hide serious socialism, specifically Global Socialism, a global form of Nazism formed by the exact same people who formed Nazism in the first place.“ **

This is exactly what I have been saying my whole life.

James, you have stolen my words! Where did you find my words? Why did you make my text to your text?

Ecclesiastes wrote:

„Observations made by a white liberal teacher who worked in numerous black high schools: ....“ **

Teachers are not capitalists, but officers or clerks and thus in most cases socialists. If the teacher took this picture for the purpose of horniness, which means in „left speech“: for the purpose of profit, it would be indicated that teachers and other officers and clerks are capitalists (in „left speech“) - as well as the whole state, especially the „social“ state is an exploiting system. The more eaglitarism (communism, socialism etc.) grows the more it acts like its antagonist: the liberalism. And the more liberalism grows the more it acts like its antagonist: the egalitarism. For both there will be no way out. They are going to play their game until the end - assuming that there will be no catastrophe, e.g. a natural or economic catastrophe (with war, civil war etc.) - and that means: anarchy.

Will mankind be able to survive? That's the question.

If human beeings will survive, there would be an new beginning, probably with a monarchal form of government. If human beings will not survive, it would be possible that the most of the other higher living beings will also not survive.

Such a future in mind should encourage us.

But for this we don't need socialistic or liberalistic rulers, bankers, politicians, scientists, taechers, policemen, „therapists“ etc. because we don't need an exploiting system with more and more corruption.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»This is exactly what I have been saying my whole life.

James, you have stolen my words! Where did you find my words? Why did you make my text to your text?.« **

So are you »reading from my bible« or am I reading from yours?“ **

Perhaps it depends on, how old „our bibles“ are, how old our related theories and thoughts are, how old we are?

Who and/or what is older?

James S. Saint wrote:

„More related to who can think rationally. All accurate logic is entangled. Or more commonly put, »All truly wise men think alike.«“ **

That’s right, James.

Mr. Reasonable wrote:

„Proof. Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVJA36YGAEQ.“ **

The problem is merely, that we don't have enough power to decide whether there is enough oil or other sources of energy, and to decide to inform the mass of the people about that.

So the problem is more a question of power and less a problem of having enough ernergy for the mass of the people. If the rulers don't want the mass of the people to have enough energy, then the mass of the people doesn't have enough ernergy - and that's it. The power is the first thing and the availability of energy for the mass of the people merely the second or third or ....

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»The „best“ for the actual rulers is to wait until the western world and probably even the whole world will be absolutely delivered to anarchy.« **

That has been the proposed way for thousands of years, but there is a better way.“ **

In this case the term »to wait« includes the term »to stage« because the rulers can stage and wait whatever and whenever they want. They can play God. There is no »better way«, James, isn't it?

Try to think ....

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»In this case the term »to wait« includes the term »to stage« because the rulers can stage and wait whatever and whenever they want. They can play God. There is no »better way«, James, isn't it?« **

If one group can put on a stage play for the rest, can't another put on a stage play for the first?“ **

Yes, of course, that is possible. .... The results are different.

405) Arminius, 20.03.2014, 00:28, 00:57, 01:28, 02:45, 14:40, 15:04, 15:54, 16:25, 19:45 (799-807)

James S. Saint wrote:

„»Doing it right« or »living right« on even a small group scale causes the play to begin. Reality writes the script and no one needs to memorize any lines. Once a small group actually does it right, nature takes over and the game is won.

If you are going to redesign women, that is the way to do it. Then you can can just do your thing and not worry about the world. The very foundation of nature will take care of the rest.“ **

Before you „redesign women“, you have to influence men and women successfully, and this means, in your words, you have to cause „the play to begin“.

Anti-racists are more racist than racists.

Anti-racists always have to refer to racist, racists, and racism. They wouldn't exist, if there were no racist. Their existence depends on racist, racists, and racism.

James S. Saint wrote:

„As sub-atomic particles go into a black hole, they disperse into random noise. That noise very, very slowly finds its way back out the other side. If that were not occurring a black hole would have no gravity at all.“ **

If that noise doesn't find its way out (the other side), a black hole would have no gravity at all? Has that anything to do with a medium?

Gib's avatar.

Gib wrote:

„That's me after gashing my head open on the side of a swimming pool.

What a little Photoshop magic won't do.“ **

And who is the very nice young man with the white skin and the white or light blonde hair (see: your „avatar“) ?

@ (Non-)Historyboy ** ** **

As you said:

You have a personal, an absolutely personal problem with the northern, north-western and central Europeans - just like your idols, your false gods had, especially your main idol, your main false god Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche.

I have read Vollgraff too and come to the conclusion, that he can be interpreted in a completely different way than you always interpret (more: construe) him.

P.S.: Your drugs are your idols, your false gods, and your main drug is your main idol, your main false god.

Other drugs were not meant (as approximately 99% of the readers here know).

And please, boy, stop crying for your motherator at every opportunity.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»If that noise doesn't find its way out (the other side), a black hole would have no gravity at all? Has that anything to do with a medium?« **

The noise IS the »medium«, the only medium in all existence ....“ **

It is for instance that what Pythagoras said in the 6th and 5th century B.C..

„Thus »affectance noise IS the only medium«.

In more modern physics terms, affectance noise is merely extremely, ultra subtle EMR noise, electromagnetic radiation at immeasurably high random frequencies. All of space is made of it.“ **

You are a Pythagorean, James!

Gib wrote:

„That's me after hitting the gym for several years and dying my hair blond (and applying makeup)... just kidding, that's Ed. I found him in some ad that popped up on my facebook home page. I thought he was funny so I downloaded him and then later felt inspired to upload him to ILP.“ **

And Ed agreed?

806

Gib wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»And Ed agreed?« **

„No, and I hope he doesn't sue me. ().“ **

I hope too. Maybe I am Ed. .... No, I am not Ed.

(Non-)Historyboy wrote:

„Fantasies also come heavily in mixed races members, and Germans are a heavily mixed race.“ **

You know nothing about races and nothing about the Germans.

Europeans are a race, also known as the „white“ race. Race is a genetical / biological term.

Germans are not mixed.

Like I said: It's not an objective, but a subjective problem, because it's your own, your personal problem. You don't want „X“ to be be „Y“ because you want „X“ to be „Z“. You want that! You! Nobody else, except your false gods, especially your main false god.

Mixed people are the French, Italians, Spanish (Spaniards), Portuguese because of the German conquerors in ancient and early medieval times, and also most of the South-East-Europeans and some North-Africans and also because of the German conquerors in ancient and early medieval times, besides the East-Europeans as well because of the German conquerors in medieval times.

That is history, my Non-historyboy.

Today Europe in its northern, west-northern, western, central, west-southern, southern parts is mixed by the immigrant population; and this immigrant population is comparable to the recent immigrant population (Hispanics) in the USA.

406) Arminius, 21.03.2014, 00:12, 01:05, 01:17, 03:04, 15:08, 15:21, 16:08, 20:21, 21:09 (808-816)

James S. Saint wrote:

„Except for a small difference. Aether was a medium in which other things floated about. Affectance is a medium in which merely higher concentrations of the medium float about. Those »things«, such as sub-atomic particles, are the medium as well, merely concentrated.

Affectance concentrates automatically into tiny spheres of a particular size because affects necessarily slow themselves into traffic jams of noise. But as the traffic jam gets larger, the outer perimeter gets thinner and weaker. The size is then set by the »speed of light« as tiny affects run into each other. It is much like a traffic jam on the highway in that the speed of the traffic determines the size of the congestion.

A traffic jam of affectance causes a wide spread slowing of the traffic that gets exponentially weaker at slowing traffic. A photon is like a pack of buses going through the neighborhood and it gets slowed also. And if the traffic jam, the large particle, happens to be on one side of the path of the photon, the photon slows more on that side thus bending its course. Thus light actually »falls« into or toward heavy objects. But they have to be really, really massive.“ **

Ok, the theory of aether isn't up to date, I know, but maybe it will be as it was until Einstein's theory of relativity.

What do you think about the theory of strings? The theory of strings is again more like the Pythagorean theory.

Which natural force is the most basic one? By the current state of physics the gravity is the most basic force of nature, but there is much evidence that it isn't the gravity, but the electromagnetism.

(Non-)Historyboy wrote:

„If you could say a single truth you would do it by now. Obviously your registration on this forum is very subjective.

I don't discuss with unknown people. It is too creepy.“ **

What nonsense!

Are you a child?
Are you afraid?
Are you anxious?
Are you racist? **
Are you „Cezar“? **
Are you known?

What about your registration?

I know very much about you, but that doesn't mean that you are known.

If you could say a single truth you would do it by now.

This is me (more than 2000 years ago):

This is me too (later):

Hey, you are discussing with one of your „unknown people“ (**). What about your principles?

You are not made for science, so you are also not made for philosophy. That's the answer of this topic here. You are made for religion and for your „lovely“ idols, your false gods.

Your envy towards North-, West-, specially Northwest-, and Central-Europeans is the same as the envy which your idols had, especially your main idol. You do anything for your idols (false gods). So you don't live. You hide your envy and your adoration of your idols and your resentments behind childishness and some coolness (notice: coolness isn't Nietzscheanian, but very much decadent!).

As you said to yourself: It is simply pathetic how little you know about your own end.

Besides:

Faustian is northern, not southern. You are wrong as always. What you say is what you wish and pray for.

Stop talking in monologue or in pseudo-dialogue between you and your idols, which means at last again: monologue.

You wrote: „I don't discuss with unknown people. I is too creepy.“ (**). It is too creepy for you because a discussion is not a monologue, especially not YOUR monologue.

This says the one who always cries, cries for the motherator.

You always misuse, misapply or abuse (like a drug-user) your idols (false gods) for your private interests. How do you feel when you are high, higher, powerful, more powerful? And how do you feel after that effect? Insane? In a forum of philosophy it is the duty of the members to defend the well-deserved brainworkers (of philosophy or science or arts), providet that they were or are not charlatans. You do not care about their credits at all because you are only interested in misusing them for private interests. You and many other „Southerns“ are adopted by Germans, and instead of thanking for that there is only misusing, misapplying, abusing, and of course exploiting, so it's no wonder that you and the other „Southerns“ are not made for philosophy. You are not able to thank, not able to think (thank and think are related, akin; cp. Martin Heidegger), not able to value the behavior and especially the emotions of the people, especially those people who have been helping you. You are educated and taught that you can always have what you want, and because of the fact that the Germans have what you want you show that you are a well educated adopted child and exploit them, misuse them and their works, including - of course - their technical, economic(al), scientific(al), and philosophical works.

Shame on you.

P.S.) In the south is nothing of worth, no technology, no industry, no economy, no intelligence (=> brainpower), no science, no philosophy ... etc. ....

(Non-)Historyboy wrote:

„If you could say a single truth you would do it by now. Obviously your registration on this forum is very subjective.

I don't discuss with unknown people. It is too creepy.“ **

Let's see, who really unknown is and wants to be unknown.

(Non-)Historyboy wrote:

„I see ... moderator ....“ **

Motherator. **

(Non-)Historyboy wrote:

„Minimally 75% of all people are decadents(all women and men at least until the age of 20 and from 60 on).“ **

Have you ever heard such a rubbish and nonsense?

Contra-Nietzschze wrote:

„Cezar? He's back!“ **

Contra-Nietzschze wrote:

„Cezar .... I suppose its akin to that lady of the petite-nobility who adopted you as a pet and taught you the ways of your nobility.“ **

(Non-)Historyboy wrote:

„Stupid Americans are collapsing the entire fucking world.“ **

Motherator! **

Stuart wrote:

„Interesting, CN, ..., but if historyboy is Cezar then why does he act like he doesn't know you?“ **

(Non-)Historyboy wrote:

„I think ..., not discussing anything is also a right that shall be sanctioned by the moderators“ **

Motherator. **

(Non-)Historyboy wrote:

„Unless I'm not under another name, this is my only identity ....“ **

A lie.

(Non-)Historyboy wrote:

„Maybe I'll request a Christian username on this forum ....“ **

Stuart wrote:

„What about Christian Overman, wouldn't that be a fun name ...?“ **

Yes, it would (very much).

Contra-Nietzschze wrote:

„I'll let his use Christian Overman, it was a scam used to toy with the Nietzscheans, especially Taz.

He pretends like he doesn't know me because he's had his butt handed to me several times in the past, if he deals with me head on he faces more lost of face.

Historyboy was a persona on Nietzscheforum I forgot all about. It's definitely Cezar, just he can't log into his old account. He hasn't done anything wrong in making a new account if the administer of the site is reluctant to help him get back into it for privacy reasons.

However, this is definitely Cezar.

I've been thinking of dedicating a small video to Nietzsche's thought on YouTube to Cezar ... with a cat walking on its legs beneath it.

I missed you Cezar ....“ **

Contra-Nietzschze wrote:

„Cezar, culture depreciates on the flip of a coin, nothing depreciates faster without massive overlaying of ritual. Ritual is tactical thought with a strategic mindset forced into the unconscious.

Technical thought dominates currently. The capacity to infinitely reorient to new art, ideas, landmarks, philosophies is instant and perishable.“ **

Is Non-historyboy now also known as Cezar? Or as Cezarboy? I would say: as BOY. However, he is one of the unknown people, isn't he?

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»The theory of strings is again more like the Pythagorean theory.« **

How so?“ **

In ancient times science and philosophy were almost identical. The theory of the strings is very much theoretic and thus more similiar to the theory (philosophy) of the Pythagorean than other theories - furthermore: the theory (philosophy) of the Pythagoreans as well as the theory of the strings refer to music (strings).

Oh, boy.

Why don't you and the other „Southerns“ go back and live again in the south, where you come from? If you did, you wouldn't have such a big chance for exploiting the Germans (North-/Northwest-/Central-Europeans). Why don't you have any single southern philosopher, wiseman, scientist, technician (e.g. engineer), economist etc.? You can not have anyone because there is none in the south.

The title of this topic is absolutely wrong (false) because there is a rhetorical misuse in it. The correct (true) title of this topic is: Why southern people are not made for philosophy, science, technique (technology), industry, economy, intelligence (brainpower), but made for religion and idolatry.

That's nonsense.

The statement of your main idol Nietzsche is wrong (false) !

If your idol Nietzsche says „boy, kill yourself“, you will do it immediately.

Judaism, Christianity and Islam are religions which stem from the south (!) - exactly: from the desert (!) in Arabia - and Christianity was successfully installed on the Romans, a short time later on the Germans, but not more successfully than on the Romans.

And besides: In their early time as Christians the most Germans were Arianists, not Catholics.

You don't have to believe in any single word which is written in Nietzsche's books. But you do! Man! Excuse me: Boy! That's fanatic, fundamentally religious as well as fundamentally idolatric. If your idol Nietzsche says „boy, kill yourself“, you will do it immediately.

Have you ever heard anything about demographics?

In the late ancient and early medieval times the Roman people were only a minority of the people who lived in their countries: Germans, the majority. For example: when the Franconian (Franconians / Franks are a tribe of the Germans) king Chlodwig I. converted from Arianism to Catholicism, he ruled over the country which later got the name France and over some regions in the south-west and west of the country which later got the name Germany. At that time there wasn't any real Roman in this land because the Germans had become Romans (Ancient Romans + Germans = later Romans). The word „Romans“ comes from (citizen of) „Rome“ and „German“, thus: Rome + German = Roman.

It is not easy to compare 1st-century-Romans with 3rd- or 4th-century-Romans because latter were mostly Germans.

407) Arminius, 22.03.2014, 03:19, 05:00, 05:43, 16:33, 20:50, 21:22, 22:33, 22:50 (817-824)

Uccisore wrote:

„Even granting everything the OP says as true, it becomes a sort of Prisoner's Dilemma. if women are hardwired for peace, and men for war, then the best thing for me is if my country has a male leader and yours has a female leader. Second best is if we both have female leaders, worse is if we both have male leaders, and the worst of all is if I have a female leader and you have a male leader. This under the assumption that the female leader is likely to capitulate under threats of war from a male leader, and a male leader is likely to declare war to get what he wants, or to resist the other country getting what they want. Two male leaders will »agree« to fight each other, and two female leaders will agree to work things out peacefully, which each side getting something.

Do the math, and the smart play according to the above is to always have a male leader - you have a chance of getting some or all that you want in every combination where you have a male leader.

But yeah, I'm closer to agreeing with UPF - I think there are differences between men and women, but they aren't so great, and the consequences aren't so easily predicted as to say one over the other would lead to a better world.“ **

If the premise is that women are more peaceful than men, the conclusion will be that female leaders would lead us to a better world. But be careful! If the premise is false, the conclusion will be false too. The premise that women are more peaceful than men is false, and the conclusion that female leaders would lead us to a better world is false too. The premise has not been proved (and besides: the antithetic one has not been disproved). And the Stone-Age-Society is no example for a propf, (even more one for a disproof). „Jail stats“ (**) are also no example for proof. So female leaders would not lead us to a better world - quite contrary to. There will be merely one more kind of war which never has been seen: gender war (sexes war, sexistic war). The worst case!

Mithus wrote:

„If with »leaders« you mean those who represent a country, I suppose it doesn't matter if they are male or female. They don't make the decisions. And those in the background who make the decisions are not interestred in peace if it does not fit in their interests. Thatcher and Merkel didn't bring more peace to the world. Just puppets on a string.“ **

Yes, that's rig“ht. And the president of the United States is also a puppet on a string. Anyway: Politicians are not the most powerful human beeings. The most powerful human beeings are others, and they are male leaders, and they are extremely paternalistic (patriarchal). They are not against female politicians, but they are against female leaders.

Like I said: In many cases Vollgraff is wrong, some of his assumptions are false. **

There are many German words in the French language - of course. You don't know anything about linguistics / philology.

There are three kinds of linguistic contact:

1.) Superstratum (in German: Superstrat),
2.) Substratum (in German: Substrat),
3.) Adstratum (in German: Adstrat).

At that time that we are talking about there was a superstratum - which means: the conquerors loose most of their language and the conquered keep their language. It was because of the civilzed (bureaucratic etc.) dominance of the Latin language, which at the time, before the Germans conquered Gaul, was spoken by the „high society“ in Gaul (not France, which did not exist at that time - as I already said **). The Latin speech was established in state and administration, insofar as still available, and so the German language decreased (declined) and the Latin language became a mixed language (Latin + German = Roman, in this case: = French). **

Since the late ancient times the Celts have been irrelevant for history of the continental Europe - except when they brought Christianity to the continent. If you mean the Gauls and not the other Celts, you will have to read my last my post again and also Vollgraff's books. In Gaul the Germans as the conquerors became the majority, but that doesn't mean that the Gauls disappeared. Besides: The Gauls at that time didn't speak Gaulish, but Latin (cp. my last post [**] in this thread and several historical books, especially linguistic ones). Just because of their political / administrative structure, although declining, the German language couldn't come out on top in Gaul - except from the 4th to the 6th century. In Italy, Spain, Portugal, North-Africa the German language was established from the 5th to the 8th century (Spain, Portugal, North-Africa) and to the 15th and in some regions to modern times (Italy, especialla North-Italy, cp. Langobard / Lombard).

Try to learn more about the history, especially about the history of languages, my Non-historyboy.

You like trolling very much, hysteriaboy. So you are warned. Why should I discuss with a troll?

(Non-)Historyboy wrote:

„You are a liar.“ **

???

Let's see, who a liar is:

(Non-)Historyboy wrote:

„Unless I'm not under another name, this is my only identity ....“ **

A lie.

(Non-)Historyboy wrote:

„Maybe I'll request a Christian username on this forum ....“ **

Stuart wrote:

„What about Christian Overman, wouldn't that be a fun name ...?“ **

Yes, it would (very much).

Contra-Nietzschze wrote:

„I'll let his use Christian Overman, it was a scam used to toy with the Nietzscheans, especially Taz.

He pretends like he doesn't know me because he's had his butt handed to me several times in the past, if he deals with me head on he faces more lost of face.

Historyboy was a persona on Nietzscheforum I forgot all about. It's definitely Cezar, just he can't log into his old account. He hasn't done anything wrong in making a new account if the administer of the site is reluctant to help him get back into it for privacy reasons.

However, this is definitely Cezar.

I've been thinking of dedicating a small video to Nietzsche's thought on YouTube to Cezar ... with a cat walking on its legs beneath it.

I missed you Cezar ....“ **

Stopp trolling, Cezarboy!

(Non-)Historyboy wrote:

„Yes, you have read Vollgraff ....“ **

Yes, of course, but some of Vollgraff’s statements are false - as i repeatedly said, boy (e.g. here and here and here and here) !

(Non-)Historyboy wrote:

„If you know German at all, then write in German.“ **

Thus: If you can, boy, write in German !

Wenn Du kannst, Junge, schreibe auf Deutsch !
__________

Mithus wrote:

„Why do you bother, Arminius? He is therapy-resistent.“ **

You're right, Mithus. This boy is therapy-resistent. So it's useless to discuss with him.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Interestingly, the strongest force in the universe is called »The Electroweak Force« or just »The Weak Force« by Science. And one of the two weakest forces in the universe is called »The Strong Force« by Science (the other being »Valance«).“ **

Yes, but the electroweak force, which is the electromagnetic force and the weak force as unit (notice: both as unit!), are no longer an unit because the temperature in the universe is too low (the universe is too cold therefor).

So there remains the question about the one currently main force (I don't mean the strongest force, but the main force!). There are speculations, theories, and of course philosophies about this topic. Most of them indicate that the gravity is the main force because the gravity always „wins“ - this has been the hegemonic theory since Einstein’s theory of relativity -, others indicate that the main force is the electromagnetism. The latter is very interesting, I think.

James S. Saint wrote:

„I think that perhaps you are talking about »the most important« or »the most relevant« force.“ **

Yes, that's what I am talking about.

James S. Saint wrote:

„But the fact remains that gravity cannot exist at all without electric potential but electric potential can exist without gravity. Thus electric potential is »more fundamental«“ **

And that also indicates that the eletric potential respectively the electromagnetic force is currently the main force, like I said, respectively the most important or the most relevant force, as you said.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Thus electric potential is »more fundamental«.“ **

That's probably right. At least that's what I think.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Yes, but the electroweak force, which is the electromagnetic force and the weak force as unit (notice: both as unit!), are no longer a unit because the temperature in the universe is too low (the universe is too cold therefor).« **

I don't understand what you are saying.“ **

That point isn't the most important for the topic because it merely refers to the „history“ of the universe. So we can probably neglect that point. Anyway, I triy to explain:

The current physicians assume that in the „history“ of the universe at first the gravity, at second the stronge force, at third the electroweak force developed, and the weak force as well as the electromagnetism (electromagnetic force) seperated from the electroweak force. So the sequence was:

In the meantime the temperature of the universe sank (declined). This sinking of the temperature caused the development of those basic forces of nature. ** **

James S. Saint wrote:

„To me »relevance« or »importance« is subjective whereas »fundamental« refers to the construct. Gravity is constructed out of electric potential, as is the weak force. The strong force is constructed out of gravity.“ **

How would you describe this in such signs: => ... => ...?

James S. Saint wrote:

„And don't confuse the electromagnetic force with the »weak force«. Electromagnetic forces are what causes the attraction and repulsion of charged particles (in physics terminology). The weak force is what prevents an electron from falling into a proton despite the electromagnetic attraction involved. The weak force must counter the electromagnetic force or electric potential.“ **

I know, James. I don't confuse the electromagnetic force with the weak force. But nevertheless, the weak force and the electromagnetism (electromagnetic force) seperated from the electroweak force, llike I said (here), what doesn't mean that they could or should be confused by anyone.

Perhaps I would have done better in this way:

James S. Saint wrote:

„Electromagnetic forces are what causes the attraction and repulsion of charged particles (in physics terminology). The weak force is what prevents an electron from falling into a proton despite the electromagnetic attraction involved. The weak force must counter the electromagnetic force or electric potential.“ **

That’s right.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Okay, I just wanted to make sure that the words were not confusing the understanding.“ **

No problem, James.

It's just interesting! The topic as a whole is interesting!

408) Arminius, 23.03.2014, 00:20, 04:11, 05:57 (825-827)

James S. Saint wrote:

„Gib wrote:

»James S. Saint wrote:

›You are misunderstanding what a 'Logical Implication' means. ** **

Your statement (**) is a valid logical implication if and only if the statement satisfies the logical implication truth table. Since your statement doesn't satisfy that table, your statement is not a valid logical implication.‹ **

In what way does it not satisfy the table?« **

A logical implication is a statement that forms only one particular truth table.
You have to look at your statement and decide if it fits that truth table.
Yours doesn't.

p = Hitler was a woman
q = persecuted blacks
p --› q = Hitler would have persecuted blacks

Truth table for a Logical Implication:
p _ q _ p --› q
F _ F _ T
F _ T _ T
T _ F _ F
T _ T _ T

For your statement to be a valid implication, all four lines have to be valid.

Hitler was woman : not persecuted blacks :: T/F Unknown
Hitler was woman : persecuted blacks :: T/F Unknown
Hitler not woman : not persecuted blacks :: F Known
Hitler not woman : persecuted blacks :: T Known

Your statement met only two of the four requirements.
You would have had to have included some assertion connecting being a woman and persecuting blacks.“ **

@ Gib or someone else.

Would you mind responding James’ post?

Gib wrote:

„I did: Http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185298#p2456639.“ **

Then take this:

If 3 x 3 = 10, then the earth is a planet. **

....

Thank you!

Regards!

Gib wrote:

„So if [false] then [true]? ‹-- Well, it's true! If 3 x 3 = 10, then the Earth is a planet.

As Uccisore would say: In all cases in which 3 x 3 = 10, the Earth is a planet.

Or as Mad Man would say: It is not the case that 3 x 3 = 10, and the Earth is not a planet.“ **

The statement of a logical implication is false then and ONLY then, if the first part of the statement is true and the second part of the statement is false.

409) Arminius, 24.03.2014, 03:35 (828)

Mad Man P. wrote:

„Jimmy's post is nonsense ..., nothing in that post has anything to do with logic and he got literally everything wrong except the truth table.“ **

So you are saying: Logic is nonsense.  –  Why? Because James’ post is referring to logic and nothing else.

Logic isn't nonsense, but: Your statement is nonsense. It has nothing to do with logic, nothing to do with philosophy, nothing to do with science, nothing to do with life, nothing to do with anything because it is absolutely absurd, it is just false.

Maybe you didn't or couldn't read James' post. In that case I forgive you, but your statement is stupid. Your statement is mad too, Mad Man P., and laughable, but also dangerous because it is a subjective one which indicates that you are merely a hater.

Try to read James' post: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185298#p2456603

If you can not understand logic, why are you posting here: the most important discipline of philosophy is logic.

I love philosophy, especially logic.

_____________

Exercise example:

Mad Man P.
Posts: 2342
Joined: ?
Location: Denmark

If this one is a woman, (he / ) she persecutes logicians.

Help!

_____

Code of practice:

Regards.

410) Arminius, 25.03.2014, 00:18, 00:51, 12:14, 13:11 (829-832)

James S. Saint wrote:

„Electrostatic => Electromagnetic
Electromagnetic => Gravity
Electromagnetic => Weak force
Gravity => Strong force.“ **

Would you go so far to say that the electrostatic is the „unmoved mover“, the „phenomenon“ which caused at first and thus caused the universe?

James S. Saint wrote:

„Perhaps I didn't make it clear enough...

A gravity field is merely mass spread out in a region. A mass particle is merely a very dense spec of highly concentrated gravity field. And both the gravity field and mass are made of nothing but electromagnetic radiation, EMR.“ **

Would you go so far to say that the electromagnetic ist the „fundamental“ force?

Dear Fixed Cross, what's „athetits“? Is that only an orthographic error? **

You mean „atheists“, I think (). Correct?

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

Dear Fixed Cross, what's „athetits“? Is that only an orthographic error? **

You mean „atheists“, I think (). Correct?« **

That was merely a part of the »joke«. “ **

Yes, I thought so, therefore I put in the „wink“-smiley:

Insightfoul wrote:

„My argument is that liberals claiming that race does not exist, and gender is equal ....“ **

Liberals say that everyone should decide what to be, and egalitarians (the enemies of the liberals) say, all human beings (and at last even all beings) are equal. The consequnce is, that liberals and egalitarians, although they are extreme enemies, meet and come to an agreement. At last many liberals are more egaltarian than the egalitarians and many egalitarians are more liberal than the liberals. While more and more people don't know what they are. They become by and by more stupid and poorer and less (at last they even don't know what to do with children). That ist very fateful.

Liberalists and egalitarians - both are totalitarians - become the third kind of totalitarians: fraternalitarians, today known as globalists.

==>