611) Arminius, 15.01.2015, 00:52, 01:00, 01:53, 05:16, 09:58, 11:34, 11:45, 11:49, 12:05, 12:09, 21:23, 22:04, 22:31, 23:35, (2371-2384)

Yes. The truth ist that they are machines and replace humans.

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“).

It does not work without power. Therefore, 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.

Have you experienced this (**), or is it an excerpt from a novel?

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.

You are „very sorry“? Why do you not rant? .... „Rant you a bike“!

Let's have an interim result for the question: „Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?“

We have 50% for „yes“, 30% for „no“, and 20% for „I don't know“.

Please vote!

Let's have an interim result.

We have 0% for „monarchy, 40% for „aristocracy“, 40% for „democracy“, and 20% for „no one“.

Please vote!

Let's have an interim result for the question: „Will there be war in Europe before 2050?“

We have 67% for „yes“, 33% for „no“, and 0% for „I don't know“.

Please vote!

Let's have an interim result for the question: „Should the NATO must be terminated?“

We have 33% for „yes“, 67% for „no“, and 0% for „I don't know“.

Please vote!

„Feminism is our invention for two reasons. Previously, only paid half the population taxes, now almost all of them because the women go to work. In addition, so that the family has been destroyed and we have thus obtained the power over the children. They are under our control with our media and get our message drummed, no longer under the influence of the intact family. By incite women against men and destroy the partnership and the community of the family, we have created a broken society of egoists who work, consume, thus are our slaves and then also find it good.“ - Nicholas Rockefeller. **

„Feminism was created to destabilize society, tax women and set up the NWO.“ - Aaron Russo. **

Feminism is an excellent example of how the global rulers as a global mega cartel uses the awesome power of the mass media (i.e. propaganda.) to control society.

See more at:

- http://www.savethemales.ca/001904.html# ... zM83X.dpuf **
- http://www.infowars.com/10-ways-true-fe ... er-attack/ **
- http://www.henrymakow.com/200202.html **
- http://www.newmenstime.com/index170-001.html **

„Femi-Nazi is the last attempt of dead social-philosophy.“ - Newmenstime.cm. **

Jakob wrote:

„Yes, the old military Europe still exists.“ **

No, it does not!

Jakob wrote:

„France and England together form a guarantee.“ **

Nonsense!

Jakob wrote:

„Given that England has already capitulated to Islam and privatized its nuclear industry into American companies, France is the political center of Europe and western civilization.“ **

France is the political „center of Europe“? That's nonsense too! And „western civlisation“? Also nonsense! France did not exist during the time of the Frankish Empire encompassing those countries which are later known as France, Germany, North Italy, and again later Austria, Switzerland, Holland, Belgium.

Look at this maps (and see where the center of Europe is and the Frankish Empire was!):

Ecmandu wrote:

„He means qualitatively, not quantitatively. It may be true, it may not, but that's not his argument.“ **

What he said is quantitatively and qualitatively false.

First it have been the Germanic tribes, especially the Frankish, one of the Germanic tribes; then it was the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation; in the beginning of the global colonisation it was Spain with Portugal, then the Great Powers as the „Concert of Europe“ - England, Germany (Austria and Prussia), France, Russia -, then another „Concert of Europe“ with England, Germany, Austria-Hungary, France, Italy, Russia (1871-1917/'18), and today USA - unfortunately. Yes, unfortunately! The USA are too far away from Europe, they don't know much aboout Europe, they are economically an enemy (thus: not a partner!) and militarily not a partner but the boss (**|**).

And please don't forget the church!

The erliest empire of the Germanic tribe which we call the Franks had its territory in the region which is today: Northwest Germany and Holland. That was founded in the 3rd century.

**

Austrians are Germans. Have you forgotten that?

We are talking aboout history and not about political correctness of the early 21st century.

And the Habsburgs are a German royal dynasty.

Shall I show you a map again?

And the Austrian-Hungarian Empire you and somebody else mentioned is not the best example, if we want Europe to became safe, because that empire became more and more fragiile, and this fact was the trigger for the First World War.

Shall I tell you the historical facts?

612) Arminius, 16.01.2015, 00:06, 01:52, 02:30, 03:54, 06:26, 06:54, 08:33, 09:18, 09:37, 11:10, 22:50 (2385-2395)

There can not be any European development without Germany. Try to learn from history! Most humans can not learn from history - unfortunately.

Either the Europeans wiil do it furthermore by the German leadership, especially in an economical sense, or they try to find a new „concert“, for example: Germany, France, and Russia (but that is not easy).

Europe without Germany is dead!

Orb wrote:

„No, You do not have to. The fact is, what the Austrians were, does not apply to the modern Europe.“ **

It does apply to the modern Europe - of course! Ask the Austrians themselves! The Austrians were and are Germans. It's only the current political correctness - thus: dicatatorship and propaganda - that wants you to believe in lies.

Orb wrote:

„They were Germans once, the similar way, the Hungarians were once Magyars and prior to that hords from Siberia. Who was what that long ago, does not relate to the present facts, except insofar as they effected the geopolitical dynamics of Europe.“ **

No, and you can't comprae the Hungarians with Austrians in that way. Have you herad of the „Deutscher Bund“ („German Federation“ )? It existed from 1815 to 1866 (German War between Prussia and Austria - it's called German War!). Bot Austria and Prussia were members and had no problems with each other. That is not long ago. And shall I show you the map and the fotos of 1938? Austria came back to the Reich 1918, because the Austrians wanted it. You have to accept the historical facts as well as I have to.

Orb wrote:

„Hungary was allied with Germany all through both world wars, and suffered enormous casualties alongside the Germans, while Austria remained neutral.“ **

Excuse me, but you have no idea. Austria was allied with Germany during the First World War and was part of Germany during the Second World war. Austria was not „neutral“!

Orb wrote:

„Another interesting example is, the sudden departure of Ribbentrop to Moscow to form the German Russian allience, on the eve of the attack on Poland, whose outcome and supposed betrayal is very well documented.“ **

No, Poland had provoked that - that is also very well documented. And Russia wanted a revenche for the war with Poland in the early 1920's, when Poland misused the chaos of the soviet „revolution“. So Stalin was very much interested in a occupation of Poland - that is also very well documented.

B.t.w.: Smaller nations are often more aggressive than the others. You should know that, Obe.

Jakob wrote:

„I'm saying a Germany led by Prussian ethics is not beneficial to the rest of us.“ **

You do not know anything about the Prussian ethics.

Jakob wrote:

„They are extremely selfish and aggressive.“ **

That is a lie.

Jakob wrote:

„Merkel is a manager, she is admirable at her job but she is no »statesman', has no oversight, is myopic to the detriment of southern Europe, which I contend is the most cultured part of the continent.“ **

But the global rulers and bankers like Merkel very much!

Jakob wrote:

„The Austrians will agree.“ **

No. They will not agree. I know it.

Jakob wrote:

„»Gouda« as they call all of it in the alps. Anyway, I respect your angle to this debate, unlike the apathy of other people.“ **

Everywhere in Germany they say „Gouda“ to that Dutch cheese. The whole Old Europe - the Occident (Abendland) - is a culture of cheese. Some are known in the whole world, some not, and the latter are not worse than the others.

Currently, there are horrible and very much hysteric situations in the whole Occident. Sometime I think I can smell that war is coming.

Orb wrote:

„Arminius, You are right but only about Austria. In the first world war, they went along for the ride, but in the second they were Anschluss ....“ **

The Austrians WANTED the Anschluß. There are many stereotypes (clichés) which have made you blind for some historical facts. The Soviet „revolution“ (b.t.w.: it was paid) caused a reaction; so fascism emerged, and most of the fascists were former communists (the best known examples: Mussolini and Goebbels); and the Second World War was a reaction to the (results of the) First World War and to the Soviet „revolution“, the danger of communism („red danger“). What is currently said about this time has not very much to do with that what really happened.

Merkel was a communist. Did you know that?

The European Union is dominated by Germany. Yes. Why not? There is no other possibility. Otherwise the European Union would already be dead. Is that what some powerful Europeans and their followers could want? Yes, obviously, because many of the currently powerful Europeans are like the former Soviets, and this Neo-Soviets become more and more and say that the reverse would be true, but it is not. B.t.w.: Some of the former communists said that the communism will come anyway - with or without a „revolution“, with or without a „Soviet Union“. Now, everyone in the West thinks the communism has vanished, but it has not; the communsim has never been stronger than today.

Let's have an interim result for the question: „Is it possible that machines completely replace all humans?“

We have 66,67% for „yes“, 16,67% for „no“, and 16,67% for „I don't know“.

Hey! It is different to that result I determined in the other machine thread with the question: „Will machines completely replace all human beings?“ (**|**):

Arminius wrote:

For comparasion:
1st interim balance sheet (**|**),
2nd interim balance sheet (**|**),
3rd interim balance sheet (**|**),
4th interim balance sheet (**|**),
5th interim balance sheet (**|**).

These results do not necessarily speak for the »yes«-sayers, do they? And before the beginning I knew that the »yes«-sayers are the fewest.“ ** **

Okay, the question „Will machines completely replace all human beings?“ is not like the question „Is it possible that machines completely replace all humans?“. Probably the two results are different because there were other and more viewers of the other thread than of this thread. So we have to wait for more results.

Please vote!

Mags J. wrote

„Don't you know ... Orb is awesome.“ **

He is awesome?

@ Those who want to find scapegoats.

Trying to drive a peg into the good relationship between France and Germany (for example by using rhetoric with false clichès) does not help to solve the problems but adds many more problems.

Okay, the relationship between Merkel and Hollande is not as good as it was between Kohl and Mitterrand or Schmidt and Giscard d’Estaing or Adenauer and de Gaulle; but the relationship between Merkel and Hollande is - of course - not only caused by Merkel but also by Hollande; both are not really qualified for the current problems. France is bankrupt and has its „force de frappe“ (which is eventually useless, at least in the case of bankrupty), and the situation in Germany is just the reverse one. Maybe Germany should search for another „best friend“, but maybe it would be better, if Germany and France found back to their good relationship of the past.

If you want to find scapegoats, then you will probably find some in your bedroom!

Mags J. wrote:

„Europe and the UK are under attack by crazed Muslim extremists trying to cut our heads off... should we ban all knives and other sharp objects?“ **

That will probably not help very much, Mags.

B.t.w.: Sloterdijk's „Insulierungen“ (the processes of forming an island) have 12 dimensions, namely 3 superordinate dimensions and 9 subordinate dimensions:

Superordinate dimensions:
1.) Absolute islands.
2.) Atmospheric islands.
3.) Anthropogenic islands.

Subordinate dimensions:
1.) „Thermotop“.
2.) „Uterotop“.
3.) „Alethotop“.
4.) „Chirotop“.
5.) „Phonotop“.
6.) „Erototop“.
7.) „Ergotop“.
8.) „Thanatotop“.
9.) „Nomotop“.

Interestingly, Mags said „Europe and UK“. Perhaps Mags wants 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.

Jakob wrote:

„This is why I keep pressing for a shift in focus in German power.“ **

Which „shift“?

Jakob wrote:

„Arnimus - it seems you know little of Prussian power to me, but you could also simply get that misunderstanding out of the way by saying something substantial about it.
You seem to also know little of Austrians. I lived there, and have seen how closely knitted the Austrian and North Italians are. But maybe you have very different experiences.“ **

You seem to have problematic prejudices. Stop driving a peg into something which does not need a peg.

Do you know Metternich? Obviously not. He was Prussian, although from Koblenz - but during Metternich's time Koblenz was Prussian; he was a kind of an „Austrian Bismarck“, but without Metternich Austria and the rest of Germany would have become more Prussian than the German Federation (Deutscher Bund) was: Prussia and Austria did a good work together (b.t.w.: Prussia and Holland too); and this alliance lasted from the terrible Napoleonic Wars (more than 50% of his soldiers were Germans) till the the end of the Second World War or probabaly even till the end of the „Cold War“.

Do you know Bismarck? Obviously not. Bismarck was the last Kanzler (chancelor) who governed as if he was the father of the House Habsburg. What he did was right. He would have occupied Austria after the German War (Austria vs. Prussia; 1866), if he had wanted to, but he did not want to.

I don't follow your prejudices, because they are false.

You are always playing „X“ off against „Y“. France against Germany, Austria against Prussia: that is what you want, and it is - of course - nonsense! Stop whining about Prussians like Contra-Nietzsche and his alter ego Cezarboy.

Your „statements“ do not help when it comes to constructively say something about the current European problems. The reverse is true: your „statements“ increase those problems very much.

B.t.w.: I have lived in Austria.

Jakob wrote:

„No one thinks it has vanished. The EU is a soviet type system, with 5 year plans and no economic (=political) sovereignty except for Germany, which is in bed with the big American banks, to raid and plunder Greece.“ **

You are an agitator, a bater! And you want war! It is not Germany but merely its politicians who are in bed with bankers - but they are not in bed to raid and plunder Greece. Your agitation is evil. Greece wanted the Euro. Greece itself had the choice, and the German politicians (i.e. Weigel) did not want Greece to become a member of the Euro system, but Greece and the other members of the Euro system wanted Greece to become a member of the Euro system. Now the Greek are bankrupt - caused by themselves. (And b.t.w.: one of my children is genetically 50% Greek; so I don't say anything against Greece because of agitation - I am often in Greece and I know many Greeks!)

My contribution to your hateful agitation: Jakob, your are not a Dutchman (Deutschmann = German), you are a Slav(e).

Jakob wrote:

„Communism was always perfectly suited to the Germans, who are a proletarian worker people.“ **

That is (again and again) nonsense - your agitation! Very evil! Do other West Europaen people not work? Shame on you!

If someone hates Jewsih people, then he / she is called „Anitisemite“ (although Arabs are also Semites); if someone hates US people, then he / she is called „Antiamerican“ (although i.e. Argentinians are also Americans); but if someone hates Prussians (like Jakob), then he / she is not called „Antiprussian“ or „Antigerman“ or „Antigermanic“ (although i.e. Englishmen and many other humans are also Germans or Germanics). That is not fair but full of hate!

History is not fair, thus: learn from history!

Jakob wrote:

„This is not at all bad, but it is a bad sort of perspective to hold sway over european politics. I know for a fact that Austrians have a very different mindset. Yes they are Germanic, and this is nice as Germania is awesome, but they aren't Prussian, myopic, dangerous to the rest of us. Bismarck caused the world wars.“ **

What a nonsense! You seem to feel very inadequate. Bismarck did not cause the World Wars. Stop whining about Prussians like Contra-Nietzsche and his alter ego Cezarboy.

613) Arminius, 17.01.2015, 01:43, 03:08, 05:28, 08:51, 08:59, 09:11, 09:11, 21:46, 23:11, 23:45 (2396-2405)

Jakob wrote:

„The solution is not to continue placating Merkel. The solution is forcing her to finally take the responsibility of a European leader.“ **

I agree.

Are you shocked?

Jakob wrote:

„I suppose your idea of a better relationship is to continue begging and kneeling to Germany. If so you understand even less of Prussian ethics than I do, as I at least do not condone simply giving away your national culture because another country is richer.“ **

You suppose wrongly. And you have no idea of Prussian ethics. And note: Merkel is not a Prussian!

Jakob wrote:

„I at least do not condone simply giving away your national culture because another country is richer.“ **

I do not know what you mean by that. Is it - again a part of your agitation?

Jakob wrote:

„Surely, Hollande is a weakling, a worthless political leader. The unity rally had of course nothing to do with any heads of state. The power of it was its particular, not its general character as 'march for freedom of expression'. Such marches, as held in countries like Germany or Holland, are invariably pathetic. Here, it was not. That is the crucial difference.“ **

That is not a crucial difference. Okay, vote for France, thus for more poverty, for more poverty to more people, for more poverty to all people.

The Germans did not want the Euro! And if there were no Euro, then everything / anything would not be alright, but the Euro-countries would have less problems.
The Germans did not want the Euro, so they are not guilty. The German government has nothing to do with the German people.
But most of the other countries which have the Euro wanted the Euro, also and especially France wanted the Euro.

It seems that you have also no idea of economics.

The question is: Why is there so much hate, envy, and esentment in the world? Look, you are speaking about science, Obe (**). Germany had been the leader in science for centuries. The Second World War was - whatever it was in other senses - the chance for the enemies of Germany, especially USA and USSR, to become richer, thus more powerful by robbing and plundering Germany, the Germans, their wealth, their Gold, their patents, their scientists, their technicians, thus their main production factor: intelligence !

Now we have the same situation as we had just before the World Wars. It starts with lies, then threats and declarations follow, and in the end there is war as the instrument for the goals.

Arminius wrote:

„After bombing 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) you have been bombing it with immigrants because (you know) that it will weaken it sooner or later. Why should we again defence the USA by sacrificing all European people?

Arminius wrote:

»James S. Saint wrote:

›Arminius wrote:

'Wernher von Braun was a Nazi - have you forgotten that? -, and after the World War II he was blackmailed: ,either you help the USA or you will be put in prison‘! His crew were also blackmailed. They all preferred to help the USA because they did not want to be jailed.

Other German scientists, technicians, engineers etc. were treated similarly - not only in the USA, but also e.g. in the USSR.' ** **

Do you have any references for that? (not that I seriously doubt it)?‹ **

Yes, I have. And there are also documentary films and the fact that all these Germans came to the US in May 1945 and lived there in a city which was founded just for that reason. Google for example this: Operation Paperclip or Operation Overcast.

104 German rocket scientists (aerospace engineers): Wernher von Braun and his team at Fort Bliss in Texas, USA, 1945.

Operation Paperclip was the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) program in which more than 1,500 German scientists, technicians, and engineers were brought from Germany to the United States for employment after the World War II. It was conducted by the Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency (JIOA). In other words: It was a criminal act, one criminal act of the other crimninal acts of the greatest raid of all time.

B.t.w.: Nearly similar the number of the German scientists, technicians, and engineers who were brought in the Soviet Union (USSR) after the World War II.« ** **

The reasons why there is still no peace treaty to end the Second World War have also to do with those historical facts I described above. And why and for whom is it advantageous (cui bono?) that enemies of the Second World War which has not ended (because there is no peace treaty) became suddenly and remain partners, although one of this partners (Germany) always has to pay reparations, redemptions, reinstatement etc.? And since about thh 1960's this partner has been sacrificing its people again, this time by abortion and enslaving to make a way for immigrants from countries which are bombed by the USA and Israel.

I like the US people of all time - but not the US politics since 1913!“ ** **

If we are not careful, we will soon experience a Third World War or something like a civil war which is even beastlier than a world war.

The harbringers, the heralds are already everywhere, the agitators are on their „stage“. „Will there be war in Europe before 2050?“ (**|**) - that is my question of this thread, and sometimes I think I should have asked: „Will there be war in Europe before 2030?“

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.

Jakob wrote:

„A more European politics.“ **

Ah, you mean this:

Okay, if yoou want ....

Jakob wrote:

„Because then France would have turned against Prussia, you naive old cow.“ **

Stop insulting me! And you are - as usual - wrong. The war against France was already discounted at that time: the German War was in 1866 and the French-Prussian (a.k.a French-German) War was in 1870-1871. The French were too weak and too stupid, oh sorry: too naive old cows.

Jakob wrote:

„I have not heard of Herder.“ **

Are you sure that you are an ILP member? Have you ever herad of philosophy?

Jakob wrote:

„I see, you are a Schopenhauer-Kantian.“ **

Nonsense. I am not a Kantian and not a Schopenhauerian.

Other famous Prussian German philosophers are Christian Wolff, Johann Gottlieb Fichte (more Brandenburgian than Prussian), Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (more Prussian-Saxon than mere Prussian), Oswald A. G. Spengler (also more Prussian-Saxon than mere Prussian). Do you know them? Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel was a Swabian, not a Prussian, but he became a „Swabian in Prussian commission“.

Jakob wrote:

„A rather fanatical one.“ **

Agitation! - I am merely interested in science and philosophy and especially in the history of science and philosophy. That's all.

Jakob wrote:

„I think Kant is strictly redundant and misguided at that.“ **

You have no idea. That's typical for agitators.

Jakob wrote:

„Schopenhauer is not a Buddhist, he is a pseudo-Buddhist, he does not aspire to the same physical standards as are implicit in Buddhism.“ **

Therefore I said he was a „Euro-Buddhist“ - but you did not notice that.

Jakob wrote:

„Yes, all criticism of the German state must be silenced, etc, etc. You are running ahead of matters. I don't think the Germans are quite as fanatical as you are, I think they have a systemic compulsion. What Bismarck did right was build the properly working real rifles. He is the father of the war industry. You may call this good work, it was effective. To what end? He changed politics to a weaponizing competition. This is what forged the German unity. Is it bad? Not an sich but it is myopic. It simply is. And as Europe's industrial leader it can not afford this attitude, the rest of the continent is crumbling under its centralized severity based focus and a lack of powerful measures against reckless profiteering and such people and organizations as those that perpetrated the frauds that plunged an already corrosive Greek economy into bankruptcy.“ **

Agitation!

Jakob wrote:

„Here's what I mean free speech. So you see what you're dealing with. You have even fallen for the simplistic story told to you by the US bankers and the EU government, old rusty can of worm muck.“ **

I do not know what you mean by that.

Jakob wrote:

„Study the history of Marxism and Communism.“ **

It was before you were born, when I studied that. It was the time when almost everybody and anybody of the students studied it.

Jakob wrote:

„Why do you think Hitler called his party the National Socialist party?“ **

It was called „National Socialistic“ because of the emphasis that there was a national instead of an international socialistic party - it was directed against the Soviet „revolution“. Fascism is the reaction to the Soviet „revolution“ and the propaganda of internationality. So „national“ in „National Socialist“ means „against internationalism“, „anti-internationalism“. „Socialist“ in „National Socialist party“ is also referring to the Soviet „revolution“ and the internationalism. „We don't need a Marxistic, communistic, internationalistic socialisms, because we have our own socialism, a national one“- that is meant.

Hitler was a Mussolini fan, Hitler was an Austrian, not a Prussian (there were not many Prussians but many Bavarian (Austrians are also Bavarians) fascists. Again: Fascism was a strong response to the Soviet „revolution“, to communism (Marxism, Leninism) or any other egalitarianism. Most of the fascists were former communists, thus: they knew exactly what they were fighting against.

Did you finally get this, young man?

Jakob wrote:

„Spoken like a true religious fanatic.“ **

Are you paranoid?

Jakob wrote:

„»If you don't want Prussian leadership, you hate Prussians.«“ **

No, you are confusing something: George Bush said: „Those who are not with us are against us“.

Jakob wrote:

„Congratulations.“ **

Thank you.

Jakob wrote:

„Not »for freedom« but »against Islamophobia«“ **

We should demonstrate for freedom - every day, or for example every Monday. In Germany there are many of such demonstrations for freedom (just: every Monday in the cities, and their are many cities in Germany), but the media does not report, does not say anything about that. But the media does hysterically report the reverse, thus the media lies: „They are all Nazis“, although everyone knows that there are no Nazis at all. The government, the secret sevrice and - of course - the media produce „Nazis“ in order to control the people. Some ILP members do the same.

Uccisore wrote:

„In America, the anti-culture assassins use Immigration and Ellis Island to defend themselves, Germans use the holocaust, I dunno what the French use. I hope the world wakes the fuck up.“ **

The French use their evil colonisation.

Read the next post.

Mags J. wrote:

„The UK has only felt like a part of mainland Europe in the last few decades .... I think most Brits would agree with that, as it has been said on many a debate show and in social discussions... being surrounded by water does that you know ....“ **

Yes, I know. In Germany, the people of the UK are sometimes called „Insel-Affen“ („Island-Apes“). But seriously: being surrounded by water can be very dangerous but also advantageous. It's a risk to live on an island, but if the living beings that do it are on the lucky side, then they benefit.

Jakob wrote:

„Well you are beginning to see that I was right all along.“ **

No. You are not right all along. You are always searching for scapegoats. That is wrong - and not only wrong, because that is dangerous too.

Jakob wrote:

„Retrace your steps, reread my posts and you will find that I only attack the German government and its economic policies.“ **

But the main problem of the EU is not the German government; the main problem of the EU is the EU itself. The EU is a dictatorship. Nobody is allowed to select the rulers of the EU. They and the global bankers give the instructions and orders. Merkel did not say that (for example) the Greek must have the Euro. She tries to bind all countries of the Euro system and to extend the EU. Not only to you but also to me, this is the wrong politics, but who would do it in a different (perhaps: better) way than she does? She is not mainly responsible for the guidelines and principles. The EU and the bankers are mainly responsible for that. And if you now say that she is lying in bed with them, then I can tell you that the other national politicians of Europe are also lying in bed with them and do nothing else. The EU problem is not mainly a national problem, because the EU is not a nation but an empire.

Jakob wrote:

„Actually I mean the process opposite and have made this clear. The EU is part of the problem as I have always said.“ **

No, the EU is not „part of the problem“, the EU is the problem!

Jakob wrote:

„Maybe you can stip behaving like Hitler and calling everyone that displeases you »agitators«.“ **

YOU are behaving like Hitler - always searching for scapegoats („Prussian ethics, Bismarck, Merkel“). That's crazy.

Jakob wrote:

„You apparently have no idea about the German unification and how Bismarck pulled that off, and how tricky it got after he had defeated Austria.“ **

YOU have no idea about that. And b.t.w.: You also have no idea about the history of the EU, how and why it was formed after „they“ had defeated ....

Jakob wrote:

„That's fine, you seem sentimental and simplistic.“ **

Are you paranoid or megalomanian? Don't take too much drugs, young man!

Seriously: You can not give any constructive contribution to the theme of this thread.

Please search for another thread.

Jakob wrote:

„No, you are a racist asshole who can't be bothered to read and yet has the nerve to claim intellectual consistency.“ **

Stop insulting me! Uccisore! Do I have to put up with that? Warn him!

You can not give any constructive contribution to the theme of this thread.

Please search for another thread.

Jakob wrote:

„Bravo. It's clear enough you have not studied history, neither Prussian nor modern European, at least not while employing some form of rational thought. It appears that you've been spoon-fed some fables that you wish to protect for emotional reasons. The similarities between you and a certain religious group become quite striking.“ **

Nonsense.

I studied history, before you were born, young man. And a main part of that study was the time of Bismarck and Wilhelm II.. B.t.w.: I studied in Austria!

You don't know nothing about Marxism and the time around that.

Jakob wrote:

„Do you know the history of Hitler in Austria? Do you know why he went to Bavaria?“ **

Yes. I know it. But you don't know it. That's clear.

Jakob wrote:

„I don't like religious fanatics is all.“ **

Ah, so you don't like your „value ontology“. .... I see ....

Jakob wrote:

„Yes, I am comparing you to GW Bush, you got that right.“ **

How childish.

___________

I please you to look for another thread.

What you are saying is no constructive contribution but only agitating, in ILP words: derailing and trolling!

Don't take too much drugs, young man.

Jakob wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»But the main problem of the EU is not the German government; the main problem of the EU is the EU itself. The EU is a dictatorship. Nobody is allowed to select the rulers of the EU. They and the global bankers give the instructions and orders to the members. Merkel did not say that (for example) the Greek must have the Euro. She tries to bind all countries of the Euro system and to extend the EU. Not only to you but also to me, this is the wrong politics, but who would do it in a different (perhaps: better) way than she does? She is not mainly responsible for the guidelines and principles. The EU and the bankers are mainly responsible for that. And if you now say that she is "lying in bed" with them, then I can tell you that the other national politicians of Europe are also "lying in bed" with them and do nothing else. The EU problem is not mainly a national problem, because the EU is not a nation but an empire.« ** **

Yes, I agree with all of that. She is a manager of the status quo in the EU and I say she has to stop being that. She also has to stop allowing German newspapers to print false allegations against Russia concerning the plane crash in Ukraine. I respect her as a manager but I do not like that the head of Germany, which is the heart of Europe, is a manager who actively oversees how the nation generates products and capital but is passive versus how the EU decides to 'frame' this capital, abroad her focus is on austerity, which is what the EU wants. I do not know if it is possible for Germany to free itself from the control of the central bank of the EU, but they must be on the side of the nations that resist, like Italy an Greece. Yes Greece make a mistake in joining, but they did not deserve this. It was not the people whose duty it was to inform themselves about the financial consequences, but the government, which was fooled by Goldman Sachs, who have no problem admitting this. Our prime minister, Mark Rutte, is an absolute puppet, neuro-linguistically programmed and all.“ **

I agrree.

Jakob wrote:

„Basically I want Germany to finally rise to its role as leader, which means accounting for all economies, and making hard decision about financial ties. And for this leadership Germany has requirement of the experience of France, which has for very long been a very successful state and once harbored the majority of Europe's population. Germany is brand new, exists only since 1871 ....“ **

Germany exists as long as France - since the treaty of Verdun (843), Mersen (870), and Ribemont (880). You mean the national unity. Okay. The national unity of Germany and of Italy happened at the same time. But again: The EU problem is not a national problem but a problem of the EU itself, an empire problem! Do you know that?

Jakob wrote:

„And has been in several major wars since, has been split up again and is whole now, but it is still a child-state, still driven by that Prussian will and is admirable but has now become feminine and passive and needs to be replaced with a more culturally active attitude, so that the rest of Europe isn't turned into a machine.“ **

I disagree.

Jakob wrote:

„Germany ... should relax a bit now ....“ **

Okay, if it is possible. There is no alternative - except the end of the Euro system and probably even the end of the EU.

Jakob wrote:

„I am glad if the French are going to be the ones doing the work for a while.“ **

They are not going to do it, because they are not able to do it. It would be the wrong way. Believe me.

614) Arminius, 18.01.2015, 00:12, 00:38, 02:28, 02:44, 02:49, 04:17, 04:36, 05:52, 06:13, 23:55, 23:58 (2406-2416)

Germany is stronger than Italy or France, even stronger than Italy and France togehter. See, the problem is that the economical and political power is not equally distributed. So the most powerful one has to manage it. Okay, „Germany should relax a bit now“, you wrote in another thread, but there is definitely no alternative - except the end of the Euro system and probably even the end of the EU. Okay, as far as I'm concerned.

Jakob wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Jakob wrote:

›Germany ... should relax a bit now. **

Okay, if it is possible. There is no alternative - except the end of the Euro system and probably even the end of the EU.« ** **

If these are the two alternatives, we agree.“ **

Yes, that are the two alternatives.

Uccisore wrote:

„My take on the Western world is that the internet, mass communication, and multi-culturalism has turned it into an non-cultural mass of selfish individuals blown from one fad to the next.“ **

Yes. 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.

Okay, I don't want to take your illusions about Italy and France away. But they are not able to do what you want them to do. And what will happen after the end of the Euro or even the EU? I guess: War! Maybe there will be war anyway. But I don't like wars, especially civil wars. Maybe I will not experience it, but my children and all the other occidental humans who are now young will probably experience it, and I don't want them to experience it.

Maybe one of the more peaceful solutions which can lead to the end of the Euro system or even to the end of the EU could be that either Germany or France would leave the Euro system or even the EU. France will not do it because its insolvency will soon lead to war, probably civil war. Germany will not do it because the German government as the enemy of the most German people will punish - for example: jail - all those Germans, and then something like a civil war will happen as well as it will in the case of France. Maybe the best solution for the end of the Euro system or even the end of the EU would be, if we started there where it currenly suffers: at the Euro system. Greece should leave the Euro System, but that would not be enough; some other countries should follow, for example also Italy, and that would probably lead to a rethink in the„heads“ of the EU rulers. So, step by step, this could lead to the complete end of the Euro system, and maybe to even more. At least, this would be a more peaceful way than most of the other ways. But I guess that the EU dictators will "help" those „deserters“, thus - in reality - they will kill them.

Kriswest wrote:

„You could just go live with the tribes in the Amazon, that is, if you are seriously against western civilization.“ **

Yes. That is really the only serious way.

Try to escape from your city.

Try to arrive somewhere in the jungle.

And try to help this young lady:

Probably this young lady has also escaped from a city.

Erik wrote:

„Sometimes I wish damn Mephisto would just come out ....“ **

Yeah.

Uccisore wrote:

„Anybody who relates to what you'd classically consider Americana - guns, outdoor living, Protestantism, and etc., is portrayed in all media all the time as a sort of wicked cartoon, with the good people portrayed only as the urban sorts that believe in nothing.“ **

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.

WORD.

I guess, I may also ask for another person.

I know a person who eats often pizza with cheese, tomatoes, tuna fish, and onions.

Who is he?

Kriswest wrote:

„There is just so much in those links that just reeks, I have no idea where to start. The links make me feel insulted and I am not even a feminist.“ **

You don't have to start - you can do what you want.

„Insulted“? Are you joking?

You are not a feminist? Then you are probably not stupid.

Perhaps you start here: **

I love cats too, especaillay the young cats.

Regarding to my children, I can say that I did the parenting, child education. I think it is one of the best jobs on Earth. I would like to repeat this wonderful time of my life.

Let's have an interim result for the question: „Will we get a syncretistic religion?“

We have 67% for „yes“, 22% for „no“, and 11% for „I don't know“.

Please vote!

615) Hubert Brune, 19.01.2015 (2417-2418)

Danke für Ihre Gästebuch-Einträge.

Zu Ihrer Frage:

„Was genau meinten Sie, Herr Brune, als Sie schrieben: »Wenn morgen eine Naturkatastrophe globalen Ausmaßes geschehen und in deren Folge fast alle biologischen Arten aussterben würden, dann würden unter der Voraussetzung, daß unsere Sonne weiterhin unserer Erde Energie liefern wird und die Naturkatastrophen weder häufiger noch stärker als vorher sein werden, irgendwann wieder nicht selbige, sehr wahrscheinlich auch nicht gleiche, aber immerhin doch sehr ähnliche Arten auf der Erde erscheinen«?“ (I. Stratmann, 19.01.2015, 11:29 **).

	Vermehrung Körpergröße   Lebensdauer des Individuums Lebensdauer der Art „Extrem A“ groß klein   kurz lang   „Mitte“             „Extrem B“ klein groß   lang kurz
			BLAU = R-Strategie - ROT = K-Strategie
	Welche der Formen Vor- oder Nachteile hat, entscheidet die Art der örtlichen Lebensbedingungen, ob z.B. stark flukturierend oder länger andauernd gleichbleibend.		Bei der Produktion von Nachkommen sind R-Strategen Maximalisten, K-Strategen Minimalisten; bei der Aufzucht von Nachkommen sind K-Strategen Maximalisten, R-Strategen Minimalisten.

Ich schrieb den Satz (**), um einer anderen Person, die sich am 16.06.2013 um 21:50 Uhr in dieses Gästebuch eingetragen hatte (**), eines meiner natur- und kulturphilosophischen Axiome deutlich zu machen. Es gibt bestimmte Phänomene, Prinzipien und Strategien, die einfach immer wieder auftauchen, so z.B. in der Evolution des Lebens bestimmte körperliche Organe, Größe, Umweltanpassung und -distanzierung, gegenseitige „Aufrüstung“ (Verhalten von Jägern und Gejagten), R-Strategie und K-Strategie (**|**) und andere Strategien des Überlebens. Sie führen fast immer wieder zu ähnlichen oder sogar gleichen, aber eben nicht zu selbigen Erscheinungsbildern. In der Entwicklung gibt es also Wiederholungen (z.B. dem Typus nach) und Konstanten aufgrund von Analogien, nicht aber aufgrund von völligen Identitäten. Dies ist etwas, was man aus meinen natur- und kulturphilosophischen Axiomen unmittelbar ableiten kann. Wenn sich ein wie auch immer geartetes Phänomen spiralzyklisch entwickelt, dann hat es zwar prinzipiell keine Möglichkeit zu einer anderen Identität als der eigenen; aber es hat die Möglichkeit, ja ist sogar der Notwendigkeit unterworfen, sich entweder gemäß der Analogie oder wie ein echtes Novum zu entwickeln. Gemäß der spiralzyklischen Theorie gibt es nur wenig, was nicht auf analoge Weise schon einmal existiert hätte, und ist nur wenig wirklich neu, weil sich nur wenig wirklich außerhalb von Identitäten und Analogien befindet.

Freundliche Grüße.

„Warum gibt es Individuation ? Und bleibt nicht eher eine ungeteilte Einheit des Wirklichen? Ist Indivduation im Wirkklichen von vornherein anwesend? Oder, falls nicht, woraus und wodurch ist Individuation entstanden?“ (I. Stratmann, 19.01.2015, 11:58 **).

Zunächst einmal müssen wir uns vergewissern, was unter „Individuation“ genau zu verstehen ist. Individuation ist die Unteilbarmachung, die Sonderung eines Allgemeinen in Individuen, Besonderheiten, die Besonderung des Allgemeinen in Einzelwesen, z.B. der Weltsubstanz in Einzelwesen, aus denen die Welt besteht. Das Individuationsprinzip (principium individuationis) ist das die Individualität Bedingende, Ermöglichende und die Vielheit und Verschiedenheit der Individuen Erklärende; es gilt also als Existenzgrund von Einzelwesen und Besonderheiten und spielte im „mittelalterlichen“ Universalienstreit eine große Rolle. Die beiden Hauptprobleme der Indivduation haben Sie bereits angesprochen.

Aristoteles fand das Prinzip der Individuation in der verschiedenartigen Bestimmtheit und Gestaltung des Stoffes, ebenso Albert von Bollstädt (auch genannt der Große oder der Deutsche) und dessen Schüler Thomas von Aquin. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz nahm eine von vornherein aus Individuen, genauer gesagt aus Monaden bestehende Welt an und verfocht bereits als 17-Jähriger die nominalistische These: „Was ist, ist durch sein Dasein selbst Individuum“. Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling sah den Grund der Individuation im sündigen Abfall von Gott. Arthur Schopenhauer nahm an, das Prinzip der Individuation sei in Raum und Zeit gegeben.

616) Herr Schütze, 20.01.2015, 14:41, 18:36, 19:36 (2419-2421)

@ Stefan Obermaier.

Deine angeblichen „Arabischen Zahlen“ sind in Wahrheit Indische Zahlen. Schon mal davon etwas gehört? Die Araber haben sie von den Indern übernommen. Außerdem waren die Araber den Abendländern damals nicht „um Lichtjahre voraus“, wie Du oder Deine „Tante Google“ propagieren, sondern hatten all die Gebiete mit mörderischer Gewalt erobert, deren Völker ihnen unterlegen waren. Wären die Abendländer ihnen auch unterlegen gewesen, wären sie damals mit brutaler Gewalt islamisiert worden. Das ist aber nicht geschehen, wie wir alle wissen. Die Araber haben es ja versucht, aber sie sind gescheitert, weil die Abendländer ihnen nicht unterlegen waren.

Glaubt nicht den Propagandisten!

„Während meiner Jahre in Afrika hatte ich sehr häufig Malaria und dann oft auch Probleme mit den Nebenwirkungen von Medikamenten. - Dessen ungeachtet würde ich gerne, wenn ich mehr Geld hätte - darf ich aber nicht haben, wegen der Schulden - wieder einmal verreisen. Aber durch den wirtschaftlichen Ruin infolge des Familienstreits bin ich wohl verurteilt, den Rest meines Lebens in bescheidenen Verhältnissen hier in Deutschland zu verbringen. Wenigstens bin ich noch bei guter Gesundheit. Was mir bleibt, ist eigentlich nur noch die einsame geistige Betätigung, also Lesen und Schreiben.

Grüße, auch an Ihren Sohn!
Ihr Thomas Lentze“ (T. R. E. Lentze **).

Guten Abend, Herr Lentze.

Wohin würden Sie denn gerne verreisen wollen? Wieder nach Afrika?

Familenstreit führt fast immer zur Scheidung, die der Richter ausspricht und fast immer Ausbeutung des Mannes bedeutet.

Das wird solange weitergehen, bis nichts mehr beim Mann zu holen ist. Ist dieses Ziel erreicht, wie in Ihrem Fall, hören die Streitigkeiten auf.

Das Lesen und das Schreiben gehören immerhin zu den Beschäftigungen, die am meisten geistigen Gewinn versprechen.

Danke für die Grüße! Grüße an Sie und Ihren Sohn!

Herr Schütze

Der Aufstieg Chinas bedeutet in erster Linie den Abstieg der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika (VSA) .

Der Drache ist erwacht, ja, aber der Autor des Buches noch nicht.

617) Obama sin Laden, 21.01.2015, 19:20, 20:44, 21:33, 22:10:46, 22:24:13, 22:43 (2422-2427)

Die Macht ging nie und geht auch jetzt „nicht vom Volke aus“. Aber es tut vielen Herrschern und Möchtegernherrschern (die sind auch in diesem Blog vertreten) gut, wenn sie den Eindruck erwecken können, es sei Demokratie am Werk, weil sie so dem Volk alles in die Schuhe schieben können. Wo das Volk nur als Sündenbock herhalten muß, ist Demokratie also lediglich Mittel zum Zweck.

Es gab und gibt weder in Europa noch in Nordamerika eine echte Demokratie. Wie nennt man eine Diktatur, die sowohl über das globale Bankensystem als auch über den Gleichheitswahn funktioniert und das Volk durch das Prinzip des Teilens und Herrschens, was natürlich auch das Lügen und das Erpressen miteinschließt, kontrolliert? Mafia?

Putins Reich ist - logischerweise - auch keine Demokratie. Und ob Putin die russische Mafia, die in den 1990er Jahren ihren Terror überall verbreiten durfte, im Griff hat, ist fragwürdig.

Was also tun?

Gut, aber jetzt sagt Ihr wenigstens einmal, warum Ihr für Putin seid, und nicht immer, warum andere gegen Putin sind.

Es ist nicht ganz leicht einzuschätzen, ob hier mehr prorussisch als aniti-us-amerikanisch oder mehr anti-us-amerikanisch als prorussisch argumentiert wird.

Es gibt keine Presse, die nicht lügt. Die Presse lügt immer, und das liegt auch an ihrer Abhängigkeit von den Herrschenden. Natürlich gibt es innerhalb der Presse auch solche, die selbst zu den Herrschenden zählen; aber die Presse als solche ist nicht so unabhängig wie die Herrschenden. Diejenigen, die bei der Presse - genauer gesagt: bei den Medien - mehr auf der mittleren und unteren Ebene arbeiten, lassen sich bereitwillig „von oben“ belügen, falls sie sich nicht vorher selbst schon belogen haben, denn danach können sie die Lüge um so besser „nach unten“ verbreiten, um nicht zu sagen: breittreten. Eine Lüge wirkt am besten, wenn man sich vorher selbst belogen hat oder eben von anderen wirkungsvoll belogen worden ist.

Im Leben spielt die Lüge eine sehr große Rolle. Das kann man sogar schon an den primitivsten Lebewesen erkennen.

Wenn wir heute eine Annäherung an Rußland anstreben, dann sollten wir das nicht machen, ohne uns ähnliche Rückversicherungen geben zu lassen, wie es Bismarck getan hat, nur diesmal halt nicht östlich, sondern westlich von Deutschland. Wir dürfen die US-Amerikaner dabei nicht brüskieren, aber wenn wir es richtig machen, könnten wir durchaus auch viele Vorteile daraus ziehen - wir müssen es eben nur intelligent genug tun.

Bekanntlich ist aber das Wechseln der Fronten sehr gefährlich. Man sollte also nichts überstürzen.

618) Obama sin Laden, 22.01.2015, 08:36:58, 08:48:47, 09:05:53, 10:26:47, 11:22:37, 11:36:13, 11:52:38, 12:19:48, 12:32:18, 12:32:18, 12:32:18, 12:32:18, 12:32:18 (2428-2440)

Wenn unsere (unsere?) Politiker tatsächlich (!) nicht intelligent genug für eine Rückversicherungspolitik sind, dann sollen sie die Annäherung an Rußland gefälligst unterlassen. Oder sind sie - Ihrer Meinung nach - auch dafür nicht intelligent genug? - Bemerken Sie den „Teufelskreis“?

Politiker können ausgetauscht werden, und sie werden auch regelmäßig ausgetauscht. Die besseren oder gegebenenfalls intelligenteren Politiker warten immer schon in den „Startlöchern“. Die zeitlichen Abstände, die dieser Regelmäßigkeit entsprechen, können, gemessen an der Lebensspanne eines einzelnen Menschen, lang sein; aus historischer Perspektive sind es aber nicht. - Man muß abwarten können!

Lüge ist Lüge! Entscheidend ist die Definition bzw. die Bedeutung des Wortes „Lüge“, und die besagt, daß mit Absicht (ich wiederhole: mit Absicht!) die Unwahrheit gesagt wird. Einfach mal im Wörterbuch nachschauen.

Für nichtmenschliche Lebewesen gilt Analoges: zwar verfügen sie über keine menschliche Sprache, weshalb wir die nichtmeschliche „Lüge“ eher als eine „Täuschung“ deuten sollten; dennoch gibt es dabei keine prinzipiellen Unterschiede, denn auch bei der Täuschung liegt ja eine Absicht vor.

Muslime haben Minderwertigkeitsgefühle gegenüber dem Abendland, und das schon seit Jahrhunderten. Diese Minderwertigkeitsgefühle werden sie denen wohl nicht so schnell „wegtherapieren“ können.

Wenn sich Minderwertigkeitskomplexe nur noch als Haß mitteilen können, dann ist Hetzpropaganda und Gewalt eine der unmittelbaren Folgen.

Was der Islam war und ist und was er wollte und will, kann man nachlesen bei: Http://www.faz.net/frankfurter-allgemeine-zeitung/essay-der-islam-will-die-welteroberung-1354009.html?printPagedArticle=true **

Haben die Karikaturen in „Charlie Hebdo“ wirklich niemanden provoziert? Wer entscheidet darüber, wann wer warum und wie provozieren oder provoziert werden darf? Wer bestimmt über diese beiden Seiten? In diesem französischen Beispiel verhält es sich mit diesen beiden Seiten entprechend so: „die eine meint, solche Provokationen müsse der Mensch im allgemeinen und der Muslim im besonderen eben aushalten, die Gegenseite findet es unhöflich und taktlos, seinen Mitmenschen so etwas zuzumuten“; aber dadurch ist in jedem der beiden Fälle das Ethische, Moralische, Rechtliche nicht wirklich geklärt. Daß sich bestimmte Völker oder Volksgruppen oder Sippen mehr provoziert fühlen und dem entprechend mehr Forderungen stellen dürfen als andere, ist bekannt. Mit dem derzeitigen „Völkerrecht“ und den derzeitigen „Menschenrechten“ ist diese Ungerechtigkeit nicht in den Griff zu bekommen - im Gegenteil: dadurch wird sie noch größer. Solche „Rechte“ sind für die Oberschicht gemacht, während die Mittelschicht und die Unterschicht mit diesen immer größerr werdenden Ungerechtigkeiten allein gelassen werden. Für die Menschen der Oberschicht existieren andere Menschen nur im Hinblick auf ihre Interessen. Wenn also bestimmte Menschen aufgrund ihrer modernen, zivilisierten und säkularisierten, Religion (Ideologie) glauben, Satire zu ertragen sei die Pflicht eines jeden Menschen, dann ist das aus Sicht der Menschen nichtmoderner, nichtziviilisierter und nichtsäkularisierter, Religion eine Provokation, ja eine Anmaßung oder Hybris, die sie nicht zu akzeptieren oder auch nur respektieren bereit sind. Aber müssen umgekehrt die Modern-Religiösen als die modern sich „Trainierenden“ bzw. „Übenden“, wie Peter Sloterdijk sie nennt (**|**), die Interpretation der Nchtmodern-Religiösen als die nichtmodern sich „Trainierenden“ bzw. „Übenden“ akzeptieren oder auch nur respektieren? Kann man und, wenn ja, wie kann man diesem Teufelskreis entrinnen? Dazu kommt, daß nicht die Modern-Religiösen, sondern die Nichtmodern-Religiösen die meisten Nachkommen haben. Sind also diejenigen, die unterstellen oder gar fordern, daß jeder Mensch sich provozieren lassen müsse, Herrenmenschen? Oder gibt es - trotz der desolaten Demographie im heutigen Abendland - auch ein Recht auf Satire? Und wenn ja: nur für abendländisch Modernisierte oder auch für alle anderen, obwohl die dieses Recht gar nicht wollen? Wer will das alles entscheiden? Menschen? Die können es nicht, weil sie die Ungerechtigkeit nicht ausklammern können. Gott? Der könnte es eher, doch leider wurde der von den abendländisch Modernisierten „getötet“ (Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche **).

Steuern wir auf eine neues „Mittelalter“ zu? Oder müssen wir „einfach nur“ das Übungssystem der abendländischen Moderne oder sogar ganz neue Übungssysteme für die Zukunft so sichern, daß ein neues „Mittelalter“ verhindert werden kann?

Peter Sloterdijk meint:

„Ich werde zeigen, daß eine Rückwendung zur Religion ebensowenig möglich ist wie eine Rückkehr der Religion - aus dem einfachen Grund, weil es keine »Religion« und keine »Religionen« gibt, sondern nur mißverstandene spirituelle Übungssysteme ....

Damit wird die leidige Unterscheidung zwischen »wahrer Religion« und Aberglauben gegenstandslos. Es gibt nur mehr oder weniger ausbreitungsfähige, mehr oder weniger ausbreitungswürdige Übungssysteme. Auch der falsche Gegensatz zwischen den Gläubigen und Ungläubigen entfällt und wird durch die Unterscheidung zwischen Praktizierenden und Ungeübten bzw. Andersübenden ersetzt.

Tatsächlich kehrt heute etwas wieder - doch die geläufige Auskunft, es sei die Religion, die sich zurückmelde, kann kritische Nachfragen nicht befriedigen. Es handelt sich auch nicht um die Rückkehr einer Größe, die verschwunden gewesen wäre, sondern um einen Akzentwechsel in einem nie zertrennten Kontinuum. Das wirklich Wiederkehrende, das alle intellektuelle Aufmerksamkeit verdiente, hat eher eine anthropologische als eine »religiöse« Spitze - es ist, um es mit einem Wort zu sagen, die Einsicht in die immunitäre Verfassung des Menschenwesens. Nach mehrhundertjährigen Experimenten hat sich die Einsicht abgeklärt, daß Menschen, gleichgültig unter welchen ethnischen, ökonomischen und politischen Bedingungen sie leben, nicht nur in »materiellen Verhältnissen«, vielmehr auch in symbolischen Immunsystemen und rituellen Hüllen existieren. Von deren Gewebe soll im folgenden die Rede sein. Warum ihre Webstühle hier mit dem kühlen Ausdruck »Anthropotechniken« bezeichnet werden, mag sich im Gang der Darstellung selbst erläutern.

Für einen Augenblick war das ethische Programm der Gegenwart scharf ins Blickfeld gekommen, als Marx und die Junghegelianer die These artikulierten, der Mensch selbst erzeuge den Menschen. Was dieser Satz besagte, wurde im Nu von einem anderen Geschwätz verstellt, das von der Arbeit als der eigentlich wesentlichen Handlung des Menschen sprach. Wenn aber der Mensch tatsächlich den Menschen hervorbringt, so gerade nicht durch die Arbeit und deren gegenständliche Resultate, auch nicht durch die neuerdings viel gelobte »Arbeit an sich selbst«, erst recht nicht die alternativ beschworene »Interaktion« oder »Kommunikation«: Er tut es durch sein Leben in Übungen.

Als Übung definiere ich jede Operation, durch welche die Qualifikation des Handelnden zur nächsten Ausführung der globalen Operation erhalten oder verbessert wird, sei sie als Übung deklariert oder nicht.

Wer von der Selbsterzeugung des Menschen spricht, ohne von seiner Formung im übenden Leben zu reden, hat das Thema von vornherein verfehlt. Wir müssen praktisch alles, was über den Menschen als Arbeitswesen gesagt wurde, suspendieren, um es in die Sprache des Übens bzw. des selbstformenden und selbststeigernden Verhaltens zu übersetzen. Nicht nur der ermattete homo faber, der die Welt im Modus »Machen« vergegenständlicht, hat seinen Platz im Zentrum der logischen Bühne zu räumen, auch der homo religiosus, der sich mit surrealen Riten an die Überwelt wendet, darf den verdienten Abschied nehmen. Gemeinsam treten Arbeitende und Gläubige unter einen neuen Oberbegriff. Es ist an der Zeit, den Menschen als das Lebewesen zu enthüllen, das aus der Wiederholung entsteht. Wie das 19. Jahrhundert kognitiv im Zeichen der Produktion stand, das 20. im Zeichen der Reflexivität, sollte die Zukunft sich unter dem Zeichen des Exerzitiums präsentieren.“ (Peter Sloterdijk, Du mußt dein Leben ändern, 2009, S. 12-14 **).

Was die Gegenseite meint, wissen wir.

Das (**) glaube ich nicht. So dumm kann auch ein Journalist nicht sein!

Ja, letztendlich sind es die Muselmanen selbst, die ihre Probleme untereinander lösen müssen. Aber bis dahin können schon einige Nichtmuslime geopfert werden. Ist ihnen das egal?

Es besteht kein Widerspruch zwischen dem, was Sie über den "in einer existentiellen Krise" befindlichen Islam gesagt haben, und dem, was ich über die Minderwertigkeitsgefühle der Muslime gesagt habe. Die von Ihnen angesprochene Krise hat ganz unmittelbar mit den Minderwertigkeitsgefühlen zu tun. Oder etwas abgeschwächter gesagt: Ohne die Minderwertigkeitsgefühle wäre die existentielle Krise nicht so stark, wie sie tatsächlich ist.

„Die vatikanischen Archive stehen seit dem Jahre 1881 der Forschung offen; zahlreiche Länder - darunter die Bundesrepublik - unterhalten eigene historische Institute in Rom, die sich vor allem der Erforschung der Quellen in den vatikanischen Archiven widmen. Es gibt kaum ein weiteres großes Archiv in der Welt, das so gut erforscht ist, wie das vatikanische. Das ficht aber die Verfasser dieser Petition nicht an. Mir wäre es ja peinlich, mich derart zu blamieren.“ **

Blamieren? Na, gut, dann gebe ich Ihnen eine kurze Nachhilfe in Geographie und Staatsrecht:

Das Land, das Sie meinen, heißt Deutschland und nicht „Bundesrepublik“. „Bundesrepublik“ ist lediglich ein Teil der Bezeichnung der Staats; und auch der nennt sich nicht einfach „Bundesrepublik“, sondern „Bundesrepublik Deutschland“.

Was ist dann erst mit den englischen und französischen Regierungschefs, die jeden (England) oder fast (Frankreich) jeden Krieg mitmachen?

Warum wird denn immer nur auf Merkel herumgehackt?

619) Arminius, 23.01.2015, 10:34, 11:03, 13:54, 14:49, 15:18, 15:23, 15:33, 16:25, 17:03, 17:27, 18:43, 21:50, 23:57 (2437-2449)

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?

Ravencry wrote:

„What partnership?“ **

Do you really not know that?

Ravencry wrote:

„You can see remnants of the »good old days« of women in more traditional cultures, like Muslims and Hindu.“ **

Their cultures are different, partly very much different, from the Occidental (Faustian) culture!

You have no idea of Occidental culture.

Ravencry wrote:

„It was exactly the same in Christian society.“ **

No, it was not, at least it has not been being for a very long time.

You have no idea of Occidental culture.

Ravencry wrote:

„It is still the same in many small towns across the »western world«.“ **

What? Where do you live?

Ravencry wrote:

„The old testament made women part of a man's body, but in the newer one it says we are all created equal.“ **

That is one of the main differences. The Old Testament is Jewish, the New Testamen is Christian. That's the point. Their cultures are different (see above).

Ravencry wrote:

„It wasn't just a right to vote, that women got from the feminist movement. The right to own property, to work and get paid for it, the right to independent thought.“ **

This „rights“ can also be interpreted as duties. Nicholas Rockefeller said it, and in that case: he is right.

Ravencry wrote:

„Because there was a time when women had none of that.“ **

The truth is that they were and are not able to do 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% (**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**).

Duncan wrote:

„Personally, I think that it's very unlikely that humans will be entirely replaced by machines. In order for machines to do that, they'd probably have to be conscious, self-willed, purposeful entities like ourselves. Consciousness is (to put it mildly) poorly understand; my own view is that it's linked to the self-organizing properties of life. In this analysis, a conscious machine would look an awful lot like an artificial organism, and might well not count as a machine at all.

What seems much more plausible is some kind of post-humanism. That is: humans as they are now will be replaced (wholly or partly) by entities that are partly biological human and partly machine, with the biological part being substantially genetically engineered. Such entities wouldn't be machines, but they wouldn't be humans in any meaningful sense either- they wouldn't think like humans, and if they looked like humans it would be because they were designed that way rather than through necessity.“ **

Yes, that is one of the possibilities wih a high probability. The other is that the machines will do it. I estimate that the probability that machines replace all humans is about 80% (**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**).

Jr Wells wrote:

„I cannot vote as we already have many. This option was not available.“ **

Oh, yes, that option is available. It is the option „no“, because the option „no“ also means (for example): „no, we will not get a syncretistic religion because we have already many“. Another point is that the question „will we get“ a syncretistic religion?“ means: „will we all get one syncretistic religion?“. So I don't mean merely the Occidental humans but all humans, and I don't mean a syncretistic religion among other syncretistic religions but only one syncretistic religion, although it is - of course - possible to have also other syncretistic religions included.

So again, Jr Wells: Will we (as all humans) get one (and only one - thus: regardless, whether there are more syncretistic religions or not) syncretistic religion?

If you have too many laws, then the probability of anarchy is also very high. Thus: no law = anarchy, too many laws = tendency of anarchy.

Copied post in another thread.

Look at the picture again (**):

They all look more sad than happy.

Do you agree?

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.

Orb wrote:

„I just changed the percentages above, by voting no one, for political philosophical reasons. As long as empirical utilitarianism is the key indicator of political will, forms of governance will be determined on a trial and error basis. In that sort of political process, no one form can said to be prevalent at any time, there are always competing ideologies, shadow governments, and de jure and de facto representations of what those form really mean.“ **

Nevertheless, there is nearly always something like rule or government. If you answer the question „Which is the best form of government?“ with „no one“, then you are an anarchist.

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.

Orb wrote:

„The real reason for the difference, is, that the former poll asked a logically determinative question, a yes/no type, where the binary system predominated.“ **

I wrote: „the question »Will machines completely replace all human beings?« is not like the question »Is it possible that machines completely replace all humans?«.“ (**|**). Both questions are yes/no types. The first question refers to a possibility or probability in the future („will ...“), and the second question refers to a possibility in general („is it possible that ...“), thus accentuates the possibility.

Did you help that young lady?

Ecmandu wrote:

„I'm a string theorist ....“ **

Why did you become a string theorist?

Sauwelios wrote:....

„....

_________Religion_______
Philosophy_______Science

became

_________Science______
Philosophy_______Religion

shall become

_______Philosophy______
Science_________Religion

And the latter is how it should be, and indeed has always been esoterically, at least.“ **

Yes, „how it should be“, but it has been going in another way for about six millenniums, thus for nearly three cycles. What are those cycles? I give you one example (A):

Aa)
__________ Religion X __________
Theology Y _________ Theology X

Ab)
___________________ Theology Y __________
Philosophy/Science X ___________ Religion X

Ac)
__________ Philosophy/Science X ___________
Theology Z ___________________ Theology Y

Ad)
__________ Theology Z ___________________
Religion Y ___________ Philosophy/Science X

Ba)
__________ Religion Y __________
Theology A _________ Theology Z

Bb)
... and so on .....

Any cycle contains four phases (a-d). The realm „Philosophy/Science“ (i.e. „X“) dominates averagely one phase, the realm „Religion“ (i.e. „X“) dominates averagely one phase, and the realm „Theology“ (i.e. „Y“ and „Z“) dominates averagely two phases. So the realms „Religion“ and „Theology“ together dominate averagely three phases (75% of one cycle). That is averagely, which means that in reality the realm „Philosophy/Science“ dominates even less than 25% of one cycle (and b.t.w.: it is not said whether philosophy or science dominates). Today we are in Ad: the realm „Philosophy/Science“ (i.e. „X“) is dominated by the realm „Theology“ (i.e. „Z“), whilst the realm „Religion“ (i.e. „Y“) is waiting for its new domination, is at the ready to take over, because - usually - it is its turn when it comes to start with a new cycle. Maybe the next new cycle will be a very much different one, for example a cycle without the realm „Religion“ and/or without the realm „Theology“, and maybe it will already start in the 21st, 22nd, or 23rd century.

620) Arminius, 24.01.2015, 10:14, 10:53, 11:20, 12:05, 12:38, 12:45, 13:08, 17:14, 18:26, 19:00, 19:37, 19:00, 19:00, 19:00, 19:00, 19:00, 19:00, 19:00, 19:00, 19:00, 19:00 (2450-2470)

Brahmanism / Hinduisms, Buddhism, Jainism and others are syncretistic religions or metaphysics (philosophies); and Judaism, Christianity, Islam are - more or less - also syncretiistic religions: Judaism because of the Babylonian / Persian (cp. Parsee, Zoroastrianism), Egyptian, and Ancient Greek (cp. especially Platonism and Stoicism) forms, Christianity because of Judaism (see there), Manichaeism which is also Persian (see there), and Neoplatonism which is also Ancient Greek (sse there), Islam because of Judaism (see there) and Christianity (see there). Beside this famous religions we have also not so famous religions which are also - more or less - syncretistic religions. So you are right when you say that „we already have many“ (**) syncretistic religions. But if we consider all aspects, we have to say that they are also not syncretistic religions, because they have developed their own forms too. And in some cases we have to say that all religions are syncretistic religions, because they all trace back to one primeval religion (primitive religion), the first religion.

„Will we get a syncretistic religion?“ (**|**|**|**) as the title of this thread postulates „singly“ religions, regardless whether they are already syncretistic religions or not; so the question means whether all this „singly“ religions will lead to merely one syncretistic religion.

Jr Wells wrote:

„So all we need is one non believer and the answer becomes no.“ **

No. The answer is „no“, if somebody says that we will not get a syncretistic religion. So the „no“-sayer does not have to be a non-believer. Both „yes“-sayers and „no“-sayers have only to have plausible arguments.

Jr Wells wrote:

„I mean, in say 1 million years time, when we have one religion left and all 3 Bazingallion humans on Earth and Mars believe in it... Except one (he believes in something else). Then we don't have a syncretistic religion.“ **

I know what you mean. But what does that have to do with the question as title of this thread (**|**|**|**)? It postulates „singly“ religions, regardless whether they are already syncretistic religions or not! If someone believes in something else, then that does not necessarily mean that this one can prevent that the other believers will not get a syncretistic religion. This single, and probably lonely, one believer does not represent a religious community. You know what I mean?

Okay, instead of „we all“ I should have said „most of us“. But therefore I have a counterquestion: Would you avoid the words „manhood“, „mankind“, „humankind“, „humanity“ just because of the fact that there are some people who do not believe in „manhood“, „mankind“, „humankind“, „humanity“?

Sleep.

I did and do not want to ask whether it is possible for machines to replace all of human, because that is already a specific question. I wanted and want the question to be a general one. If I had asked more specifically, then the answers would also be more specifically, and that was not what I intended with my question.

If machines will have taken over, then the answer to the question why it was possible that machines completely replaced all humans will not only be „it was because of the (ability of the) machines“ but also and mainly „it was because of the (ability or/and unability of the) humans“.

Friendly (?) ....

Thank you for that link (**). But not all of that mentioned similarities and differences are true. And the authors of that text refer too much to Rome's Caesarian (monarchal) system, although they should refer more to Rome's republican / senatorial (aristocratic) system. Then they could also explain (for example) why 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 ...).

Humans are no intelligent enough. And most of the scientists do what they do not because of superiority but because of interest, curiosity, trial, and error (!). In other words: most of the scientists are not intelligent enough to control what they do. Moreover: most of the scientists are not controlled by themselves, as it should be; they are controlled by the rulers, as it should not be; and the rulers are also not intelligent enough to control what they do. Thus: humans are not intelligent enough.

Erik wrote:

„I may seem haughty and judgmental, but if we are to be frank, pretty much everyone is. Some may be more subtle about it, but it's there, nonetheless. The average joe probably thinks I'm so kind of loser, because I'm more interested in knowing myself, than smoking pot and gossiping about whores from house parties. Matter of fact, one of my cousins looked at me, as if I killed someone, for the mere fact that I was learning a new language! Can you believe that? That's the sort of mentality a lot of people have, believe it or not --- like there must be something wrong with someone, because they aren't part of the hedonist/consumerist culture. My point is that people can be just as haughty and judgmental towards my lifestyle, too, so my locus on the high horse is commensurate.“ **

The people of this sort of mentality you mentioned, Erik, have unfortunately become a terrible majority among the today's young people and are much more haughty and judgmenntal than all other people. They are losers, not you and your type. I like what you do and congratulate you!

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.

Peter Kropotkin wrote:

„This immigration is what keeps our prices low. If businesses didn't have this cheap workforce, the price of just about everything would skyrocket up.“ **

So what? Let 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.

What do high prices do? They fall!

Duncan wrote:

„I've voted »NO« on this one. A common US-Canadian currency would make a certain amount of sense given the similarities between the two countries (wealthy, English-speaking democracies), and their very close trade ties. However, the economic train wreck that is the Euro makes it very unlikely that anyone anywhere is going to try another currency union anytime soon.

Beyond that, currency union implies some degree of political union, and I can't see either American or Canadian voters being too keen on giving up national sovereignty, even in a limited way.

Mexico is obviously a very different matter. It's much poorer, less politically stable, and far more corrupt and crime-ridden than either the US or Canada. Whether or not it's a 'failed state' is debatable; what's more certain is that it isn't a very successful state. A currency union would make the US and Canada guarantors of the Mexican national debt, and it's pretty much inconceivable that either would be quite that stupid.“ **

That are not the main criteria. One of the main criteria or even the main criterion is what i.e. Cecil Rhodes once said: „Expansion is everything“.

Peter Kropotkin wrote:

„Clearly spoken by someone who doesn't quite understand what rising prices will do? It will basically destroy what is left of the middle and working poor class.“ **

I know very well what rising prices do, but you don't know it. Did you not read what I have written? Or did you read but not understand it? I guess it was the latter. Please read my text again:

Arminius wrote:

„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.“ ** **

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?“ [**|**]).

Peter Kropotkin wrote:

„Once they are gone, shortly thereafter the country will collapse.“ **

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.

Peter Kropotkin wrote:

„You are preaching the end of the American civilization and if America folds, we pretty much take everyone else with us.“ **

That's propaganda, Kropotkin. 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.

Peter Kropotkin wrote:

„The second point is, hedonistic life? really, My wife and I lead a pretty much middle class existence, nothing fancy, two vacations a years staying around the west coast. I drive an 16 year old car and just got rid of a 20 year old car. We don't live fancy by any means, we just can't make it if the price of everything skyrocket up. At no point, would I consider this a »hedonistic« life.“ **

I wish you all the best.

Do you have children? (And do you know why I am asking you this question?)

Peter Kropotkin wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»What do high prices do? They fall!« ** **

Not before destroying America.“ **

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.

Accept this cycle and try to reduce its amplitude!

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.

Orb wrote:

„Why would a globo 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.

Orb wrote:

„That expansion is everything is in line with the dynamics of Capitalisation, however, as ex US president Jimmy Carter once said, there are limits to progress and expansion.“ **

„Said“, yes, but he did not do anything against it. And if he had done it, he immediately would have been scolded or driven out or even killed (compare my text above - in this post).

Orb wrote:

„But when these limits are reached, then there may be corrective methods to deal with it's monetary implications.“ **

Do you know anybody who really wants to deal with that? Read Kropotkin's hysterical and sílly statements above and you will know what I mean. 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.

What we see is an economical war against the middle class. See:

Peter Kropotkin wrote:

„My wife and I lead a pretty much middle class existence ....“ **

Like i said: Middle class.

I can understand Kropotkin, but he can not understand me. I am not against the middle class - the reverse is true. But Kropotkin does not understand the right therapy.

==>