641) Herr Schütze, 17.02.2015, 01:40, 15:29 (2556-2557)

Kann eine Männerrechtsbewegung angesichts dieses global - sprich: westlich (d.h.: „westlich-global“) verordneten und also auch durchorganisierten Feminismus überhaupt etwas bewirken - außer daß diese Männerrechtsbewegung selbst auch zu so etwas wie einem Feminismus wird?

Gibt es im sogenannten „Westen“ überhaupt noch echte Männer und echte Weiber angesichts der Tatsache, daß der befohlene Feminismus die Weiber „männlich“, sofern möglich, und die Männer „weiblich“, sofern möglich, macht?

Übrigens: Ich benutze das Wort „Weiber“ nicht abwertend, sondern aufwertend, nicht als Schimpfort, sondern als Wort der Anerkennung; denn nicht nur sprachlich, sondern auch außersprachlich gilt, daß Weiber weiblicher sind als Frauen.

Zuerst wurden aus den Weibern Frauen gemacht, dann Feministinnen und schließlich Genderistinnen. Auf den letzten beiden Entwicklungsstufen nach unten sind dann auch nicht wenige Männer zu finden (Feministen und Genderisten).

Dies kann zum Ende der Menschheit führen. Falls das geschehen wird, werden die Maschinen (Androiden und Nicht-Androiden) als die Nachfolger der Menschen übrigbleiben.

Ich weiß nicht, ob eine solche Sichtweise überhaupt etwas mit Pessimismus und Optimismus zu tun hat, denn beide werden schnell mit Realismus und Idealismus verwechselt. Man kann schon einiges wissen über diese Entwicklungen.

Ich wüßte auch gern, was MNK über meinen Kommentar denkt, zumal ich ihn in Reaktion auf seinen geschrieben habe.

Trotzdem freut es mich natürlich, daß Sie, Herr Lentze, mir geantwortet haben.

Die Feminismuskritik ist immer nur so populär, wie es die Herrschenden erlauben. Alles, was ihren Interessen zuwiderläuft, wird von ihnen verboten, tabuisiert oder zumindest unter Verdacht (d.h. den Geheimdiensten zur Verfügung) gestellt. Auch mir ist nicht ganz klar, wie sehr der angebliche Maskulinismus eine ursächliche Rolle spielt bei der feminismuskritischen Entwicklung. Ich sehe in einem solchen Maskulinismus eher ein Alter Ego zum Feminismus (wie ich auch bereits in meinem letzten Kommentar andeutete **), also ein zweites Selbst des Feminismus. Die Fäden dafür, daß es den Feminismus überhaupt geben kann, ziehen ohnehin andere - und die sind obendrein wiederum Männer. Frauen - ich meine echte Frauen, also: Weiber - haben mit dem Feminismus nur insofern zu tun, als sie dessen größte Opfer sind.

Als Weiber noch Weiber sein durften, waren sie noch nicht so versklavt wie heute; doch das änderte sich, als sie zu Frauen gemacht wurden; seit ihnen der Feminismus aufgezwungen wird, sind sie in ihrer Mehrheit schon sehr versklavt; und bald werden sie nur noch Genderistinnen sein dürfen, in ihrer Mehrheit total versklavt sein und sich an nichts Weibliches mehr erinnern können. - Das ist schon eine sehr traurige Geschichte.

642) Arminius, 18.02.2015, 00:54, 01:24, 01:34, 02:32, 12:41, 13:25, 13:44, 15:10, 15:24, 20:55, 21:38, 21:48, 21:48, 22:03, 22:22, 23:05 (2558-2573)

Ob(e)viously you blieve in Sigmund Freud. O(r)bviously you don't know who you parents are.

Ecmandu wrote:

„This is an easy question to answer actually... human genetic code can match machine code, it just depends on whether we engineer humans to be as smart or smarter than machines. That should take all the hype away. I just recently read Gates and hawkings warnings... nonsense, we can engineer humans to control robots with their minds.“ **

I estimate that the probability that machines will completely replace all humans is about 80% (**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**).

Moreno wrote:

„So we will treat humans as and make them machines. Sure, as I said in an earlier post, this is one way machines are replacing humans.“ **

Do you remember your last vote, Moreno?

Arminius wrote:

„Here comes the 5th interim balance sheet:

Note:
Yes (by trend) means a „yes“ as acceptance or agreement of about 80-100%.
No (by trend) means a „no“ as acceptance or agreement of about 0-20%.

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

You voted „no“, Moreno.

What is your point?

Kriswest wrote:

„I cannot stand snow.“ **

I guess it is because of the fact that you did not experience snow in your childhood.

Mags J. wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Yes, unfortunately, you don't get paid for your weather report. I don't get paid for my weather report as well as you, but nonetheless:
Here ›comes‹ my weather report:
There is snow in my garden, but not much, and it is frozen snow. The temperature is about 0°Celsius (= 32° Fahrenheit). It is not windy.
One month ago, thus on 7 January 2015, there was no snow, and it was not cold: about 10°Celsius (= 50° Fahrenheit). It was very stormy.

And you can easily guess what happened to some people between 7 January 2015 and 7 February 2015. ** **

Death by hypothermia ....“ **

No. Just a cold.

Jr Wells wrote:

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

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

Jr Wells wrote:

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

Syncretism has always been a part of the human evolution at some times.

Jr Wells wrote:

„People will never unify.“ **

That is even not necessary.

Jr Wells wrote:

„I have already said there are a lot of syncretistic religions in existence. You disagreed with this and say there must only be one and not many.“ **

No. I did not disagree with that what you said. I did not say that there „must“ be one and not many. Furthermore I am not of the opinion that there „must“ be one and not many - I merely asked for it.

Jr Wells wrote:

„What example can you give me where syncretism (only one of for all of humanity) has been part of human evolution.
Remember, humans have been and are scattered across many continents.
A Eurocentric view of humanity does not constitute syncretism.“ **

„Eurocentric view“? Who said that?

Jr Wells wrote:

„Sorry, by definition ... unification is required for syncretism. Unless you create a new meaning for the word.“ **

What is your definition of the word „syncretism“? It seems that you have the wrong definition of the word „syncretism“.

If a „unification is required for syncretism“ (and remember: a unification is a total one!), there could be merely one unification and merely one syncretism.

See: if you want to unify, then you must be aware of the fact that there are one human, some / many humans, and all humans; if you unify one human, then you are a pastor, an ideolog, or a doctor (physician, therapist) and do not unify all humans; if you unify some or many humans, then you do not unify all humans. You do not have to unify all humans in order to get a syncretism. You can unify (for example) 80% of the humans and get a syncretism - with a non-syncretistic minority of course. So unification is not really required for syncretism and syncretism is not really required for unification.

What did the Romans do when they got their syncretism? Did they unify all inhabitants of the Roman empire? No. But nevertheless: their religion became a syncretistic religion, a syncretistic religion with a minority that did not want a syncretistic religion.

The question is whether we will get a syncretistic religion, and the answers can be „yes“, „no“, or „i don't know“ (see above).

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

We have 64% for „yes“, 27% for „no“, and 9% for „I don't know“.

For comparison: ** **

Please vote!

I was joking a little bit.

You should not take Freud as serious as you o(r)b(e)viously do (**). That was my message.

Orb wrote:

„Got it,Arm in noose!“ **

Hey, you are a graet poet, O(r)b(e).

Prismatic wrote:

„Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VX5kAh_CN0k (**).

This video on experiments done by Yale researchers point to the high probability that humans are born with an inherent moral compass.
This point is in contrast to theists claims of a stone tablet of moral codes issued from God via his messengers.

With a neural circuit of moral impulses humanity could develop and establish a morality-ethics framework by themselves collectively and need not have to rely on a God.

Agree?“ **

No.

There is no native morality but a native system of values. Babies do not have morality; morality requires that the child can understand most of the language of those who have already morality. The language of those who have already morality leads to the understanding of morality, to a consciousness of morality, ethics, philosophy of law, ... and so on. It is a question of a language-dependent education. A baby understands baby talk and merely a very, very little of the language of those who have already morality; so a baby is not able to understand enough of the language with morality, thus a baby is not able to understand morality.

A baby has values, is able to value; but a baby has no morality, is not able to judge morally.

Please, do not confuse morality with values, norms, rules, laws.

Copied post in another thread.

Syncretism.

The topic is a question: Will we get a syncretistic religion?

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

Jr Wells wrote:

„Then we already have many of such religions.“ **

Yes, and many of them are former syncretistic religions. But the question is: Will we get a syncretistic religion? This syncretistic religion would be more syncretistic than all other syncretistic religions before it.

Probably a syncretistic religion for all humans (the minority is included) is already in the making but not a complete reality yet, because those who are against it are still a majority.

643) Herr Schütze, 19.02.2015, 01:40, 18:57, 19:47 (2574-2576)

Der Waldeigentümer bestimmt darüber, welche Bäume dem Wald angehören dürfen, welche Bäume dazukommen dürfen, welche Bäume herausgenommen werden sollen, ob Angestellte mit der Aufsicht über den Wald beauftragt werden ... u.s.w..

Es gibt viele Gruppen, sogenannte „Bewegungen“, die von den Herrschern gern gesehen, ja absolut unterstützt werden, während andere nicht gern gesehen, nicht geduldet, dafür aber um so mehr diskriminiert und politisch verfolgt werden. Ich glaube, ich muß hier jetzt nicht diejenigen Gruppen bzw. „Bewegungen“ aufzählen, die von der Herrschern bevorzugt und absolut unterstützt werden, denn sie sind mittlerweile fast jedem Menschen bekannt. Zu denjenigen Gruppen bzw. „Bewegungen“ jedoch, die nicht gern gesehen, nicht geduldet, dafür aber um so mehr diskriminiert und politisch verfolgt werden, gehören auch (nämlich neben vielen anderen) die „Männerbewegung“, der „Maskulinismus“, und diese Tatsache ist leider noch nicht fast jedem Menschen bekannt, sollte es aber sein.

Die „Männerbewegung“ ist einer der vielen gesellschaftlichen „Bäume“, die von den derzeitigen „Eigentümern“ des gesellschaftlichen „Waldes“ geächtet werden, also in deren gesellschaftlichen „Wald“ verboten sind.

Diejenigen, die in Webforen oder Weblogs die Richtung vorgeben und die „Stimmung“ in ihrem Sinne anheizen, sind einige der von den „Eigentümern“ des gesellschaftlichen „Waldes“ beauftragten Angestellten. Ihr Auftrag lautet: „Haltet unseren Wald so sauber und rein wie möglich, entfernt das Ungeziefer in ihm und verhindert, daß dort Bäume wachsen, die wir geächtet haben, weil wir sie nicht sehen wollen!“

Das EU-System mit seinem Subsystem namens „Euro“ ist bei weitem gefährlicher als das BRD-System. Auch das NATO-System ist bei weitem gefährlicher als das BRD-System. Außerdem gibt es zwischen dem EU-System und dem NATO-System Widersprüchlichkeiten, ja Streitigkeiten, die als Wirtschaftskriege gedeutet werden können. Aber Vorsicht: Die Alternativen dazu können noch gefährlicher werden! Es ist nicht so einfach, aus einem dieser Systeme auszusteigen, ohne dafür Prügel zu beziehen. Wir sollten also den anderen Völkern des wahnsinnigen EU-Systems und/oder des wahnsinnigen NATO-Systems den Vortritt lassen, z.B. den Italienern oder Franzosen. Alles andere würde auf ein Wiederholungszwang hinauslaufen, d.h. wir würden sofort den 3. Weltkrieg aufgezwungen, also Krriegserklärungen bekommen (genauso wie schon 1939) - mit dem einzigen Unterschied zu 1939, daß dieses Mal keine offizielle Kriegserklärung erfolgen muß, weil es ja immer noch keinen Friedensvertrag zwischen Deutschland, dem Deutschen Reich (um genau zu sein), und den Siegermächten gibt, die dieses Mal nur aus ihren Besatzerbaracken ausrücken müssen, um das Land erneut zu zerstören.

Wir Deutsche waren und sind einfach zu erfolgreich und können schon allein deshalb nicht verhindern, daß andere Völker uns die Früchte des Erfolgs nicht gönnen und statt dessen (ich bevorzuge die alte Rechtschreibregelung, weil die neu die Logik zu wenig beachtet) ihrem Neid, ihrer Eifersucht, ihren Ressentiments freien Lauf geben, sobald sich ihnen eine Chance dafür eröffnet.

„Mag sein! Allerdings müssen wir die herrschenden Verhältnisse vor unserer eigenen Haustüre wieder in die eigene Verantwortlichkeit bekommen, sonst werden wir uns der EU , USA .... und deren Bestrebungen auf keinen Fall erwehren können!“ (Staatenlos, 19.02.2015, 19:16 **).

Ja, das ist richtig, und es spricht auch nicht gegen das von mir Gesagte - im Gegenteil: „Vorsicht ist die Mutter der Porzellankiste“, wie ein schönes Sprichwort sagt.

Fangen wir „oben“ an, werden wir höchstwahrscheinlich von „unten“ Probleme kriegen (vgl. Krieg); fangen wir „unten“ an, werden wir höchstwahrscheinlich von „oben“ Probleme kriegen (vgl. Krieg; ); fangen wir „rechts“ an, werden wir höchstwahrscheinlich von „links“ Probleme kriegen (vgl. Krieg); ); fangen wir „links“ an, werden wir höchstwahrscheinlich von „rechts“ Probleme kriegen (vgl. Krieg). Man muß hierbei den Krieg gedanklich schon vorwegnehmen, weil man mit ihm rechnen muß, auch dann, wenn er ausbleibt. Diejenigen, die den Krieg wollen - und die gibt es immer (man denke nur daran, wieviel Geld und also Macht ihnen allein durch Krieg zuwächst) - werden alles daran setzen, ihn durchzusetzen; außerdem ist er ja schon da, nur eben noch nicht in Europa, wenn man von den Bürgerkriegen (besonders in Frankreich) absieht.

644) Arminius, 20.02.2015, 00:55, 17:53, 18:17, 19:15 (2577-2580)

Orb wrote:

„For instance would you like to hear of my biking from Düsseldorf through the Black Forest, to a suburb whose name forgotten, they make knife there, Solingen, in the warm night, 25 Pfennig for draft beer and feeling something?“

Solingen is not far from Düsseldorf, but not a suburb of Düsseldorf, and the Schwarzwald (Schwarzer Wald = Black Forest) is very far from Düsseldorf and Solingen.

You paid 25 Pfennig for one draft beer? And this draft beer was a 0.2 liter one? Then it was in the 1950’s, I guess. In the 1960's a 0.2 liter draft beer cost 40 Pfennig.

Orb wrote:

„Can a dream ever really be interpreted? Can it? because they are too real.“

Well, ....

Here follows an example: What does it mean when rivers and lakes are always present in dreams?

Prismatic wrote:

„Obama: No Religion is Responsible for Terrorism.
The terrorists do not speak for 1.5 billion Muslims.
They no more represent Islam who reject their hateful ideology than any madman who kill innocents in the name of god representing Christianity, or Judaism, or Buddhism, or Hinduism ...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... itter.html

I say Obama is very ignorant of what Islam really is.
Islam is not wholly a religion per se.
Islam is closer as a fascist ideological way of life comprising an element of a very dogmatic religion amongst other inclusive elements of life, i.e. politics, economics, cultural, social, etc.
Islam is comparable to other negative ideologies like Nazism, Communism, Italian fascism and the likes.

The basic element of religion within Islam is its soteriological purpose, i.e. assurance of eternal life in heaven. But this assurance is conditioned upon the other various aspects of its way of life which condemns and calling for the oppression of non-Muslims towards world domination and kill them if necessary.

Such commands and examples are dictated in its holy books, the Quran and other associated texts.
Therefore for many Muslims, if they do not follow the dictates and examples of Muhammad, they are doomed to hell. This is the main reason why there are so much terrible evils committed by SOME Muslims around the world in the past, currently and will be in the future.

IMO, Islam is in part malignant and responsible for terrorism committed in the name of Islam, Allah and Muhammad.

The many Muslims who are moderates are in fact diluting the original pure Islam by imputing modern human values. These moderates [better human beings] are lesser Muslims than the genuine fundamentalist Muslims [the regressive humans].

Do you think Obama is aware of this real truth about Islam or is he such an ignorant person or is he trying to be political correct so as not to offend the Saudis and others re the oil factor?

Here is the original real Islam which is active amongst many Muslims. Note even at 30% were talking of 450 !! million Muslims.

- Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i96nYYcEKNw (**).
- Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0XNcPNXS1I (**).“ **

Obama is paid, and therefore he says such a nonsense. It is a self-evidence for all islamic terrorists (fundamentalists, ideologs), a matter of course, that they speak for all islamic people, that they speak for the islam, thus not for „islamism“ (). „Islamism“ is an Occidental invention as much as every „ism“ is an Occidental invention. No „ism“ is invented by others than Occidental humans.

There are three kinds of so called „revolutions“ which threatens the modern Occident:
1) One „revolution“: the „Occidental revolution“.
2) Two „revolutions“: the „Occidental revolution“ and the „White revolution“.
3) Three „revolutions“: the „Occidental revolution“, the „White revolution“, and the „Colored revolution“.

The islam as islamism (Occidental spoken) belongs to the „Colored revolution“ in the Occident.

Islamic people do not call their islam „islamism“, although the Occidental people do it, if they speak about the extreme or funfamenatistic islam. That's the point.

The „Colored revoultion“ in the Occident - Islam/ism and other religions / ideologies (i.e. voodoo/ism) included - will only end, when the Occidental modernity will end.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Before the modern times of the Occident there was merely one real foreign threat for the Occidental culture: the islam!

Erik wrote:

„For the sake of not receiving another warning ( the gods know I don't need anymore racked on me..), I will avoid the use of the proverbial epithet that begins with the letter »N«, and instead use a softer term: »Wiggerization«. What is a »wigger«? A wigger is a Caucasian, who thinks, acts, dresses, etc like a....well...you know ( That word that begins with an *N*). With the advent of the rapper »Eminem«, Western culture has been a hothouse for these wiggers. The typical W. sags his pants ridiculously low, mumbles his speech, talks obnoxiously loud and exaggerates his gesticulations to compliment his overall ridiculous appearance. The typical W. thinks that he is tough as nails, that he is ultra-masculine. But actually he is rather feminine; he possess no originality or individuality --- his entire persona is the result of the trenchant influence of alterity, of the current ethos. »Monkey see - monkey do«. Whatever is perceived as being the most popular, the masses will conform to it, so they can fit in.

In this culture, the ideal W. is stupid. The more articulate you are, the more »White« you sound and, therefore less cool. Bastardizing the English language with ebonics -- primal guttural noises -- stupid drooling facial expressions -- clothes that are too big -- and music that sounds like something concocted by feral chimps banging pots and pans together in a kitchen are what's considered to be fashionable these days.

^^^ See this retard above? This is Jimmy.

Jimmy wrote:

»Yo Yo, my nukka! Whatz poppin, nukka? Yo, My nukka, lizen up, yo...That thot Shanequa is a bad bitch, yo....she be like Einstein, Nukka....given me some legit brain, yo....Thots be thots, nukka.....yo check out this white-boy over hurrrr...thinkz he all intellectual and shit with his normal sized clothes N shit....bro, needs to grow up in Christ and eat some meat yo...Church! Nukka..CHURCH!!!......we be ballen, shot callen....skeet skeet skeet.....yah BOY!!!«

Remember kids, the more stupid you are, the more cool you will become! Don't touch that goddamn apple! Bask in that circle of heavenly ignorance.....yes....very good, very good.... :evilfun:“ **

I give you my full support, Erik.

Orb wrote:

„I only had one dreAM LIKE THAT IN MY ENTIRE LIFE. It was after our son's suicide we went to India, and
then went to see Buddha's grave. There were some angry wasps that bit me on the right cheeck swelled terribly, then that night had a dream was trekking and up on top of a mountain the route came to a fork and had to decide which way to follow. I decided to the left. The panorama which enfolded me in a warm caress, were colored just like the above pictures. The the thought occured to me of what would have the other, the right side be, had i chosen that?“ **

I'm very sorry when it comes to the death of your son. How old was he?

Arminius wrote:

„What does it mean when rivers and lakes are always present in dreams?“ ** **

Some possible answers:
1) The person with such a dream has much to do with rivers and lakes. And that's all.
2) The person with such a dream lacks the „element water“. It is associated with the qualities of emotion and intuition.
3) The person with such a dream can move very well (perhaps too well).
4) The person with such a dream is not able to move (and wants to solve this problem).
4) The person with such a dream is very much (perhaps too much) interested in development, espcially in a flowing or fluvial development.
6) The person with such a dream hates development, especially a flowing or fluvial development (and wants to solve this problem).
....
n) The person with such a dream wants to kill his father and to marry his mother.

645) Arminius, 21.02.2015, 01:08, 01:41, 01:59, 02:26, 21:15, 22:02, 23:36 (2581-2587)

What is your problem here?

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

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

There is reality on the one side and ideality on the other side.

Jr Wells wrote:

„Will we get »one and only one« syncretistic education system?

No.

Will we get »many« syncretistic education systems?

Yes.“ **

Education? Primarily we are talking about religion, although religion has much to do with education.

So you are saying that we will not get merely „one syncretistic education system“ but „many syncretistic education systems“. Please tell me: why?

Jr Wells wrote:

„Your logic is hard to follow... you raised the student and study (education) not me.“ **

That was just an example in order to explain what is meant, because you did not understand the other examples.

Jr Wells wrote:

„Why will we get many... because that is already what is happening and has happened since the dawn of man.“ **

Yes. But that does not necessarily exclude that we will get merely one ....

Jr Wells wrote:

„Disagreeing is not the same as not understanding.“ **

You said two times:

Jr Wells wrote:

„I have no idea what you are talking about. Sorry, my fault not yours.“ **

Jr Wells wrote:

„We are going around in circles. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Once again, my fault not yours.“ **

That is not understanding - of course.

And because of that fact I gave you one more example (**|**).

Jr Wells wrote:

„Will we evolve into 19 foot giants with four arms?
This too is possible.
Do I think it will happen?
No.“ **

Why not?

Perhaps you know the following two thread titles (topics) which are also questions:
- „Will machines completely replace all human beings?“ ** **
- „Is it possible that machines completely replace all humans?“ ** **

I say It is possible, and the probability that it will happen is about 80% (**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**).

Don't underestimate the changes!

Jr Wells wrote:

„The assumption is that because I do not agree with you that I do not understand you.“ **

I think in our case there is no disagreement which can't be solved.

Jr Wells wrote:

„When these things happen, then the probably of them having happened will be 100%.“ **

According to the mathematical and logical definition of probability and thus to the probability calculation itself it is not possible to know what would or will happen - otherwise the mathematical and logical definition of probability and thus to the probability calculation itself would be superfluous, redundant.

Jr Wells wrote:

„Sorry, I am not going to read other threads.“ **

So you read only this thread! Great! Thank you!

Artimas wrote:

„Feminism uses equality as an excuse to bring power to their group.“ **

Yes, and the result is that the unequality is greater than before because this group has got more power. Feminism as an egalitarianistic group is like communism, socialism, thus: egalitarianism . They all use equaliy as an excuse to get power. Feminism as an inegalitarianistic group is like fascism. Both use inequality and have less success than the egalitarianistic groups. The egalitarianistic groups have much more success because they lie much more. Lies, hypocrisies, victimology or victimism are the best and safest tools or means in order to get and to keep success and power.

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

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

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

Amorphos wrote:

„Islam is like Christianity ....“ **

Islam is not like Christianity!

Arminius wrote:

„Christianity on the one side and Judaism and Islam on the other side are much different.

For example: Christianity is not as much abrahamic and not as much monotheistic as Judaism and Islam are. In Christianity there is Maria as the mother of God, Jesus as the son of God, and the Holy Ghost of God. That's not really monotheistic. And the New Testament is very much different from the Old Testament.“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„Nietzsche said that (for example) there are »ja-sagende« (»yes-saying«) and »nein-sagende« (»no-saying«) religions in both the Aryan (Indogerman) and the Semitic societies: Brahmanism as an Ayran (Indogerman) religion and Judaism or Islam as a Semitic religion are „ja-sagende Religionen“ („yes-saying religions“) whereas Buddhism as an Ayran (Indogerman) religion and Christianity as a Semitic religion are „nein-sagende Religionen“ („nein-saying religions“). Cp. Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, Der Wille zur Macht (The Will to Power), S. 110-111. If that what Nietzsche said is right, then Christianity is even more similar to Buddhism than to Judaism or Islam. Again: There are no „three Abrahamic religions“ because Christianity is too much different from Judaism and Islam.“ ** **

646) Arminius, 22.02.2015, 01:12, 02:10, 02:46, 03:18, 04:42, 04:52, 23:51 (2588-2594)

Mags J. wrote:

„Tweet from a local chuch:

If you're white, educated, middle-aged, male and straight, you're welcome in our church. You're also welcome if you're none of these.“ **

The second sentence annihilates the first sentence. So why is there the first sentence? The writers of this two sentences make themselves untrustworthy and attackable.

Mags J. wrote:

„Most London churches are near all now non-denominational.“ **

What does that exactly mean? „Non--denominational“ does not mean the same in every country. So is it possible in the UK that even members of Non-Christian religions can join a Christian church by keeping / maintaining their Non-Christian religions?

Amorphos wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

„Islam is not like Christianity!« ** **

It is an Abrahamic religion! They all act in a similar manner when they have power.“ **

That can be easily (perhaps too easily) said of each religion or of each „misunderstood spiritual exercise system“ (that is how Peter Sloterdijk says, because according to him there are no religions but „misunderstood spiritual exercise systems“ ). Moreover, those „misunderstood spiritual exercise systems“ which you call „Abrahamic“ acted not in a similar way when they had power and act not in a similar way when they have power.

Amorphos wrote:

„Consider the witch burnings ....“ **

Your „witch burnings“ are no argument, because you have to consider what took place at the same time and what takes place even nowadays (!) in countries of the Islam. And your „power“ argument is not a convincing one. Who has still more power? Christians or Muslims? And although Christians have still more power than Muslims, Christians are still much more peaceful and civilisated than Muslims.

Nietzsche was not always right, but he was right i.e. in the case of putting Brahmanism, Judaism, Islam on the one side and Buddhism, Christianity on the other side. That makes much more sense than the „Abrahamic“ myth.

Brahmanism, Judaism, and Islam are similar to aristocratic / oligarchical or even monarchical / tyrannical systems and more active than passive, whereas Buddhism and Christianity are similar to democratic / ochlocratic systems and more passive than active.

Mags J. wrote:

„All are welcome.“ **

And you do not value it by saying i.e. „that’s not good“ or i.e „that’s good“?

Jr Wells wrote:

„I have been dying ever since I was born. I am thus experiencing death.“ **

How do you value that?

Do you know the death philosophy of the German philosopher Martin Heidegger?

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

Hey, Project, where is your response? You are a very slow „machine“. Are you „a windmill in a desert“?

Erik wrote:

„Gib wrote:

»Erik wrote

›I'm amalgamating the phenomenology and science of love into a meta-physical theory. To just stop at the scientific aspect would be myopic. I'm looking to delve further into the teleology of love, perhaps encounter a new, edifying perspective.‹ **

Ah, right. Forgot you were a Nietzschean. Everything is willed. But you would agree, wouldn't you, that the will to reproduce and make one's self eternal comes prior to human conscious willing?« **

Yes - I would agree with that. You can see this same will in non-conscious organisms.“ **

Gib wrote:

„Yes, and so we have two different wills - the personal conscious will and the greater prior will - and if these are two different wills, can we say they have different motives and objectives? The objective of the greater prior will is to reproduce, to make the object of its will (i.e. us) immortal. And the objective of the personal conscious will, in the case of being in love, is to create some emotional magic between one's self and an attractive member of the opposite sex, and the will driving all this is the will to acquire that feeling and share it with another.“ **

Yes, that is one aspect of „love“ but not the only one, like I said several times, and that is - b.t.w. - why I used the word „love“ in the question of the topic of one of my threads: „Do you really love philosophy?“ ** **

647) Arminius, 23.02.2015, 01:28, 03:01, 03:24, 03:36, 03:49, 15:02, 16:31, 18:32, 21:26, 23:20 (2595-2604)

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

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

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

„No form“ means anarchy.

If there is no Western philosopher greater than Kant, then there is no philosopher greater than Kant.

Uccisore wrote:

„Fent wrote:

»Statiktech wrote:

›What sorts of double standards?‹ **

›Progressives‹ are fine with the Palestinian desire for self-determination, Australian Aboriginal self-determination, American Indian self-determination, African self-determination, Chinese self-determination, etc. etc. etc. However, any call for European nations (and their cousin states) to be self-determinate is met with screams of racism and Nazism.« **

That's a good example of leftist double standards. Another good one would be their belief that gender is a complete social construction, right up until a man decides he's 'actually a woman', then suddenly gender is a physical function of the brain that only surgery can correct. They also continually try to get people fired or shamed out of existence for innocuous comments that somebody could possibly interpret as being sexist, while laughing it off or forgiving it entirely when people on their side of the fence outright harass or molest women.

Feminists against Clinton? Not a one. Anti-war protesters after Obama got elected? An endangered species.“ **

They are subjects, followers of the rulers.

Perhaps Leibniz war greater than Kant ... (!) ... (?) ...(!).

Orb wrote:

„I have recently been extremely been fascinated , or re-fascinated by the surrealists ....“ **

And now you are a surrealist or re-surrealist ... (?) ... (!) ...(?).

Turtle wrote:

„What did Jesus say about sex?“ **

Nothing.

Jeus did not know the word „sex“, because he spoke only Aramaic.

Turtle wrote:

„Did Jesus have sex?“ **

No.

According to some language philosophers and some linguists language determines the thinking and the actions, and Jesus spoke only Aramaic (see above).

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

By the way: Originally, the word „sex“is a Latin word. Does the English language have only this loanword for the meaning of „sex“?

That question in other words: Do the people o the English language not have original sex?

Erik wrote:

„Is beauty really in the eye of the beholder? What if there is a universal principle to beauty? Perhaps it's not as subjective, as you may think? Physical beauty is a manifestation of symmetry and genetic superiority. Sure, we may prefer X beauty over Y beauty ( subjective preferences ), but could one deny either their aesthetic value? I.e., their objective beauty?

Beauty is not always and not completely in the eye of the beholder. For example: symmetry and rhythm, almost all geometrical figures, especially those with specific numerical sequences, have an objective beauty.

The reasons why more and more people think beauty would exclusively be in the ey of the beholder can be found in the nowadays art, politics, religion, and almost all other forms of culture which express nothing (nihilistic forms), have nothing to say, and expect that the „beholders“ have also nothing to say. The only exception of it is when it comes to pay for it, thus to pay for nothing - then it is hypocritically said: „beautiful“, „good“, „true“.

Prismatic wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Perhaps Leibniz war greater than Kant ... (!) ... (?) ...(!).« ** **

Leibniz was more famous for mathematics rather than philosophy [on Monads].
Kant was born [1724] after Leibniz's death [1716].
Kant demonstrated the shortfalls of Leibniz's Monad and his »identity of indiscernible«.“ **

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) was an universal genius; he was a philosopher, the originator of the monadology and of the pre-established harmony, he was a scientist, especially a mathematician, the originator of the infinitesimal calculus (1665, published 1684), a physicist, and a historician, he was a technician, he was the builder of the first mechanical calculator, a machine of multiplication, he was a diplomat and a political consultant.

Okay, Leibniz lived from 1646 to 1716 and Kant from 1724 to 1804 - so according to that birth-and-death dates they are not as much comparable as they are according to other facts, So Leibniz was much more a scientist (mathematician, physicist, historcian) and technician than Kant, because Leibniz was an universal genius and one of the greatest scientists and technicians ever, whereas Kant was merely an average scientist and even no technician - and that does not necessarily or even automatically mean that Kant was a greater philosopher than Leibniz.

But perhaps you are right by saying that Kant was the greatest Western philosopher.

And what about Hegel?

The moved clocks go faster than the unmoved clocks.

Amorphos wrote:

„Arminius, let us say that all religions are interpretative, at least that we are subjective beings and cannot know things in the exact same way as other. That said ...:

The very idea of a single god is enough to create an ideological singularity, even where there are many variations of that in expression. This is why ALL religions have been given strict ‘guidelines’ for practice e.g. dharma in Hinduism, Buddhism and Janism, and sharia law in Islam. christianity done the same thing via preaching and largely achieved it until various movements and industrial transformation changed our society.

The only difference is that Islam went in the opposite direction, starting out with grand philosophies, maths and cultural changes, but then becoming strict. The industrial revolution didn’t happen in the middle-east, so their societies have been changed from western influences ~ and that is the real difference.

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

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

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

______________________________

Do you know any Moslem?

648) Arminius, 24.02.2015, 00:25, 17:33 (2605-2606)

Amorphos, excuse me, but if you can't see the differences, then you are either nearly blind or just „political correct“, and „political correctness“ has merely to do with lies and hypocrises, thus nothing with reality / historical facts.

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

(A) Climate zones:

(B) Cultural zones:

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

I remind you of some texts on the first page of my thread „Universe and Time“: ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **

649) Arminius, 25.02.2015, 01:44, 03:19, 18:35, 18:38 (2607-2610)

Jr Wells wrote:

„Note this is not a religious thread but a spiritual one.

Realistically, for many of us, the end of our lives will be one where we are stuck in a bed and dying. We will most likely be in pads and have our bottoms wiped. We will most likely also have a catheter.

At this point in our lives, what is it that will help us?“ **

„We“, „us“, „our“ are not the correct words, because there are differences. Some people think this „will help“ them, some people will think that „will help“ them, some people think nothing or/and nobody „will help“ them; some people think this shall or should „help“ them, some peoplel think that shall or should „help“ them, some people think nothing or/and nobody shall or should „help“ them. There is no „universal way“ of „help“ .

Jr Wells wrote:

„In this situation, I would rather be alone than surrounded by people who feel sad around me. The best case scenario for me would be for there to be happy people around me.

I think this would help me. As I believe it helps me, I try to be happy around people when they are dying. I believe I have had positive responses from these people. They showed that even in extreme pain they can laugh, smile and be happy (even if it only for a few moments).

What will help you when you need to have your bottom wiped as you are dying?“ **

2608

Oh, look at this:

Please compare it with this:

- Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZZGZsSRf_g
(Cozy Powell, Dance with the Devil, 1973).

2610

Please compare it with this:

- Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZZGZsSRf_g
(Golden Earring [Hay, Kooymans, Zuiderwijk, Gerritsen, Gelling], Instant Poetry, 1974).

650) Arminius, 26.02.2015, 00:49, 02:33, 17:50, 02:33 (2611-2614)

Jr Wells wrote:

„The bottom of spirituality may be a black hole.“ **

A black hole as the bottom of spirituality seems to be a very interesting one. Do you mind going into details?

Zinnat wrote:

„The bottom of both of spirituality and most of the religions are mental practices like meditation. Everything else was built around it, as the ontology of the existence progressed with time. Myths and morals were found, derived and brought later into religions to enable those to offer a complete life style and something such, in which folks can have faith.

Although, it helps a lot in many ways, yet faith is not the connerstone of the religions. But, unfortunately, most of the adherents of the religions see it otherwise.“ **

Mental practices like meditation. Good.

 

___________________________________________________

„Black hole“ (Jr Wells) and „mental practices like meditation“ (Zinnat). Who of you is the first one who brings the two together?

Perhaps the result could be like this:

Heretical.com wrote:

„Before the end of the First World War Einstein’s theory stood outside the mainstream.“ **

That is - by the way - not a coincidence!

Heretical.com wrote:

„The conflict between Newtonian mechanics and Maxwell-Lorentz’s electromagnetism was best illustrated by the Michelson-Morley experiment which split a beam of light into two parts which were sent, by means of mirrors, to and fro along two equal and perpendicular arms – one of which is aligned with the direction of movement of the Earth’s orbit and one at right angles to the orbit. On returning to their starting point the light produced a pattern of dark and bright fringes. The fringes remained in the same position throughout the year both when the arm aligned with the Earth’s orbit remained in its original position or, contrary to expectations, when the arm aligned in direction of movement was moved to a position at right angles to the orbit and the other arm was brought into alignment, i.e. when the position of the arms was reversed. This is contrary to the Maxwell-Lorentz theory, in which the velocity of light is independent of the motion of its source.

There are three possibilities: that the Maxwell-Lorentz theory is wrong; that Newtonian mechanics is wrong; or that there is some unknown effect of motion which has been overlooked.“ **

That „unknown effect“ could be your „affect(ance)“!

Salvador Dalí in his wetsuit during his lecture in London (1. July 1936):

________________________________________________

Back to the topic („can someone interpret my dream?“) with a dream of an adult man:

He wants to get his lovely person (girlfriend, wife, daughter) back. But another man tries to prevent that, partly with success, especially with brutal viloence, partly with no success. But more and more the man who wants his loevely person back and fights for her as much as he can thinks that he has lost her because of the violently influence by the other man and his „crew“. This dream has an open end nut not a happy end.

Amorphos wrote:

„The only difference is that Islam went in the opposite direction, starting out with grand philosophies, maths and cultural changes, but then becoming strict.

That is also not true. Islam started with violnce, violence, and ... violence-. During a few decades it has become a huge empire. What you call „philosophie, maths“ started after the four brutal violence centuries (7th, 8th, 9th, 10th), after they had attacked and conquerd so many countries and people that a bit wealthy and thus also a bit „philosophies, maths“ (from the Indians!) could appear.“ **

Look into the history books.

The „holy scriptures“ of Jewry (torah) and Islam (koran) are ful of violence, and it is not allowed to change only one single word or even only one single letter of that „holy scriptures“.

==>