<= [611][612][613][614][615][616][617][618][619][620] => |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 also 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:Femi-Nazi is the last attempt of dead social-philosophy. - Newmenstime.cm. **
Jakob wrote:
No, it does not!Jakob wrote:
Nonsense!Jakob wrote:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
You do not know anything about the Prussian ethics.Jakob wrote:
That is a lie.Jakob wrote:
But the global rulers and bankers like Merkel very much!Jakob wrote:
No. They will not agree. I know it.Jakob wrote:
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:
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, Hitler, 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:
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
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 Mitterand or Schmidt and Giscard dEstaing 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!
|
2393 |
2394 |
2395 |
This is why I keep pressing for a shift in focus in German power. **
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. **
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. **
Communism was always perfectly suited to the Germans, who are a proletarian worker people. **
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. **
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:
I agree.Are you shocked?Jakob wrote:
You suppose wrongly. And you have no idea of Prussian ethics. And note: Merkel is not a Prussian!Jakob wrote:
I do not know what you mean by that. Is it - again a part of your agitation?Jakob wrote:
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. |
2397 |
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! ** **
2398 |
A more European politics. **
Because then France would have turned against Prussia, you naive old cow. **
I have not heard of Herder. **
I see, you are a Schopenhauer-Kantian. **
A rather fanatical one. **
I think Kant is strictly redundant and misguided at that. **
Schopenhauer is not a Buddhist, he is a pseudo-Buddhist, he does not aspire to the same physical standards as are implicit in Buddhism. **
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. **
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. **
Study the history of Marxism and Communism. **
Why do you think Hitler called his party the National Socialist party? **
Spoken like a true religious fanatic. **
»If you don't want Prussian leadership, you hate Prussians.« **
Congratulations. **
2399 |
Not »for freedom« but »against Islamophobia« **
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. **
2400 |
2401 |
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 .... **
2402 |
Well you are beginning to see that I was right all along. **
Retrace your steps, reread my posts and you will find that I only attack the German government and its economic policies. **
2403 |
Actually I mean the process opposite and have made this clear. The EU is part of the problem as I have always said. **
Maybe you can stip behaving like Hitler and calling everyone that displeases you »agitators«. **
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. **
That's fine, you seem sentimental and simplistic. **
No, you are a racist asshole who can't be bothered to read and yet has the nerve to claim intellectual consistency. **
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. **
Do you know the history of Hitler in Austria? Do you know why he went to Bavaria? **
I don't like religious fanatics is all. **
Yes, I am comparing you to GW Bush, you got that right. **
2404 |
2405 |
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. **
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 .... **
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. **
Germany ... should relax a bit now .... **
I am glad if the French are going to be the ones doing the work for a while. **
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:
Yes, that are the two alternatives.Uccisore wrote:
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 theheads 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:
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:
Yeah.
Uccisore wrote:
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?
|
2415 |
2416 |
615) Hubert Brune, 19.01.2015 (2417-2418)
Danke für Ihre Gästebuch-Einträge.Zu Ihrer Frage:
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 entwicklen. 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.
Zunächst einmal müssen wir uns vergewissern, was unter Individuation genau zu verstehen ist. Individuation ist die Unteilbarmachung, die Sonderung eines Allgemeinen in Indiividuen, 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 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.Ockhamismus nennt sich eine von Wilhelm von Ockham, der lange in München wirkte, begründete Richtung des Nominalismus, gemäß der nur das Einzelne, Individuelle wirklich ist, das Allgemeine dagegen nur als Name oder nur als im Verstand vorkommender Begriff betrachtet wird. Universalien heißen jene Allgemeinbegriffe, die den Gegenstand des die Scholastik durchziehenden Universalienstreites bildeten: Haben die Universalien eine von den individuellen Realitäten unabhängige, selbständige Existenz? Gehen sie ihnen voraus und liegen ihnen zugrunde wie die platonischen Ideen? Oder existieren sie wie die Formen des Aristoteles nur in Verbindung mit den individuellen Wesen? Oder sind sie nur Namen zur Zusammenfassung des Ähnlichen und erst nachträglich von Menschen durch Abstraktion gebildet? Dieses Problem hat nicht nur historische Bedeutung, sondern gehört zu den zeitlosen Fragen der Philosophie.Freundliche Grüße. |
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!
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:
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.
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 oneThe 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:
Do you really not know that?Ravencry wrote:
Their cultures are different, partly very much different, from the Occidental (Faustian) culture!You have no idea of Occidental culture.Ravencry wrote:
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:
What? Where do you live?Ravencry wrote:
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:
This rights can also be interpreted as duties. Nicholas Rockefeller said it, and in that case: he is right.Ravencry wrote:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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?
|
2449 |
....
_________Religion_______
Philosophy_______Sciencebecame
_________Science______
Philosophy_______Religionshall become
_______Philosophy______
Science_________ReligionAnd the latter is how it should be, and indeed has always been esoterically, at least. **
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:
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.
|
2453 |
2454 |
2455 |
2456 |
2457 |
2458 |
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. **
2459 |
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. **
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. **
2460 |
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. **
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. ** **
Once they are gone, shortly thereafter the country will collapse. **
You are preaching the end of the American civilization and if America folds, we pretty much take everyone else with us. **
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. **
Arminius wrote:
»What do high prices do? They fall!« ** **
Not before destroying America. **
Why would a globo necessarily fail? **
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. **
But when these limits are reached, then there may be corrective methods to deal with it's monetary implications. **
My wife and I lead a pretty much middle class existence .... **
==>
|