dedicated to the discussion of the chinese internal martial arts of xingyiquan, baguazhang, taijiquan, related arts, and anything else best discussed over a bottle of rum
Darth Rock&Roll wrote:should they keep trying or should they move on?
But that question can only be answered by the individual him-/herself; our opinion on that does NOT matter at all. I personally would like to think that I would move on. But it doesn't mean someone else would, nor does it make it right, or wrong, or even a "preferred" course of action. "Should" is a funny word...
(I'm not even gonna touch what could be a crazy and endless philosophical debate about what "actually did" and "real" mean, in: "One can disprove or prove that someone actually did something in the physical and real world"... I've neither time nor nearly enough room in my head for these things anymore... )
well there's several ways of knowing someones deeds.
most of it is self evident stuff. Like you watched them do it, the results of their actions is manifest, direct witnesses with no ulterior motivations to gain and so on and so forth.
So, I know the Bohemian Grove exists and I know that it exists to provide a camping and b-b-q experience and to level the ground for the powerful and wealthy to walk on and feel comfortable in with others in order that they can get some work done without a bunch of fawning underlings saying yes all the time or hiding errors or what have you.
believe it or not, wealthy and powerful people are set upon by yes people almost every day. That comes with wealth and power and you know what? It's nice to get away from that shit and hear people express some real points of view and to contradict you if they think you're wrong. It's especially nice to get countrepoints from similar types of people who can actually help you in the decision making process.
Let me say this too. We are each and all born equal but we sure as shit do not stay that way. If you read an I Ching, you will see numerous references to "the superior" man.
You don't become superior by remaining equal with the lowest common denominator. I believe in equality for all as far as social services and considerations go, but I'll be fucked if I'm gonna hire a hs drop out with an authority problem to run my project management office. see what i mean? It works in larger scope that way as well.
Darth Rock&Roll wrote:mike, it's not a problem that you link to the site, it's that you present it as bonafide. It is clearly not bonafide by any stretch of the imagination and borders on fantasy entertainment for the most part.
I don't have a problem with it, so long as it is presented correctly and not as something it isn't. You seem to think that rense is a viable "alternative" news source.
What have I presented from rense as bonafide? I think you're reading too much into too little.
Last edited by Michael on Wed May 30, 2018 12:14 am, edited 3 times in total.
zenshiite wrote:All I'm saying, there are people who seriously believe they are literally eating Christ.
And I find such people to be more than a little out of touch with reality. There are more than a few fundamentalist Christians who feel that witches should be burned or stoned to death beacause "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live". Again, more than a little outta touch...
I tend to agree with you, but that's not the issue. The issue is what they believe. You can't just impose your viewpoint onto a topic because you think the people being discussed wouldn't do something that they say they do, and that's been captured on film and admitted to, because you think it's as silly as Catholics being cannibals.
For those who don't know, the current population of the UK is about 60 million and ranks 46th in the world in pop. density with 246 people / km2 . China is way down the list.
Last edited by Michael on Wed May 30, 2018 12:15 am, edited 2 times in total.
It was shown some time ago that the earth can viably and readily support a population of some 9 to 10 billion humans if managed properly.
However, as we all know, nobody is managing shit.
Don't worry though, countries can be depopulated vis a vis deportation and the rest of the world is being depopulated with war , famine, disease and genocides that have been happening for 20 years or so now. that's why we've stayed fairl flat and under 7 billion for the last 10 years. We should've been at 9 by now otherwise.
Hey Michael, read Swift's "A Modest Proposal". There has always been a cure to the human over-population, if we've got the stomach for it.
Darth, there's a whole school of philosophy devoted to the study of what we mean by "knowing". In general, though, my point to you was that it's relative. you can't "know" if someone has seen God or not, which is why you can't deny someone's supernatural experience based on "your" knowledge. It's like telling someone you know what he thinks. You could be right; you could be wrong.
Anyway, about "superiority". I don't believe in striving for "equality" either. Then again, I don't question whether I'm the superior or inferior man or belong to an inferior or superior group. I'm not that insecure with myself or my position.
Nobody's asking you to hire an unqualified person or that doing so makes him equal or that you could hire him makes you in any way superior, especially as a person or intellectually or any other way.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
How about the transpersonal experience that isn't real despite it being real to someone else? :-p
IE: Objective reality trumps the transpersonal experience because the person who had say a vision, really doesn't know if that vision was for real or merely some crossed neuropathy, lack of sleep, mild saratonin increase and dopamine drops mixed with emotional imbalance. lol
ergo, someone hearing god in their head is indeed "crazy". At least as crazy as being told by a dog to kill your neighbours or being told by satan to eat a baby.
ergo, someone hearing god in their head is indeed "crazy". At least as crazy as being told by a dog to kill your neighbours or being told by satan to eat a baby.
The question is how do you know it as in their head? Or, its cause? A guy named Jaynes wrote a book about 30 years ago arguing that the ancients (Egyptians, specifically) could not separate the "voices" in their minds from external voices. (I thought it was stupid then, and still do; but that's the theory). So, the Egyptian priests "really" thought that they were hearing God talking to them. Hey, it's not unlike the Native spirit quest when you listen for your ... totem or spiritual advisor. Anyway, Janes wrote that these primitive peoples had not developed bicameral brains, and therefore "consciousness" as we know it. Iirc, he argues that the Greeks were the first to do that. Aw, I had to look it up or you probably wouldn't believe. Here's the cite http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2247 ... meral_Mind
Again, I disagree with his thesis on general principle. ymmv.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
”I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled ...”
As to my own part, having turned my thoughts for many years upon this important subject, and maturely weighed the several schemes of other projectors, I have always found them grossly mistaken in the computation. It is true, a child just dropped from its dam may be supported by her milk for a solar year, with little other nourishment; at most not above the value of 2s., which the mother may certainly get, or the value in scraps, by her lawful occupation of begging; and it is exactly at one year old that I propose to provide for them in such a manner as instead of being a charge upon their parents or the parish, or wanting food and raiment for the rest of their lives, they shall on the contrary contribute to the feeding, and partly to the clothing, of many thousands.
There is likewise another great advantage in my scheme, that it will prevent those voluntary abortions, and that horrid practice of women murdering their bastard children, alas! too frequent among us! sacrificing the poor innocent babes I doubt more to avoid the expense than the shame, which would move tears and pity in the most savage and inhuman breast.
"A man is rich when he has time and freewill. How he chooses to invest both will determine the return on his investment."
At 4 minutes 25 seconds into this video, the Secretary of States compares the eugenics advocate and racist Margaret Sanger to Thomas Jefferson. In fact, she seems to think Jefferson was a lesser person than Sanger because he held slaves.
During discussion with Congressman Jeff Fortenberry, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton praises Margaret Sanger.
Are we to assume Hillary wants to kill Africans and African-Americans?
In 1939, Clinton’s heroine said:
“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social service backgrounds and with engaging personalities … We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.”
There is a straight line from Sanger and the eugenicists and the Nazis.
“Several prominent families are responsible for funding and promoting eugenics in America, namely the Rockefeller, Carnegie, Harriman, and Osborn families,” writes Daniel Taylor. “Two families, the Rockefellers and the Osborns, are particularly significant. John D. Rockefeller Sr. contributed a large amount of money to build the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in the early 1900’s, which housed the Eugenics Records Office from 1910-1944. Rockefeller influence also spread overseas to Germany, where the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry, and the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Eugenics, Anthropology and Human Heredity resided. Much of the money used to run these facilities came from Rockefeller. These institutes became centers for Nazi eugenics programs during the reign of Adolf Hitler.”
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is set to receive the highest award given by Planned Parenthood Federation of America — the Margaret Sanger Award, named for the organization’s founder, a noted eugenicist. The award will be presented at a gala event in Houston, Texas this evening. Co-hosting the event will be America Ferreira, the lead on the “Ugly Betty” television show, and PPFA President Cecile Richards.
Margaret Sanger, a former Catholic, founded Planned Parenthood in 1916 and was notable during the eugenics movement that with its pseudo-science influenced state legislature and local jurisdictions to neuter young people deemed racially unfit. Nazi Germany’s racial policies and extermination of Jews and so-called “life not fit for life” were also influenced by the movement and the lead organization – the American Eugenics Society.
Marjorie Dannenfelser, President of the Susan B. Anthony List, a prolife organization spoke about Secretary Clinton and her acceptance of the Sanger Award. Said Dannenfelser, “If Secretary Clinton were fully aware of the eugenicist past of Margaret Sanger, I cannot believe that she would be accepting an award in her name. It is in fact shocking that the award still bear’s Sanger’s name.”
Sanger broadly supported the Eugenics movement, advocating for a superior race that was free of poor, immigrant, and minority citizens. She even spoke at a rally of the Klu Klux Klan. Despite this evidence, Planned Parenthood, the nation’s leading abortion provider, has done little to distance itself from Sanger’s legacy.”
Last year’s controversy involving a Planned Parenthood employee accepting donations earmarked specifically for the abortion of African American children draws attention to an important reality for the nation’s largest abortion provider. Planned Parenthood Federation of America needs to be very careful to steer clear of any appearance of adhering to Sanger’s pro-eugenics philosophy. And this ought to begin by renaming their highest award.”
Some quotes of Margaret Sanger illustrate her attitudes towards race and eugenics,
“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members” (Sanger’s letter to Clarence J. Gamble, 1939, December)
Margaret Sanger referred to immigrants and Catholics as reckless breeders, writing in her book, Pivot of Civilization, “[They're] an unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all.” (Sanger, p.187).
“The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it,” Margaret Sanger wrote in her 1920 book Women and the New Race (Sanger, p. 63).
Last year an Idaho Planned Parenthood employee was disciplined for accepting a donation earmarked for the abortion of African Americans. According to a transcript of the call, Autumn Kersey, vice president of development and marketing for Planned Parenthood of Idaho, took a call from an actor saying he wanted his money to be used to eliminate unborn black babies because “the less black kids out there the better.” Kersey responded: “Understandable, understandable. … Excuse my hesitation, this is the first time I’ve had a donor call and make this kind of request, so I’m excited and want to make sure I don’t leave anything out.”
)
