♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jul 11, 2015 17:55:28 GMT
The American Revolution was founded on the principle of "Separatism", which respects ethnic, religious and cultural diversity and allowed local government to govern local communities.
The bloodiest and most genocidal political ideology in history is "Assimilationism", which mandates strong central government and conformity + servitude to it's laws and demands. Maoism, Stalinism, the Armenian genocide, Pol Pot's rule and even the sugared up "political correctness" movement are examples of this toxic ideology.
Supremacism, a mixture of brutal Darwinism with an attempt to resurrect and modernise ancient political systems has secured 2nd place in criminal genocide. National socialism, fascism and the Japanese Empire under Hirohito are examples of this.
Both of these toxic and dysfunctional systems typically invade nations heavily populated by people who do not to submit to their rule.
Big Lin blc kronks DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) @menantol Scottish Lassie mikemarshall iamjumbo
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Lassie on Jul 12, 2015 3:28:17 GMT
The American Revolution was founded on the principle of "Seperatism", which respects ethnic, religious and cultural diversity and allowed local government to govern local communities.
The bloodiest and most genocidal political ideology in history is "Assimilationism", which mandates strong central government and conformity + servitude to it's laws and demands. Maoism, Stalinism, the Armenian genocide, Pol Pot's rule and even the sugared up "political correctness" movement are examples of this toxic ideology.
Supremacism, a mixture of brutal Darwinism with an attempt to resurrect and modernise ancient political systems has secured 2nd place in criminal genocide. National socialism, fascism and the Japanese Empire under Hirohito are examples of this.
Both of these toxic and dysfunctional systems typically invade nations heavily populated by people who do not to submit to their rule.
Big Lin blc kronks DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) @menantol Scottish Lassie mikemarshall iamjumbo Hi Anna, since when has Darwinism been thought of as brutal? Would you like to explain?
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jul 12, 2015 4:38:54 GMT
Certainly Scottish Lassie ! It depends upon how you interpret the Darwinist concept of the "survival of the fittest". Hitler's interpretation fitted this brutal interpretation. When the war was lost and the Russians were closing in on Berlin he was quoted as saying in effect that the Germans had shown themselves less fit to survive and didn't deserve to survive.
...Not to mention his brutal treatment of certain ethnicities which he justified in the context of Darwinism.
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Lassie on Jul 12, 2015 14:22:54 GMT
Certainly Scottish Lassie ! It depends upon how you interpret the Darwinist concept of the "survival of the fittest". Hitler's interpretation fitted this brutal interpretation. When the war was lost and the Russians were closing in on Berlin he was quoted as saying in effect that the Germans had shown themselves less fit to survive and didn't deserve to survive.
...Not to mention his brutal treatment of certain ethnicities which he justified in the context of Darwinism. Hi Anna, I thought it only had to do with natural selection, not with brutality as such. Surely it is not a case of ' might over right '?
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jul 12, 2015 14:59:04 GMT
Scottish Lassie since you believe that wrongful actions cause "bad karma" your interpretation of Darwinism may be different. From a strictly scientific basis only observable data, which can be repeated under controlled circumstances is admissible. The assummption that wrongful actions by the nature of God's plan or the design of the universe will return to whoever caused it would be nothing more than an unsupportable and unscientific assumption.
The materialist atheist Darwinists usually concede that "might makes right" is an element of survival and the cynical quote below applies to this brutal interpretation of Darwinism. .
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2015 22:06:27 GMT
Certainly Scottish Lassie ! It depends upon how you interpret the Darwinist concept of the "survival of the fittest". Hitler's interpretation fitted this brutal interpretation. When the war was lost and the Russians were closing in on Berlin he was quoted as saying in effect that the Germans had shown themselves less fit to survive and didn't deserve to survive.
...Not to mention his brutal treatment of certain ethnicities which he justified in the context of Darwinism. Anna, you and I more or less agree in this thread, but one area (although it may be more selected word usage) I will reword from my perspective, that is that Darwinism is a matter of brutalism and might makes right. It really isn't that at all. It is a matter of specific species, in a specific place and time, fits the (then) elements in that environment. That species attributes that work well are the ones which tend to get passed along to off spring. That as the environment changes those species with the attributes which can add change to fit will survive. Of course it really isn't that simple. During the last decades (30 odd years or so) adding to the concepts of species evolution has been Complexity Science which seems to provide answers that evolutionary theory left as gaping holes. Complexity Science has added such elements as emergence, tipping points, the wisdom of crowds, power laws, scale-free networks, as well as six degrees of separation and these terms are now becoming part of the mainstream. And as these terms have joined our popular lexicon this new(er) perspective has found its place in academia. While evolution has worked (so the theory goes) because in the broad ranges of attributes as defined in the RNA, changes can be predicted and even molded for better adaptability. Complexity Science represents changes not anticipated. That is, other pressures can cause unexpected changes in a species. These changes are not (it appears) limited to genetic attributes but also seem to show up in such as societal systems within a species and between species. Brute force is clearly not required for species survival.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jul 13, 2015 0:34:41 GMT
Certainly Scottish Lassie ! It depends upon how you interpret the Darwinist concept of the "survival of the fittest". Hitler's interpretation fitted this brutal interpretation. When the war was lost and the Russians were closing in on Berlin he was quoted as saying in effect that the Germans had shown themselves less fit to survive and didn't deserve to survive.
...Not to mention his brutal treatment of certain ethnicities which he justified in the context of Darwinism. Anna, you and I more or less agree in this thread, but one area (although it may be more selected word usage) I will reword from my perspective, that is that Darwinism is a matter of brutalism and might makes right. It really isn't that at all. It is a matter of specific species, in a specific place and time, fits the (then) elements in that environment. That species attributes that work well are the ones which tend to get passed along to off spring. That as the environment changes those species with the attributes which can add change to fit will survive. Of course it really isn't that simple. During the last decades (30 odd years or so) adding to the concepts of species evolution has been Complexity Science which seems to provide answers that evolutionary theory left as gaping holes. Complexity Science has added such elements as emergence, tipping points, the wisdom of crowds, power laws, scale-free networks, as well as six degrees of separation and these terms are now becoming part of the mainstream. And as these terms have joined our popular lexicon this new(er) perspective has found its place in academia. While evolution has worked (so the theory goes) because in the broad ranges of attributes as defined in the RNA, changes can be predicted and even molded for better adaptability. Complexity Science represents changes not anticipated. That is, other pressures can cause unexpected changes in a species. These changes are not (it appears) limited to genetic attributes but also seem to show up in such as societal systems within a species and between species. Brute force is clearly not required for species survival. Happy Monday @menantol ! I really don't have any strong personal feelings about Darwinism and see it as just one attempt to explain things. It can't be denied that some people interpret Darwinism as a ruthless belief and believe in this interpretation too. I would say that Darwinism can be individually interpreted in many ways just like Christianity can. Whether Hitler's quote below is a misuse of Darwinism ( evolution ) or just one of the many interpretations is a subject where I tend to stand on the sidelines.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2015 1:54:15 GMT
Anna, you and I more or less agree in this thread, but one area (although it may be more selected word usage) I will reword from my perspective, that is that Darwinism is a matter of brutalism and might makes right. It really isn't that at all. It is a matter of specific species, in a specific place and time, fits the (then) elements in that environment. That species attributes that work well are the ones which tend to get passed along to off spring. That as the environment changes those species with the attributes which can add change to fit will survive. Of course it really isn't that simple. During the last decades (30 odd years or so) adding to the concepts of species evolution has been Complexity Science which seems to provide answers that evolutionary theory left as gaping holes. Complexity Science has added such elements as emergence, tipping points, the wisdom of crowds, power laws, scale-free networks, as well as six degrees of separation and these terms are now becoming part of the mainstream. And as these terms have joined our popular lexicon this new(er) perspective has found its place in academia. While evolution has worked (so the theory goes) because in the broad ranges of attributes as defined in the RNA, changes can be predicted and even molded for better adaptability. Complexity Science represents changes not anticipated. That is, other pressures can cause unexpected changes in a species. These changes are not (it appears) limited to genetic attributes but also seem to show up in such as societal systems within a species and between species. Brute force is clearly not required for species survival. Happy Monday @menantol ! I really don't have any strong personal feelings about Darwinism and see it as just one attempt to explain things. It can't be denied that some people interpret Darwinism as a ruthless belief and believe in this interpretation too. I would say that Darwinism can be individually interpreted in many ways just like Christianity can. Whether Hitler's quote below is a misuse of Darwinism ( evolution ) or just one of the many interpretations is a subject where I tend to stand on the sidelines. Hitler made some assumptions that were agenda oriented and not based in any scientific reality. Primarily his assumption that nature has a goal of establishing an evolutionary higher stage of being, has no foundation. The environment which various species live within is purely chance. Tomorrow our world could be hit by an object from space that would drastically change our environment in which the human species would be at risk of extinction. Or possibly the output of our Sun might drop and thereby reduce the average temperature on Earth, enough so that we enter another major ice age. There could be a pandemic that goes world wide killing hundreds of millions. These are only three possibilities of environmental changes that could threaten the very existence of the human race and none of it will establish a higher stage of being. Rather it is merely a question of whether this species, or any species, can continue to exist.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jul 13, 2015 14:41:10 GMT
True @menantol chance plays a big role in at least the basic form of Darwinism. How much can "human intervention" influence evolution though? You will always find these people who are convinced that they have the correct vision of "guiding evolution". With no belief in God, karma or anything capable of stopping or punishing them they will procede. I agree that the convictions of Hitler, etc. are not scientifically founded, but using limited amoral science it can't be proven or demonstrated that such people are wrong.
Even though the founder of Darwinism disagreed with Hitler his statement quoted below is likewise from a cold scientific viewpoint excluding religion and morality nothing more than an assumption.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2015 15:32:47 GMT
True @menantol chance plays a big role in at least the basic form of Darwinism. How much can "human intervention" influence evolution though? You will always find these people who are convinced that they have the correct vision of "guiding evolution". With no belief in God, karma or anything capable of stopping or punishing them they will procede. I agree that the convictions of Hitler, etc. are not scientifically founded, but using limited amoral science it can't be proven or demonstrated that such people are wrong.
Even though the founder of Darwinism disagreed with Hitler his statement quoted below is likewise from a cold scientific viewpoint excluding religion and morality nothing more than an assumption. Anna, from one perspective nearly all assertions are assumptions. Defining Darwin's words, as being “ . . . from a cold scientific viewpoint excluding religion and morality nothing more than an assumption. . . “ is an unrealistic demeaning of scientific study of comparative analysis. However I suggest that his words are less an assumption than those assertions guided by the faith of religion and morality. If faith is to be the guiding factor, I suggest that the resulting concept of evolution as being guided by the Queen of Hearts from Alice through the Looking Glass. More over, I suggest that his (Darwin) views on evolution are not cold, but simply conclusions based on observable facts. On the other hand conclusions guided by, or based on, religion and morality lead to ideas which are illogical and as such harmful to others. For example, the religion and morality of Islam. Darwin himself (as well as others of his time) didn't believe that evolution (in a simplistic definition) was 'the' singular answer. This is one reason that Complexity Science has provided a somewhat differing and exciting perspective. Yes, some people have acquired (only in their mind) the mistaken belief that they can alter (speed up) evolutionary process to some idealist model. However, that manipulation has some beneficial results. Altering grain attributes has increased grain yields many fold. Without this alteration we could not feed the billions of the world population. So too with cows and milk production. As also with disease resistance in crops.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jul 13, 2015 18:44:57 GMT
True @menantol chance plays a big role in at least the basic form of Darwinism. How much can "human intervention" influence evolution though? You will always find these people who are convinced that they have the correct vision of "guiding evolution". With no belief in God, karma or anything capable of stopping or punishing them they will procede. I agree that the convictions of Hitler, etc. are not scientifically founded, but using limited amoral science it can't be proven or demonstrated that such people are wrong.
Even though the founder of Darwinism disagreed with Hitler his statement quoted below is likewise from a cold scientific viewpoint excluding religion and morality nothing more than an assumption. Anna, from one perspective nearly all assertions are assumptions. Defining Darwin's words, as being “ . . . from a cold scientific viewpoint excluding religion and morality nothing more than an assumption. . . “ is an unrealistic demeaning of scientific study of comparative analysis. However I suggest that his words are less an assumption than those assertions guided by the faith of religion and morality. If faith is to be the guiding factor, I suggest that the resulting concept of evolution as being guided by the Queen of Hearts from Alice through the Looking Glass. More over, I suggest that his (Darwin) views on evolution are not cold, but simply conclusions based on observable facts. On the other hand conclusions guided by, or based on, religion and morality lead to ideas which are illogical and as such harmful to others. For example, the religion and morality of Islam. Darwin himself (as well as others of his time) didn't believe that evolution (in a simplistic definition) was 'the' singular answer. This is one reason that Complexity Science has provided a somewhat differing and exciting perspective. Yes, some people have acquired (only in their mind) the mistaken belief that they can alter (speed up) evolutionary process to some idealist model. However, that manipulation has some beneficial results. Altering grain attributes has increased grain yields many fold. Without this alteration we could not feed the billions of the world population. So too with cows and milk production. As also with disease resistance in crops. I'm not saying that Darwin's assumptions were not plausible and by "cold" I mean the exclusion of emotional bias and sugarcoating.
Claiming that the life form most responsive to change has the best chance for survival seems to be a truism which can often be a fact, but not always.
Rats for instance are very responsive to change. If you have a rat infested home and try to poison them with arsenic or strychnine poisoned food a few rats will die from this, but will transmit a warning to other rats not to eat the poisoned food before they die.
If you call the exterminator he may place cyanide in the home. Rats being very responsive to change will even at a distance sense the rising vapors of the cyanide gas, which most life forms won't notice. They will instinctively be attracted to the rising gas as is their nature and when they come to source they sniff the gas and die immediately and painlessly without warning the other rats which will pass by the dead rats and likewise sucumb to the cyanide.
In this case being responsive to change leads to death.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2015 21:18:19 GMT
Nice description Anna. It comes down to the rats not having the attributes to survive the cyanide in that described environment and therefore will not pass on to their offspring survival attributes. Very evolutionary in pattern.
When including Complexity Science it could be possible that a rat form could jump that barrier and develop awareness of the cyanide and therefore stay away from it.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Dec 17, 2015 10:28:14 GMT
Happy Monday @menantol ! I really don't have any strong personal feelings about Darwinism and see it as just one attempt to explain things. It can't be denied that some people interpret Darwinism as a ruthless belief and believe in this interpretation too. I would say that Darwinism can be individually interpreted in many ways just like Christianity can. Whether Hitler's quote below is a misuse of Darwinism ( evolution ) or just one of the many interpretations is a subject where I tend to stand on the sidelines. Hitler made some assumptions that were agenda oriented and not based in any scientific reality. Primarily his assumption that nature has a goal of establishing an evolutionary higher stage of being, has no foundation. The environment which various species live within is purely chance. Tomorrow our world could be hit by an object from space that would drastically change our environment in which the human species would be at risk of extinction. Or possibly the output of our Sun might drop and thereby reduce the average temperature on Earth, enough so that we enter another major ice age. There could be a pandemic that goes world wide killing hundreds of millions. These are only three possibilities of environmental changes that could threaten the very existence of the human race and none of it will establish a higher stage of being. Rather it is merely a question of whether this species, or any species, can continue to exist. yep.. however, there is NO place in evolution which takes into account man's inherent ability to adapt. obviously, your scenarios would result in the death of millions, probably the vast majority of humans on earth. however, unless the object from space totally destroyed the earth, soome would adapt to the change, and eventually, that change would become normal life
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jan 13, 2016 14:42:23 GMT
The problem is that Social Darwinism is not the same as Darwinism in the evolutionary biology sense. Unfortunately they were deliberately confused by the eugenics lobby and like most bad ideas picked up by the Nazis and others of that ilk.
And I don't support separatism or assimilation; I believe in diversity which means mutual respect, mutual interaction and the preservation of unity within diversity.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2016 12:17:03 GMT
the problem now seems to be the lack of mutual respect, we bend over backwards in this country to accept different faiths, cultures etc to the extend we deny our own and what good has it done us ? the rise of ISIS is the answer to that one!
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jan 14, 2016 15:34:08 GMT
the problem now seems to be the lack of mutual respect, we bend over backwards in this country to accept different faiths, cultures etc to the extend we deny our own and what good has it done us ? the rise of ISIS is the answer to that one! The baddies among the immigrants are simply consumers and by nature have no respect for us.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jan 14, 2016 23:09:05 GMT
the problem now seems to be the lack of mutual respect, we bend over backwards in this country to accept different faiths, cultures etc to the extend we deny our own and what good has it done us ? the rise of ISIS is the answer to that one! I don't think that a) we DO 'deny our own' culture; b) the problem is that ISIS and their mob DON'T believe in multiculturalism; they believe in MONOCULTURALISM. They are the mirror image of Breivik, the BNP and other nutters. They are scum and they have no respect for ANYONE - not even fellow Muslims. As most of what they do is FORBIDDEN in the Quran it's arguable whether they have the SLIGHTEST right to call themselves Muslims. Instead of 'Islamic State' a more accurate description of them would be 'Satanic State.'
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jan 15, 2016 1:06:43 GMT
the problem now seems to be the lack of mutual respect, we bend over backwards in this country to accept different faiths, cultures etc to the extend we deny our own and what good has it done us ? the rise of ISIS is the answer to that one! I don't think that a) we DO 'deny our own' culture; b) the problem is that ISIS and their mob DON'T believe in multiculturalism; they believe in MONOCULTURALISM. They are the mirror image of Breivik, the BNP and other nutters. They are scum and they have no respect for ANYONE - not even fellow Muslims. As most of what they do is FORBIDDEN in the Quran it's arguable whether they have the SLIGHTEST right to call themselves Muslims. Instead of 'Islamic State' a more accurate description of them would be 'Satanic State.' Big Lin the ISIS nutters can be mentioned with Breivik, but not with any legal, non criminal ( in the judical sense ) political party in the Western world.
It's obvious that Western military intervention and the removing or weakening the previous governments, which suppressed the Muslim extremists of this ilk has caused the problems we have now in Syria, Iraq, etc... People want to believe that it's simply US + Western European government stupidity and incompetence behind the intervention, but I believe there is an agenda to start a major war against the Muslim nations by enabling ISIS to rise to some degree of power. This war will only benefit Plutocrat bankers and the One World government agenda.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2016 13:39:20 GMT
the problem now seems to be the lack of mutual respect, we bend over backwards in this country to accept different faiths, cultures etc to the extend we deny our own and what good has it done us ? the rise of ISIS is the answer to that one! I don't think that a) we DO 'deny our own' culture; b) the problem is that ISIS and their mob DON'T believe in multiculturalism; they believe in MONOCULTURALISM. They are the mirror image of Breivik, the BNP and other nutters. They are scum and they have no respect for ANYONE - not even fellow Muslims. As most of what they do is FORBIDDEN in the Quran it's arguable whether they have the SLIGHTEST right to call themselves Muslims. Instead of 'Islamic State' a more accurate description of them would be 'Satanic State.' we do deny our own culture when we can't even say Happy Christmas ,! and this is what is happening , at work it was " festive holidays" not Chrismtas holiday
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Jan 15, 2016 16:33:43 GMT
the problem now seems to be the lack of mutual respect, we bend over backwards in this country to accept different faiths, cultures etc to the extend we deny our own and what good has it done us ? the rise of ISIS is the answer to that one! I don't think that a) we DO 'deny our own' culture; b) the problem is that ISIS and their mob DON'T believe in multiculturalism; they believe in MONOCULTURALISM. They are the mirror image of Breivik, the BNP and other nutters. They are scum and they have no respect for ANYONE - not even fellow Muslims. As most of what they do is FORBIDDEN in the Quran it's arguable whether they have the SLIGHTEST right to call themselves Muslims. Instead of 'Islamic State' a more accurate description of them would be 'Satanic State.' Fully agree with Big Lin on this issue. ISIL, or Daesh as I prefer to call them, is an Islamic cult which has pulled quotes out of the Quran to support their warped agenda. Daesh claims to be about religion but they are really about power and control. Their goal is to establish a Caliphate ruling over all Muslims worldwide with our friend Al Baghdadi the potentate in charge. They're trying to convince more moderate Muslims that their version of Islam is the valid one. By committing terrorist acts, like those in Paris, San Bernardino, and Istanbul, they invite western retaliation which they then publicize as attacks against Islam. Those attacks are an integral part of their recruiting strategy. Islam is just their vehicle for gaining power. There have been quite a few Christian cults over the years where similarly power hungry manipulators found quotes in the bible to support a warped agenda. Remember Jim Jones and the Jonestown Kool-Aid episode in South America for one. David Koresh and his band of nutters was another. Daesh has been more successful than those two, that's the main difference. By the way, the reason I prefer to use the term 'Daesh' is that it is a derogatory name that they hate.
|
|