Goldenages

The root of all evil is collectivism. It has several brands, but always the same course of action: A few sacrifice many for an alleged greater good. regards Andi

Speed kills. One´s opponents The nomenklatura over here in Europe did not yet realize fully whats going on. They still pretend that the world is the same as before the migrants came, and before Donald Trump became president. So those wannabes do what they always do, inflate their egos an virtual problems such as climate change, futile regulations, and hunt for a safe, warm, well payed place in an office, and blank out reality. But reality will strike them like an iceberg. So from my point of view - keep going regards Andi

Hi fellows, as no one should surprise, there are lot of discussions in Europe about Donald Trump. Recently I found an article about Steve Bannon, now member of the National Security Council. According to this article, Steve Bannon said: "I am a Leninist. Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and thats also my goal." And also: "Darkness is good. Darth Vader. Satan. Thats power." Here ist the link to the article (german): http://diepresse.com/home/ausland/aussenpolitik/5162258/Trumps-Apokalyptiker-im-Oval-Office So maybe you could help me out a bit. Is that true, a joke, a lie? regards Andi

Minute 11, Stefan: I think Rand is very clear on that point. While of course it could be ones goal to supress all around you, the initiation of force is not allowed. You should treat others like a merchant does: with respect, voluntary interaction, no one demands a victim, and no one is victimized. Minute 13, Stefan: "... you dont have to live as a man, but you cannot live as anything else". I think this sentence of Rand is, hmm, somewhat unlucky. Cause thus she denies the bad characters in Atlas Shrugged being human. While in the context of the book I guess its clear how its meant, this is certainly not a good idea. Til now I did not dig too deep into UPB. What I think is that if the power of central banking is removed from the state, and the state is driven as company, meaning that there is a certain amount of money to fullfill the duties for citizens (police, law, army) and not a cent more (unless voluntarily) the main trouble with state power would be gone. regards Andi

Yes, should be owning. English ist no my mother tongue. I would say, if its true that mammon or wealth or money - in one word, value - is the result of a reasonable minds action, there is nothing wrong to love it. To create value is life. I love to live. So I cannot see a strawman here. And again, as mentioned before - its all about value, and value can be stored in money, but not necessarily. To have a familiy, friends, a safe environment and much more - that all are values, that usually are not found, but produced, and maintained - by man. regards Andi

Now tell me, what is wrong to earn money and become wealthy in a free market? I am shure we agree on the point that money or wealth or power must not be accumulated by coersion, i.e. taxes, robbery, and so on. But he who earns money in a free market can only do so when offering values to others. Those others, too, are trading voluntarily, also offering values, for mutual benefit. This is a great and peaceful principle, in fact it is the one and only peaceful principle that rises prosperity for all involved. By the way, why did Jesus never mention it? As mentioned in the previous post, money is just a place holder for value. Values can not be found, they have to be produced. In fact no money is needed to get wealthy, if I need shoes and you need bread, and you have shoes and I have bread, we exchange, and both of us get wealthier. Its just very impractical, while one can exchange half a bread, only one shoe is certainly less than half the value of a pair of shoes. If its said that owing money is a sin, what is actually said is - producing values is a sin. For producing values one need reason - so reason is a sin. To act reasonable you need to think - so thinking is a sin. Since only man is able to act as described, what it actually means is - man is a sin. And here we find the cause, why, without exception, all collectivistic ideas, including religion, hate money. regards Andi

Money is value. More exactly: Real money (not Dollars or Euro) is value. This money earned in a free market represents the value you achieved. And this value is, as you described, usually robbed. I guess nobody ever gave a better answer than Franciso d´Anconia (Atlas Shrugged): regards Andi

I would not say that I know whats the cause or causes, however I would like to add some thoughts: - While the party of Merkel is called christian, democratic, and right, its neither of them. Yes some or many politicians are, but they keep their mouths shut, nobody wants to be called a right extremist. - Merkel was born and raised in the DDR, eastern germany. She was active member in the communistic party there. Together with the fact that she never really was abroad, never collected valid real data outside of her world, her attitude to migrants could only be communistic - all people are the same, we just tell them what to do and they will make formidable citizens. -Germany has by far the strongest economics in Europe. In the strange socialistic logic of the EU Germany is accused of endangering EU economics because they have too many exports, causing an imbalance to other countrys. So the migrants costs could be a means to weaken economics, causing more equity. While its true that it was claimed that the migrants will add very soon cause they will work hard and pay taxes, I guess - except for a few nobrainers - everybody knew that this was propaganda. - Yes the two mentioned causes, votes and debt, are very reasonable. regards Andi

Its not surprising that religious people don´t do bad things because they fear divine punishment. But I guess there is more to say. Czechia, as an atheist country, keeps the borders closed for immigrants. This is not compatible with the claim that christian countrys do best in the migrant crisis. Fear of god as guide for moral behavior means less reason as guide for moral behavior. While reason never allows to initiate violence, god does. If anger overwhelms your reasonable mind and you do bad, you have the insight that it was bad when your brain rules again. As a believer its easier to justify your bad behavior. Its very easy for state power to exploit believers. Have a look at the idea of hell and purgatory: Sinners have to spent a certain time in purgatory in order to purge. But they also can purge already during lifetime, e.g. when they spend money to the church. Or when they purge on the torture rack. You can even tell the torturer that he does, in fact, a good thing when he tantalizes his victims, because they more they scream now the less time they will spent in hell. To make man believe that evil actions are in fact good actions can never be done with reason. You need religion for this. IS is a classical example. regards Andi

Just ask them why they won´t organize a march for the victims of the terror, e.g. in Europe. Lefts always demonstrate against virtual dangers. Its more safe and replaces brain with wellness feelings. I have never seen any of this cowards demonstrate against real dangers. regards Andi

Hope he does not need a shield. I always considered the US as a somewhat better and more free version of Europe. And once more I find this confirmed. So I keep fingers crossed that at least half the promises are held - it will certainly have influence over here. regards Andi

I think it does. During the last years, if not decades, a default mindset of "we are guilty whatever happens" was created. So politicians can claim really strange things: Islamists hate us, because we are ugly capitalists. If we just shared our wealth, they will stop the terror. If there is a hunger crisis somewhere in Afrika, its our guilt because the CO2 led to drought. We must not eat so much meat, cause that causes an increase in CO2. Vegetarian, or even Vegan is the hype today. We must not drive car, because of CO2. Just to name a few - in any case the state justifies more and more intervention. But I guess the pendulum swings back already. regards Andi

Ayn Rand the saviour? Uhhh, if she could hear that, she would get mad. Nobody will come to save us. Ayn Rand just came to say that nobody will come No, I always loved thinking and doing. I always loved to find out how things worked, from disassembling of toys to see whats inside, from physics to more abstract topics like philosophy and history, what drives man and why he did what he did. Ayn Rand, for shure much smarter than me, just thought my thoughts to their logical end. So many years after my personal enlightenment, where I just found one step, she built the highway. Its a pity that I never heard of her in school, although we had a very dedicated teacher. But Objectivism in a socialistic school system? Its easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle... Yes of course there are kind, intelligent, and savvy Christians. Never denied that. And in the rural communities over here this (loose) christian world is pretty intact. But I know better regards Andi

I always thought that man had an innate demand for an imaginary friend. Back then when mankind was evolving, life was short and dangerous, maybe it was an evolutionary advantage to have an innate principle of hope. But when I think of it, it is very plausible to assume that if no one tells you of god, you very likely dont invent one on your own. At least now in our safe man-made environment. It was easy for me to get rid of that stuff. Back then in school the religious instruction teacher gave homework - within one week, he told, we should pray and listen, cause for shure god will give us a sign or tell us something. One week later I did not see signs, and no god talked to me. But surprisingly, he did to all my classmates. One even claimed, that an angel stopped by and lauded him When it was my turn, I told the teacher what happened to me, namely nothing. He got mad at me, claimed I was a sinner and for shure did something wrong. After school, my classmates laughed and said, that of course all the storys they told were freely invented. I had of course no idea of Objectivism back then, but I was shure that if religion cheered the liars and punished the honest, this idea is a complete and utter failure. Nevertheless I learned a lot from this event. I went home and felt extraordinarily happy and proud of me - because my own thaughts had guided me to a very convincingly conclusion. So at least I owe religion my love to logical conclusions regards Andi

Hello, what I would try is to figure out what is exactly that she does not like. Just to say I "do not like" is an emotion, and the thing is to figure out what drives it. Maybe she sees Stefan as a kind of Guru, and is afraid that your personality changes. Maybe she is jealous, cause the time spent with the videos is not spent with her. There are 1 million other things that can be the cause- if she is an honest person, as you described, it should be possible to pinpoint the problem. regards Andi

Yes, the eastern part, the Byzantin Empire, survived, as we all know it is of course possible (and very handsome for the rulers) to drive an empire with a christian state religion. But before, they put the western part over the edge. When things were more or less settled again the ruler in the western part was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoderic_the_Great Theoderic the Great, King of the Ostrogoth. He was christian, but he believed in a slightly different form of christianity, in Arianism. There are some minor differences to what is teached today, the arian believed that Jesus is not the son of god, but was created by god. Well thats a huge difference, isn´t it? As things go everytime, when people are convinced to hold an absolute truth given by god, this difference was enough to declare war. Imperator Justinian, head of the eastern part, and especially his priests, who wanted to posses the heart and soul of europe - Rome - defeated the army of the western part after many years of war. The region of todays Italy was completly devastated, uncounted victims starved to death, numerous regions completely depopulated. But the "real" christians now possesed Rome. Sic transit gloria mundi. What will save the west is virtus, which means courage, competence, virtue, manfulness. What could destroy the west - again - is monotheism. regards Andi

Paganism did not survive because it was wiped out with the whole power of the state. You know why the early Christs were hunted down by the Roman Empire? I mean Paganism is inherent tolerant, one God more ore less did never matter. The Romans built temples in the conquered countries, temples for the foreign gods and worshipped them together with their own gods. So why were early Christs subject to manhunt and punished in cruel ways? If there was anybody back then who were really experts in ruling matters it were the roman emperors. The roman emperors analyzed the structure of the new religion and found it a dangerous threat to the regime they held: One god, who was claimed to be omnipotent, infallible, omniscient. And this god has to be obeyed unquestioned. After the first christians would rather die in the Arena (ad bestias - meaning they were dinner for lions) than to convert back to paganism, the ruling class came to the conclusion that such behavior can be used to the advantage of the rulers. Imagine citizens who obey the word of the emperor unquestioned. Imagine an army that is invincibly brave cause they know, when they get killed they go to heaven instantly. So when the imperium was in trouble, Theodosius (first Constantin, but he was only halfhearted) tried this new asset called Christianity. It doomed Europe for more than a 1000 years. regards Andi

Put in short, the Club of Rome is a club who frighten people with apocalyptic forecasts to justify intervention of the state in more and more aspects of life. In 1970´is and 1980´is they forecasted that the seven seas on earth will be without oxygen, without life but full of poison in the year 2000. Then they forecasted an Ice Age, latest in 2010. Soon thereafter they switched to global warming, I guess simply because that justifies more state intervention than an Ice Age. But who knows. Also in the 80´is they predicted that the air will not be breathable any more (less oxygen or too much fine dust. Dont know any more) Then they forecasted that we will run out of main resources latest 2010. And they forecasted about one billon people dying of starvation in the undeveloped countries in the year 2000. All of them of course proofed wrong. The reason why there was no mass starvation in 2000 were the improvements in agriculture, of course invented in the West. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug is one of the unhonored heros, denied as much as possible to give nobody in the West a reason to be proud of something. The nomenklatura decided that we are all guilty just by mere existence. Thus we must not know that western genius saved a billion lives, but we must know that we are guilty of emitting CO2 and now have to pay for the livelihood of half the planet with CO2 bonds. regards Andi

Donnadogsoth: There is no reason for the theory of god Please, dont take it personally, there is no reason (sic!) to argue. I would be really glad if the professional christians over here had the attitude you have. Many people here left church during the last years, cause they feel themselves not represented by priests any longer. Whenever there is a debate about Islam and what should and what could, the priests unite with representatives of Islam, cry "freedom of religion", and that Islam is peace and harmony and bla bla bla. But when someone yells "Allahu Akbar" before he hits the trigger, that of course got nothing to do with Islam, or generally with religion. And thats a lie. So my conclusion: The professional christs over here do not hold any conviction, just to the conviction to keep the influence they have, and if it costs their soul. Yes, for shure. However measured on living standards, development, science, knowledge, justice, the Roman Empire was unsurpassed til the Renaissance. Why should there be different point of views? Would say to encircle truth as good as possible. There is a big difference between monotheism and polytheism. Polytheism as exercised in ancient Rome is tolerant per its nature. There simple is no other way if you have dozens of gods and goddesses. None of these gods were seen almighty or infallible. They had there whims, and they could be challenged by man, if he was brave and virtous enough. Every god represented an aspect of life - hey, they even got Aphrodite, goddess of love - and such polytheism is a better theorie of reality than monotheism (if we can call religion a theory). It is said that the first democratic attempts in ancient greec took this thaught, to represent various opinions, as an example. It was a unique attempt in history, of course extinguished by the Roman Empire, and then nearly forgotten. This attempt never could have happened if you choose one god as leader, who knows everything, is able to do anything, and you obey everything. There is none. Unlike Christianty, which leaves some loopholes such as division of spiritual and secular power, Bolschewism comes as a perfect totalitarian system from the drawing board, exactly as Islam. You distinguish between the tenet and the outcome. Of course you can do that. But then you have to treat all tenets the same: Socialism is a benevolent tenet. All the evils from Sojwetrussia to Nordkorea has nothing to do with the veracity of Socialism. Islam is a peaceful tenet. Those devils with sabers, bombs and guns has nothing to do with the veracity of Islam. You - as, I would say, all Christians today - take the upright and positive aspects of Christianity as a moral guide, and thats what honours you. To choose whats upright and positive, you use your reasonable mind. So why is there need for a Holy Book with a set of good and bad aspects? You let your reasonable mind decide anyway. I have my wisdom from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karlheinz_Deschner "The Criminal History of Christianity." In every ancient temple they stored "volumina" (latin), that was scrolls of papyrus, books, or volumes, as it is said in english (latin) til today. The temples were destroyed, the priests and Philosophers humiliated or killed, and the papyri burnt. Center of knowledge back then was the library of Alexandria, founded by Alexander the Great. Head of this library around 400AD was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia a mathematician and astronomer. The library was destroyed and set on fire by christian mob. Hypatia was lynched, one source tells us that here flesh was scalped from her bones while she was still alive, her remains dragged through the streets of Alexandria. There is a museum in Alexandria (now a Salafists stronghold - what an incredible loss of culture), with statues that must have stood in the library. I have been there, seen that statues that Hypatia had seen every day she went to work. Thats awe-inspiring to the bone - forget of any holy mass, cause that is real. There is also a movie about this story, however I am afraid only in german: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2MzMq1bCFE This movie speculates about wether Hypatia already knew that the earths path is elliptic and not a circle. Given that the geniusses of that time knew about hydraulics, about the power of steam, and had sophistcated technical devices of any kind, the industrial revolution might have started a 1000 years earlier. regards Andi

Sufficient reason will always eclude gods. Sufficient faith will always exclude some reason. Yes it is true that it was Christians wo rebuilt a pale reflexion of the Roman Empire. But first, they made some major contributions to destroy it, they closed schools and theaters, forbid the Philosophers, made poverty a virtue, and within decades all but the priests were illiterate. Second, of course it was Christians, cause there was no one else around any more. Monotheism does not allow rivaly. Likewise, one could say that the Bolschewiki rebuilt Russia - after they destroyed it and killed everybody who opponed. In both cases I would not say that they did any good. The Christianisation of whole Europe took centuries. After Theodosius installed Christianity as state religion, the first who converted were the ones who held power, cause they clinged to a political career, they would have taken any faith to stay in power. (I wonder when the first politicians today will convert to Islam to fullfill a quote for equal rights of religions). Yes some papyri with the thoughts of the great ancient thinkers survived in some abbeys. But not after most of them was banned and litteraly burned to ashes in public. All the new order citizen needed to know came from god now. For the next centuries the progress in Christianisation was the justification for endless wars against numerous populations spread over Europe that clinged to paganism. The grounds were prepared for a dissected Europe and hostilities that lastet for centuries. regards Andi

(Quote from Wasatchmen) Mabe Stephan refers to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism. I have read some of them when I was young, and yes, they are left, and they are desperate, cause they removed God and replaced it with - nothing. So frankly said, all their writing is a whining about existence But certainly I am not smart enough to understand the deeper meaning of this thaughts. But I can recommend the work of Ayn Rand. She replaces God with reason regards Andi

Well, if its claimed that religious people (I talk about christians) do not force anybody to do anything, that might be true - today, in our secular western world. But thats only a spotlight onto a history of religious violence. History shows tons of evidence, that whenever religion rules, or at least influence rulers, it does force people. As religion is not based on reason and evidence, it is a bad fundament for society. Likewise, I could claim that modern welfare states are good for the poor and the underprivileged. That also might be true - today, in our mixed economy world. But thats only a spotlight onto a history of socialistic violence. History shows tons of evidence that whenever the welfare state rules, he makes people poor. As socialism is not based on reason and evidence, it is a bad fundament for society. regards Andi

Well, I can tell you from over here that the -still silent - battle for the minds is up and running. The causes for all this are well described in several posts and of course in Stephans videos. I am quite shure that the tipping point will come, but I am not so shure that it will come early enough to solve the mess peacefully. There are also big differences within the European countries - while the former Warsaw Pact countries kept there borders closed right from the beginning of the migrant crisis (which is in fact more a lunatic politicians crisis), there are others like Germany who face an at least partial failure of internal security. Unknwon numbers of unknown migrants of unknown origin (however nearly all Muslims) with unknown intentions. Til now one can still follow the mainstream media and conclude, well, there have been some terroristic attacks, but the state media tell us that the risk of getting involved is still well beyond the riks of a car accident. And nobody is afraid when driving a car, right? So why worry? But the sells of newspapers are declining rapidly, while there state minded voices become more angry every month because less and less people want to hear their version of reality. The admission to blogs and media not supported by the state is growing. How all this will show up in the next elections - I dont know. Austrians were not smart enough to avoid a semi-communistic Präident. While the Präsident over here has more or less only prestigious duties, it would have been nice nevertheless. I do hope that Trumps presidentship will have some influence. Next chance for a country to leave the matrix is Mr. Wilders in the Netherlands, elections in March. We will see. regards Andi

Yes she is I always listened to my childs, as they listened to me (sometimes )

I would say that the tragedy in germany is, that many people think that they do it right. They want a prospering and united EU. They accept that they are held liable for Greek debt. They are proud to try a (ridicoulus and futile) "Energiewende", i.e. having electrical energy to a 100% from renewable energy. They feel its their duty to help everyone who calls "refugee!". And they still believe that the government is more or less on the right track, maybe some tweaking here and there, but generally the direction is o.k. The ones who are sceptical hear the voices of some politicians of the ruling parties who pretend to be kind of an opposition to Merkel and are sedated that way. And even if the only party that is a real opposition (AFD) gets 25, 30 or even 35% after the next elections, the party of Merkel can expand the coalition with the Green party or the Left party and make things even worse. Maybe a major change can take place when more and more countries in Europe change political direction, so that more germans dare to look away from the big government flat screen, and catch a glance of reality. Yes, there are good news too: The sales of the newspapers are decreasing sharply, and the intake of right or libertarian blogs is rising.