Karl

Only from the small groups who are fundamentalists, the priests and the academics. We are doing this to ourselves. Evil is weak, it is easy to topple, it relies on apathy, tolerance, non judgement and moral cowardice to grow. I cannot see Christians taking up banners and spears, so it's up to the rest of us to promote reason. To institute judgement and strengthen our own moral core -not as Christians, but as men.

It was only when Christian Europeans became militant that we threw out the aggressors. At this time we understood that we cannot 'turn the other cheek' or 'love thine enemy'. We realised the only approach was to defend ourselves forcefully and we did so until things changed after WW2. This is when we re-embraced the 'love thy neighbour' principles. It also made us vulnerable to the scientific religionism of communism with which it shared it's collectivism. As Rand said Mystics of spirit (religion) Mystics of muscle (communism). The common thread is that of removing reason and Mans conscious volitional identity. It is to subsume the individual into a totalitarian society like an ant, or worker bee. It was why the US rejected religion(spirit mystic) and men (muscle mystic), to make the USA a country of laws protecting the rights of life, liberty, property and pursuit of happiness. Capitalism wasn't a principle of the US Government, but a necessary moral corolary of those rights. The US established 'reason' as it's shining light enshrining life, freedom, property and the pursuit of happiness as the proper moral standards of every man. However, now the US is imperilled and Europe is collapsing. In 50 years we may well be back on our knees facing Mecca or circumcising our babies.

That's exactly it. If you grasp what Kant did to destroy reason in order to re-establish the power of the church by promoting altruism (self sacrifice/duty to the Church/God) then we see that Hegel took this one step further as did Descartes. Why not kill God and keep the Altruism then make the state/government the principle beneficiary of sacrifice-Marx turned that around and made it 'the collective' that we sacrifice (effectively, he doesn't say sacrifice) to each other-entirely in keeping with Christian principles and no God/ Church is required. Is it any wonder that Islam, BLM, Zionism is emerging into this mess. God isn't dead to these religions and it's very easy to utilise the centre ground politics to expand religious fundamentalism now man has thrown reason away and given Marx to boot. It's like the Middle East just showed up in Europe and we know what happens to the Christians-the Lions await and our Governments/elite have allowed it to happen all because of tokenism. As Camerons Easter speech confirms and Justin Welby makes clear - we needn't worry because Christ overcame death, so, we cannot really die so it's all fine then.

This is a quote by David Cameron: note it's explicit message of the 'common good'. To honour (duty) our social (ist) obligations (sacrifice) to our communities (commun-ism). This is a mixing of Christian and socialism that now explains what's going on at the heart of the two main parties. Labour want to build socialism and not Christian values. The Conservatives want Christian values without the socialism tag, but the reality is that the 'centre ground' is the merger of both into one and there is no way back. It is why Brexit was so important-it is a refusal of centre ground values. It is almost as significant as the break between Rome and Britain, but the ramifications can't yet be seen. David Cameron has declared that Britain is built on “Christian values” – and must defend them against terrorism. In his message to mark the Christian festival of Easter, the Prime Minister said the religion had “helped to make our country what it is today” and that its values appealed to people “of every faith and none”. “Values of responsibility, hard work, charity, compassion and pride in working for the common good and honouring the social obligations we have to one another, to our families and our communities,” he said. “These are values we treasure. They are Christian values and they should give us the confidence to say yes, we are a Christian country and we are proud of it. “But they are also values that speak to everyone in Britain – to people of every faith and none. And we must all stand together and defend them.” But citing the recent terrorist attacks in Brussels, the PM said Britain should not be “cowed” by such violence. The PM added that the UK must “defeat the pernicious ideology that is the root cause of this terrorism” – without naming it explicitly. The Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury argued in his Easter message that Christians should not be overcome by “fear” because of the attacks. “In much of life fear is a valid and reasonable emotion, but hope always overcomes fear. We fear what we do not know, do not understand or cannot control,” Justin Welby said. “But on Easter Day we remember that Jesus Christ overcame death so that the end of all things is known.” By contrast the Roman Catholic Pope used his address in Rome to condemn those who did not help migrants, arguing that the refugees often “met with rejection from those who would offer them welcome and assistance”.

Worth a watch if you have time. It was from this piece by Yarron Brook that I realised the extent of the problem we now face. I knew Bush was a Christian, but Obama/Clinton were democrats, so I had assumed they were atheist/ socialist, but it turns out they are not. They are evangelical Christians. I haven't added in how Christianity and socialism share a commonality of self sacrifice which explains a lot about the UK and the Conservatives seemingly adopting socialist policies as well as Labour adopting Christian values under Blair. The centre ground is a Christian/socialist hybrid - hence Germany has Christian Democrat party under Merkel (the ex GDR pastors daughter) and on which the entire EU is based - that's the entire philosophical underpinnings of the second most powerful continent on the planet ! No wonder the Remainers in the establishment/church fought so hard. The mix of socialism and Christianity is a suicide pill, but one which looks very attractive.

Dates and timescales. 100 years vs 5 years and remember that death by starvation is still death if included in wars.

This is the result of debauched Christian thinking creating a foreign policy based on a crusade. It is the final, dreadful result of a philosophy that demands altruistic self sacrifice. I have a radical theory that I've never heard anywhere so let me see if I can expand it: The first Great War 'the war to end all wars' was to be fought like wars of the past. These wars were about fighting men showing immense bravery in the face of the enemy soldiers and fighting at close quarters - cavalry, swords, inaccurate muskets and with the artillery being cannon. However, the war was long and protracted. It was nothing like the glorious wars of the past. It was mechanised killing-industrial war. Huge numbers of young men were wiped out. It was the industrialisation that made it easy to produce the technology to kill on a massive scale. It was no longer the bravery of the soldiers that turned the enemy, but sheer industrial might from the factories of each nation. It allowed a man working on the shop floor, feeding his family, a ruthless killer turning out millions of machine guns, artillery pieces and the ammunition/transport to deliver them. It turned the civilian into as greater enemy as the troops using the machines he produced. It was no longer one man with one musket, but machine guns with interlacing fire capable of killing thousands of men. When the war continued in 1938, there was an understanding, but one that hardly dare be considered at first, that to destroy the enemy was no longer a matter of demoralising his troops, the fight had to be taken to the headlands of each country, to kill the innocent. This was something I suspect that Christians everywhere couldn't stomach. The deaths of non-combatants, the destruction of churches, villages, families was unthinkable, but, slowly it happened. First a few small bombing raids, then eventually Dresden and Tokyo. In Britain we had 'bomber Harris' who was vilified for his part in the mass murder of innocent civilians. Indeed, the bomber forces themselves did not receive medals for taking part in the most succesful raids on Berlin. However, when the soldiers discovered the Jewish concentration camps the people began to justify the vast killing of German non-combatants. The holocaust became a token that justified wars. Instead of wars being considered as purely defensive, now they could be offensive and aimed at freeing potential genocide victims from tyranny. Christian consciousnesses could now sleep easier. They could kill their fellow men if they were tyrants based on genocidal activity. It meant that wars were actually good. That with modern 'surgical' strikes and super accurate weapons we could cut out the cancer of tyranny and free the peoples of the country. You can see this repeated in every recent war. Bush and Blair were both strong Christians who deposed a dictator in order to free the people of Iraq- these were their stated aims and they defend those actions as 'the right thing to do'. It's not just in Europe either. In the US the civil war became associated with 'freeing the slaves' and Lincoln was pretty much made a saint/deity in folklore for his Christian values. Again, the war was justified, the massive killing of civilians was permitted because of an oppressed people. Black slaves became a special case, as are the Jews of Europe and now the Muslims of Syria. These 'noble' wars as they are now thought of, have ceased to be wars to crush enemies, but supposedly to liberate. What was good for Jews and Blacks must then necessarily be good for Muslims. What has been created is something we should have seen coming. It was the tokenism created by a Christian altruistic philosophy that has left us defenceless. The policies of our Governments cannot allow these tokens to be defiled otherwise it unravels 2 centuries of beliefs in Christian moral good. It's the reason why Obama cannot do anything but defend blacks, Jews and now Muslims. Instead the Governments have turned to try and force integration on everyone. They think that we just need to get on in a good Christian altruistic way, to sacrifice some space, wealth to our brothers and we can all have a lovely life. Yet, as we see, in every western country the wheels are coming off-Jews, Muslims and Blacks do not have an ethic of self sacrifice to Christian whites, in most cases quite the opposite-but if Christian whites are following such a rigid philosophy then these other groups aren't 'taking advantage' they are helping Christians to put themselves up on their own crucifixes. If Christian whites wish to turn the other cheek, to sacrifice to their brothers, well no one wants to stop them doing so.

Most philosophies are about power over others. The history of the world is built on getting men to sacrifice themselves -money/Labour/production/blood-to other men. This is barbarism practised subtely. The courts were always roughly similar with defending hierarchies from Kings, noblemen priests, soldiers, workers, slaves-or some similar order. If you look at your list, the qualities are exactly those a King and court would ask of its people. Ignorance of the Kings/priests word/religion/laws Ego-acting as an independent was treason Desire nothing but duty. Sacrifice self to state/King/God be selfless. Don't pursue happiness for yourself everything belongs to your state/King/God. The final one-in the sense you say it- is actually hedonism, but one cannot be hedonistic if there are no desires, no ego and no self so I've altered the meaning to bring that in line with the philosophical tenets you are espousing. It tells anyone who follows these rules, follows the exact opposite of the US constitution. Life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. It says you have no rights, nor freedoms, nor property and happiness is the preserve of someone else and you should seek it for them. Of course the churches have taught these same tenets for years because they were so succesful in getting men to enslave themselves to an ideal - more or less voluntarily, but, as each accepts the yoke, then they become like policeman ensuring their neighbours don't attempt to get free. Give a man a rule that is not achievable, but with which he must comply and get him to base his entire life on that lie, then he will accept anything you tell him. As Hitler said "make the lie big enough". It's easy to snap men's minds, to bend them to service and sacrifice. Just tell them they shouldn't want anything for themselves, that it is an evil and that they must strive to be rid of it. Tell them that only the King/ state has the right - God given. It's easier than ropes, chains and whips- the people police themselves very well. Who was allowed to own property in India ?

Well aquainted with it. IBS is in the family.

OK Kuro. 'Gut instinct' is an abstract concept. You had to have that abstraction as part of a complex hierachy of integrated abstract concepts. First you have to understand the concept of 'gut' and in purely biological terms this means the digestive system-that's another concept but it has a concrete reality. Then you have to understand an abstract concept called 'instinct'. So, let's test if you know the definition of instinct 'without resorting to dictionaries'- can you define it in simple terms in order that an alien with few words could get your meaning ? Let me uncover for you exactly how much abstract integration you have had to do in order to get to a phrase like 'gut instinct'. I'm not saying here that there isn't a value in that term, we all know roughly what it means, but how did we come by it ? What concrete experiences led to our understanding ?

No idea Brian. All I know is that humans are capable of holding and integrating multiple abstractions in a hierachy and other animals have not evolved in that direction. Presumably it's a diversity of nature creating ever more adaptable varieties of living organism as a result of necessity. It's not really a dominant part of objectivist philosophy except to understand how humans use volitional reason to integrate abstractions from automatic perception. It spikes my interest only from the context of those who appear unaware of the key thing which makes the difference between every other animal and man. It maybe true that some animals have limited conceptual ability, but not in the way that humans can integrate multiple abstractions into symbols and then pass them on to others through common language. It's fair to say that apart from stroking a cat and being mildly amused by the antics of some animals I find them largely uninteresting. For me a tiger and a cat, or a cow and a rhinoceros are pretty much the same thing bar some physical detail.

I fear the mob. Men I can usually deal with, or avoid.

We aren't purely conceptual, neither does it necessarily mean some animals are entirely incapable of a kind of low level of conception. We have evolved very differently. We are dependent entirely on conception, where as animals are dependent on their superior physicality and skills. Before you say 'generalising' :-) yes, because to try and add in the sliding functionality of the human perception and physical body confuses what are the main elements of difference. I know you too well and your going to get mashed up in the details of likeness. So, before you do, both animals and humans have senses and perception, both rely on their physical bodies, but to different degrees. Does that cover it ? LOL probably not. I could write an entire paper, carefully thought out and you woukd punch a million tiny holes in it. :-)

They are purely perceptual animals, they live in a stream of 'now' and couple that with intelligence-sometimes quite highly evolved intelligence, but still purely perceptual. They feel pleasure and pain, but they are instinctively driven and only need a bit of training for them to hunt and survive. They do not communicate an ever evolving explosion of concepts as we do. They see a tree, they cannot conceive of a forest, or think of the wood cut, dried, planed and assembled as a chair. They just copy what the adults do in whatever environment they find themselves to be. Some are pack animals and others lone hunters. It is impossible for us to think like an animal, or animals to think as we do. We have to chose everything conceptually. Animals don't conceptualise life and death, they are simply alive and their instinct is to remain alive. Humans can choose and must choose to be alive. It is not a matter of perceptual instinct, but reasoned choice. Animals experience pleasure and pain as we do on a physical level, but we also experience the conceptual happiness and suffering absent in animals. Often animals are tested for self awareness, but that is a test of intelligence not highly evolved conceptual ability-although it may indicate some potential if evolution permits it. A larger brain can conceptualise but to reach higher conceptual levels it must consume greater energy and that seems to mean reducing the physical capacity. It means we must begin substituting production of tools to augment the poorer physical body. A bird might use a stone to crack a sea shell, or a bear use a stick to get honey from a nest, but this isn't production, it's instinctive use of an available resource that doesn't need adapting. I'm not an expert on animals, or their intelligence, only that we are, as yet, seperated by an intractable difference.

Harry Potter we meet again. :-) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Awww that's sad. It reminds me of Bartleby the Scrivener.

I think that's more an Egyptian theme ?

Furry sluts I'm telling you. They are creatures of habit though, so, once in an established routine they don't much like change-try carting them to the vet, or the Cattery. Not keen on it at all. Grumpy for several days after, but never 'off ' their food of course. They can be recalcitrant, moody and almost arrogant, but still come a running when they hear the rattle of kitty feast. Your getting too attached to them and hoping its kitty love, but it really isn't, just a mixture of familiarity and food, but pretend away, we all like a bit of romantic fantasy. :-) just don't go getting upset when you find out they have been playing away and getting fondeled by another's hands.

It's cupboard love Joe. Cats are furry sluts, it wasn't until our cats died that we learned that our loyal twosome had 4 homes each. I like that about cats and never mistake the apparent loyalty for anything but simple survival.

That's a list of the Maharajahs enemies with regard to the castes.

LOL not really. Cats equate human phrases with particular rewarding behaviours-mostly feeding. Actually with cats it's always feeding. Dogs on the other hand seem equally motivated by reward, but are keen to perform a trick or two to get it.

Quite the opposite. What is 'self refinement' but a judgement of ones self and how can one achieve that without judging the self with respect to reality. Eventually the world intrudes on our little oasis of evasion.

I've just spent two weeks in Cat/dog paradise. Turkey neuter, treat and feed stray animals to the extent that the streets are full of them. Our hotel was home to at least twenty assorted moggies which were very tame. I spent several days by the pool with a pair of young cats curled up on the sun lounger with me. I like cats so they are welcome to spend as long as they want in my company.

I'm kind of at ease watching a million flowers bloom at present :-)

It takes courage to be a hero. It takes daring to be a fool.