Karl

I never mentioned Alinsky. I asked for your proof that Trump was obsessed with nuclear weapons before you went off on one about how I was bullying you.

That's what my friends say. I don't pretend to be anything other than I am. It gets on some peoples tits, others like the honesty. I'm a marmite character.

It's Roman for I am not the messiah.

I don't think there's any hope for me though. Tiny Tim has had it.

What's the evidence ? Well I'm a horrible, evil, terrible despicable person so it isn't suprising.

It got an okish review-I enjoyed the first one, the second not so much, how does it compare ?

I like to use my big weapon but not to knock guys out, unless I swing around too fast in the gents ;-)

Because you said Trump had a fascination with nuclear weapons... which, unless you have factual information to prove otherwise, appears to be incorrect. Hardly a lecture. The only thing I can find is some alleged conversation, but nothing public, or confirmed, just an ex friend who said he over heard a conversation. Neither have I implied that you know nothing so you can quit playing the victim. If you have other information then please share it. I only went looking because of what you said, I was keen to find out, but it appears Trump never said anything of the sort and in the only times he has mentioned nuclear weapons he said they were dangerous and he was against proliferation.

Or @ Ralis, lets do the facts : Here’s what Trump has said during the five times he has talked about nuclear weapons during the campaign so far: “Biggest problem, to me, in the world, is nuclear, and proliferation” Trump said nuclear capability was the “single biggest problem” facing the world in a wide-ranging interview with the New York Times in March. Asked whether the U.S. should be the first to launch a nuke during a confrontation with an enemy, Trump said that should be the “absolute last step.” “Power of weaponry today is beyond anything ever thought of, or even, you know, it’s unthinkable, the power,” he said. “It’s a very scary nuclear world,” he added. “Biggest problem, to me, in the world, is nuclear, and proliferation.” “I don’t want to rule out anything” Trump reiterated the fact that he would be the “last to use nuclear weapons” during an April interview with NBC’s Today show. But he said the option is still on the table. “I don’t want to rule out anything,” he said. “I will be the last to use nuclear weapons. It’s a horror to use nuclear weapons.” “I will not be a happy trigger like some people might be,” he added. “But I will never, ever rule it out.” “We have nuclear arsenals which are in very terrible shape” In the same New York Times interview in March, Trump indicated that Japan and South Korea might need to obtain their own nuclear arsenal to protect themselves from North Korea and China if the U.S. is unable to defend them. “It’s a position that we have to talk about,” he said. “If the United States keeps on its path, its current path of weakness, they’re going to want to have that anyway with or without me discussing it, because I don’t think they feel very secure in what’s going on with our country.” “At some point, we cannot be the policeman of the world. And unfortunately, we have a nuclear world now,” he later added. Trump also said Japan and Korea might need to pay more for their own defense. “You know, when we did these deals, we were a rich country. We’re not a rich country. We were a rich country with a very strong military and tremendous capability in so many ways. We’re not anymore,” he told the newspaper. “We have a military that’s severely depleted. We have nuclear arsenals which are in very terrible shape. They don’t even know if they work.” “Maybe it’s going to have to be time to change” Trump discussed his stance further with CNN in late March, saying the U.S. might need to change its decades-old policy of preventing Japan from getting a nuclear weapon. “Can I be honest are you? Maybe it’s going to have to be time to change, because so many people, you have Pakistan has it, you have China has it. You have so many other countries are now having it,” Trump told CNN’s Anderson Cooper. Trump later appeared to contradict himself, saying he doesn’t “want more nuclear weapons.” “I will have a military that’s so strong and powerful, and so respected, we’re not gonna have to nuke anybody” Trump “wouldn’t be nuking anybody” because he wouldn’t need to, given America’s defense force, he said in an interview with GQ magazine last November. “I will have a military that’s so strong and powerful, and so respected, we’re not gonna have to nuke anybody,” he said, adding that he would be “amazingly calm under pressure.” Still, Trump told the magazine he wouldn’t get rid of the nuclear weapons because “other people have them” and are “unfortunately gaining more and more.” “It is highly, highly, highly, highly unlikely that I would ever be using them,” he added.

Lower interest rates and more 'stimulus'. More adrenalin pumped into a corpse. We are hardly objectivist. Our debt to GDP ratio and lack of laissez faire capitalism should tell you that. Our country is definitely knackered.

No, we don't rely on it. That's an equivocation on the word 'rely'. You have a tendency to play fast and loose when it suits and then pick to detail when you don't. I call that the Colombo close, after the series that inspired it. It is quite clear that we don't want to destroy our air, water or food supply. Indeed we have INCREASED our food supplies and the amount of potable water we have/we have access to. We have outwitted pests, animal competition, the changing environment, we have water cleaned in vast plants, stored and piped to us. We have drilled deep into underground aquifers, we can even liberate fresh water from salt.

The final outcome is that today they have been forced to adapt to a different way of life. Some of their own culture/knowledge has/is being absorbed as the two peoples integrate. If we lost all our technology and knowledge then I don't doubt that the Austrailians that survived would end up living just like the natives did and there would be far fewer of them. As a Britisher, I know all about invasion by higher technology cultures and that it has been a benefit to us despite some of the less than pleasant aspects of initial occupation. You still insist on that 'in harmony with nature' but man has never and will never be in harmony with nature. Man is not given anything by nature, he has to use his mind and body to survive within nature. The planet is a place of potential resource only and we have to fight to survive upon its surface. I'm an adherent to a benevolent universe, but let's not kid ourselves that this means that the universe is a cognisant nurturer. If I was deposited on the African plains without a gun, water, food, or clothing, I would likely be dead within 24 hours. I could be said to be in 'harmony with the planet' as I provided a tasty meal for a wild animal and lots of microbes/ insects and eventually plants.

Because 'harmony with the planet'. If I don't poison my own tea it isn't anything to do with planetary harmony, it's because poisoning my tea doesn't help to sustain my life. The planet is just a big bunch of potential resource that we have to turn into something useful by applying our minds. The idea of planetary harmony is for the fairies. The planet doesn't care less if we are here or not here. It didn't care about the Dinosaurs, Mammoths or Dodo's. I object to the phrase because it implies that man must 'fit' into nature rather than adapting it. We are stuck with obeying nature, but we must adapt it.The planet doesn't sustain us, we have to sustain ourselves.

Well here we are-no where in particular :-) Let's skip back, where I said that it wasn't suprising that ancient people thought man arrived out of something (like an egg) and that we now know about evolution and DNA etc which the ancients did not understand. When you said 'they knew a lot of things' I paraphrase, 'having survived 40K years'. Then we got side tracked into talking about the relative merits of what constitutes success. So this is a different argument to the one above .....I'm correct on that score ? I struggle to see the link otherwise unless you point it out. In respect of this argument only, yes, I measure success in relation to mans ability to adapt to new circumstances. To use his mind to gain value. I don't say I agree that the use of force, armies or superior killing weapons are the measure of success, that is an ethical question. Rather I reverse that position and ask about the fitness of the invaded people to resist/adapt to the new situation. The natives took the practical approach eventually and integrated with the higher technologically advanced invaders. I must have had you confused with someone else who mentioned they were glad to have left the city ? I'm quite fine about being called a honky/snowflake, because that's what I was. I was called that very often when I worked with an Indian and a Jamaican guy. I never took it as an insult. I get fed up of all this prissy PC nonsense.

I got it the first time around :-) living creatures converted carbon dioxide into oxygen so that more oxygen hungry types of life appeared.

Yes, all the elements are made in stars, just so you know I agree with you on this one. It balances where I don't agree with you. All very Yin Yang.

The Europeans didn't suddenly appear 2000 years ago. I'm finding it difficult to follow your argument. I think it's you that is twisting it, but because I can't get you to say what your argument actually is. I was saying that living 40K years in a stone age culture means living 40K years in a stone age culture. It doesn't qualify them to know anything relevant about the origin of man and without science, it's unlikely they would know as much as Europeans who also survived more than 40K years, in far greater numbers, then added science to allow far greater sustainability. It wasn't the aborigines wiping out the white man was it ? The aborigines did not repel the Europeans with their 40K year head start in Australia ? Had the Europeans taken it upon themselves they would easily have achieved total genocide. Today, the aborigines are subsumed into the more advanced culture. That does not mean the more advanced culture cannot learn ANYTHING off a more primitive culture, but the exchange of information will be highest from the Europeans to the Aborigines. Perhaps it's because I leap, I can't help it, I see how an argument will develop and skip the intervening posts which loses the continuity. I know that you moved from the rat race to the wilds of a big hole in the outback where you watch the cars back up on the highway, so I know you don't really get on with modern life and wish we would get back to 'living in harmony' with the planet. I'm trying to show you that man doesn't work like that, despite how you wish it, I don't say it's perfect, it's not perfect for you, but no one stops you moving to an area and living a Stone Age existence if that's what appeals, it just doesn't appeal to me, I see it as entirely a retrograde step, but I note you haven't given up on your 21st century computer technology :-) If you want, then PM me and we can continue the discussion. I really didn't mean to be dissing the Abo's.

It has naff all to do with consciousness collapsing the wave front.

I don't really know what your point is, we have gone far off the reservation. I made the assertion that ancient people had little information, or any modern philosophy with which to determine the origin of mankind. You asserted they knew far more than we thought because they had endured for 40K years. It's a non sequitur. Length of survival does not equate to a superior knowledge. They lived a Stone Age culture which would have been the case in Europe had we not advanced. We have far more resource available to us now and a far greater chance of survival in far larger numbers. If we measure success at all, then it should be by population numbers.

Success is relative. Would I rather live in a modern city with all the amenities or as an aborigine ? No contest, give me the city everytime. The answer to your question is yes, most of my life, though what that has to do with the price of fish I don't know :shrug:.

Mans only tool of survival is his mind :tick: Aborigines lived a primitive Stone Age lifestyle :tick: I have to agree that I don't know that they were 'almost wiped out' but they certainly were heavily reduced in numbers due to encroachment by Europeans through direct attack and disease (it is suggested that there was early germ warfare).

Then it's a tortoise called Einstein and not a rock, get some better lenses.:-)

They might benefit from reading through this too: http://green-agenda.com/globalrevolution.html It's not as if it's exactly hidden. I must say I found the IFSR newsletter pretty enlightening, 'social control'...lovely. Peter Russel is a member of the club of Budapest.

Have a look at the groups this guy belongs to (such as the club of Budapest) and the groups those groups belong to. One such is 'the Academy for system research and cybernetics'. These are heavily 'progressive' organisations. I've never asked if DB is associated with any of these groups.

"I call my talk the primacy of consciousness" Right, mind control. Been there done that.