Karl

Not everything has free will. As far as we know it's only humans. We all act according to our nature, but only man acts in the way of a first actor. First obey nature in order to transform nature. This theory sounds materialistic relating man to substance. That is muscle mysticism. Trying to find free will in mechanics is as crazy as trying to find it through God. Man is neither the product of the pure metaphysical nor the pure consciousness. Existence is identity; consciousness is identification. Existence, consciousness and Identity are interconnected axioms. There is no mind body dichotomy, there is no duality, not can there be non-duality. Explore the metaphysical, but do not relate it to the axiom of consciousnes, nor free will.

That's why Government that is not delimited to only the protection of rights and justice can't work. We have a choice. If we insists that on welfare programs, protectionism, free healthcare and education, then eventually it will come to this. Essentially morality boils down to the ideals most of our parents taught us. Don't hurt people, Don't lie about people, Don't steal other peoples stuff. Anyway RC your post was a tad depressing so I'm cheering myself up with a bit of Incubus:

Sounds like the guy who said he was FBI-was FBI

To a degree. I'm just figuring this lot out and if my assertions are correct this is really massive stuff, of which paedophillia is a footnote in a centuries old book. It's what the Clinton foundation is being utilise for, it isn't simply a foundation for money laundering but a huge chunk of foreign policy involving Zionist Jews and Saudi princes as well as Europe/UK and Russia/China. The US Government is owned.

To a degree. I'm just figuring this lot out and if my assertions are correct this is really massive stuff, of which paedophillia is a footnote in a centuries old book. It's what the Clinton foundation is being utilise for, it isn't simply a foundation for money laundering but a huge chunk of foreign policy involving Zionist Jews and Saudi princes as well as Europe/UK and Russia/China. The US Government is owned.

Doesn't this smell of Alistair Crowley ?

I was curious. She went into a different world when talking of solid energy streams which veered away from the philosophical. She was only giving an example, but in reference to your post it's interesting. I've shied away from discussing metaphysical aspects, but they have a direct relationship with human concept formation. In other words the universe is not only understandable by man, but it is mans relationship with the universe that makes it understandable.

Benefit of the doubt

Rand said something interesting when discussing the properties of the ultimate constituents: Prof B is theorising that 'particles' would have size and shape. AR: if they are particles. What if they are solid flows of energy, but each is indivisible, and it moves, but it's one entity, moving from left to right and vice versa ? Prof B so you are saying the ultimate constituents need not be particles ...one is not to refer to them as actions without entities. AR exactly and I was objecting to your saying they will have an extension, for instance, or shape. We can't claim that. AR the important thing here is that we cannot say you would define an atom by means of its charge, or that you would look no further..you have no way of knowing in what form you will become aware of the primary stuff. It might be through multiple instruments and the interaction of one upon another, which would only tell you how you became aware of it. You would not have defined it metaphysically. All you could say is 'it is something I discovered by the following method'. You see the job of philosophy is not to tell us what exists, only to tell us what has to be true of everything that exists (identity) and what rules by which you can claim knowledge. In regard of constituent elements of the universe, all we can say is that the would have to have identity . That we can prove. Any other conclusion cannot be drawn philosophically. I found that interesting, particularly with regard to our modern discovery of the Higgs field/particle which we have not yet defined metaphysically.

Opposite. Capitalism is the ONLY moral system compatible with individual freedom. The important thing is freedom. The freedom applies to everyone in a moral society which values life as the primary. Therefore violence, or more accurately the initiation of force is anti-freedom and therefore anti-life. You would have to come up with a system that was not anti-freedom which bettered capitalism. Don't forget, that capitalist freedom includes the freedom to form any sort of peaceful associations that one wishes. Therefore, in a capitalist society you are at liberty to create a socialistic style of enterprise/community, but you cannot force that on others, neither can a capitalist force you to change your associations.

As I said, psy-ops on both sides. I wrote about this prior to the referendum being called, it was in the form of a warning. The people are sheep between two wolves. One wolf is the intelligence agencies, military and certain wealthy special interests. The other side is looking for NWO, global government and homogeneity of the stock. This is the choice if you participate in a democratic system. There are always these two factions who are sometimes in one part, both or none. I suggested that leaving the EU would end up as a negotiation between the two groups over their 'stock'. There is no democracy really, just different flavours of authoritarianism. Often both parts work together, but sometimes they have an internal war. This is why I won't vote, because it's pointless, it's one big factory which has shareholders and a BOD that decides the course of the country. Every so often they allow a change in the senior managers, but everything else is largely unchanged. We don't get to vote on the owners, just the management staff.

You should read 'The fountainhead' it describes the basis on which this kind of facile bollox is pushed by politicians, media and art critics. Most of us that have any kind of grounded common sense know full well this kind of thing is ugly and perverse, but the point of it is to destroy the excellent, the beautiful and outstanding. The reason is that the excellent don't need help in being excellent, just as the industrious wealthy don't need help. If no one needs any help then the parasites that live on the pretence of altruism are redundant, they need the mediocre because they are mediocre. It's the subject of a million tales. Those who are jealous of the succesful, or who can see no way of harnessing their talents will utilise a Svengali, a geni, demon or devil who will possess their souls for the price of getting even. Of course in reality the mediocre cannot become the talented, but the demon can then get permission to pull down the succesful and talented in order to 'level' the playing field. Thereby the demon receives the custom, support and adoration he craves.

Confusing these labels. Easier to state if someone is for more statism or more freedom. Bernie was an old 70s style socialist with big Government planning, Clinton is part of a massive crime syndicate which seeks to use the state to fill the pockets of its members.

Make your own mind up about it. Trump is not supported by any network other than Fox. As I'm sure you have read, there is a sliding door between CNN and the Clinton campaign, namely one Donna Brazille who has subsequently been sacked for giving Clinton questions in advance. Several of the emails point to collusion between the Clinton campaign and CNN as well as all the other MSM. I've already said there is a coup taking place in the USA as well as other countries including Britain. I don't know where Trump himself stands, he has been involved in the Clinton network through campaign contributions and he may have been involved further -hence the story of him raping a 13 year old. This is no longer an election in the normal sense of the word. Anything you thought you knew has changed. It is likely there is misinformation and psy-ops being utilised by both sides. There is sufficient evidence to suggest that the Clinton Foundation and those connected to it are the most criminal people on the planet earth. The situation in Haiti and the pay to play contributions is enough to convince me that this is serious corruption and probably something far, far worse. Don't be taken in by the attempts to re-erect Cold War Mcarthyism from the grave. Communism has long gone from Russia, they are just a large country with a pretty small economy and some nasty weapons. Their preference would be to trade with the USA whoever the POTUS is.

Clinton news network. Sudden panic because Trump is winning. Now that the FBI have officially found no connection between Trump, Putin or Russia, the Clinton engine is suddenly seeing their election floundering and are crying 'rigging' - whilst less than 3 weeks ago they were laughing at Trump for saying there was rigging.

Many people are 'holding their noses' when they vote for Trump. At least he isn't trying to turn the world into a cinder block, selling the USA to every dictator on the planet to line her own pocket, removing the last vestiges of US freedom of rights, allegedly involved in a paedophillia ring and child trafficking. I don't know how anyone can vote for Clinton. If she doesn't stand down this year she will likely go to prison. She is pushing the world towards a serious confrontation and every decision she has made has been disasterous. No one can point to a single thing of good that she has done. She is reckless, lacks judgement -look at the use of that secret server-and has ridden on Bills coat tails as a result of being the 'suffering' woman. She has threatened Bills accusers. She has got her criminal friends off the hook when they should have gone to prison. How can anyone with any morals vote for that ? If I was democrat, then I wouldn't vote at all, or I woukd give the vote to an independent such as Stein.

Stick your head in the sand but it won't stop the tide.

Anyone had a chance to see any of this ?

She is a crook. I don't mean that some of the things she has done are 'questionable'. She has abused her trusted position to line her pant suit pockets. I do not know what you really need to know ? Are you happy to elect a crook- not a crook because Trump said it, but because that's what the emails prove. She is fireproof. If she had been Chelsea Manning she would be in hand cuffs, but because she is Hillary nothing happens. Loretta Lynch, The FBI, justice department, MSM, Obama himself do nothing nada.

One man, one vote. No one is above the law. Therefore, political sovereignty is in the hands of the people and legal sovereignty in the hands of parliament. Now you see the sleight of hand. We end up complying with trading laws from the EU, but we don't elect the EU. Parliament at present is not truly sovereign, it's a twist. It can make its laws, but the trading laws are applied to people (free movement), financial (free movement) and goods (free movement). We get to elect the MEPs that's all and those MEPs can only vote on whatever the bureaucrats decide. In theory the UK could reject each law, but in practice it would be contravening it's access to the single market. We are a vassal state of the EU. Our parliament is substantially powerless and it seems to me that it has been so long since they lost sovereignty that they hardly know how to resurrect it. The people that knew are pretty much gone, or retired.

They don't have the right to give away sovereignty to another entity, that it treason. The 1973 action of Ted Heath was a cover to secede power to Brussels in what they like to call -shared sovereignty. Now, as I'm a lover of logic and definitions you might see that I see this is a contradiction in terms. This is what I meant by 'soft sovereignty'. If you don't grasp this, then let me help, the twin towers were not brought down by a couple of terrorists in hijacked planes, Britain's Parliament is backed by the sovereignty of its people- in which the true sovereignty lies (not that you would know it), by election through democracy. The referendum was just a reverse engineered coup-similarly illegal, but no less illegal than that which went before. All that parliament is allowed to do is to make trade deals and protect the country from attack/protect interests. It cannot surrender to a foreign power outside of a war defeat. A General election will make no difference. It doesn't matter if May gets a huge mandate, the problem continues to exist. The EU was always a lie, our getting out of it is equally a lie. It's the four freedoms that are packaged together with the 'free trade area agreement' that has allowed this twisting to continue. We are in a trading partnership, that means we have to obey the trading laws, which means a central group composed of euro MPs that can only have minimal power, not to make laws, but to vote on laws.

It isn't sovereign. We gave away our sovereignty-illegitimately. If we have parliamentary sovereignty then we aren't in the EU and never were. Therefore, we can tear up any treaties completely legally because they were never legal in the first place and the courts confirmed it. He he, what a laugh this is. This is a forced attack on May to pull the trigger-which she doesn't want to do. This is kind of a last ditch, burn the bridges attack, which is fair enough, If I was a remainer then that's the tactic I would use. I can't remember if I posted the petition to review the legality of giving away sovereignty to the EU ? However, this was what we were looking towards -on exactly the terms the remainers are using which effectively proves the illegality of the later treaties. We didn't have the cash to do what the remainers have done. The EU treaty was always an experiment in soft sovereignty, a twisted legal concept that was accepted by parliament.

The Government will appeal against the decision. However, there is no need to trigger article 50, there never was, it's simply a political retraction giving two years to decide not to leave. We can tear up the EU treaty and that's that. The Government has a mandate from the people to do that, but article 50 was always going to be a stumbling block because it requires negotiation, which re-engages paliament in the process-exactly what I referred to previously in the definition of Brexit which May ( a remainer) has refused to define.

Everything changed after 9/11, it was a global coup, not just in the USA. Now we are seeing the birth of another coup. I read sometime ago, I think it was a Peter Hitchens article, that there are two groups. One is like James Bond-very nationalistic. The other group are globalist NWO types. What we witnessed in 2001 was the coup of the NWO, today we are witnessing the push back coup of the nationalists. Brexit was the beginning-pulling away from EU/TTIP and now it's the turn of the USA. Now it's obvious in hindsight that 9/11 was a planned coup.