Results 71 to 80 of 646
01-06-2008, 07:44 PM #1Senior Member
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
After some initial doubt, I've for several reasons decided to start this topic. Most likely it will die a silent and unmourned death. We shall see.
First I want myself and the closet-sextourists to get out of each others' hair. I can't abide the fourletter words, the bad spelling, braggings and "I almost made it" stories, spiced with expressions like "hot babes" etc. On the other hand the !!!!WOW!!! types do not like words with many syl-lab-les, so here such is concentrated in one place, which they can avoid. In other words, the contributers to this topic can, without interference, bore each other to death, if we wish to.
Next: Having a soft spot for conspiracy theories I'm convinced, that not only anti-scammers read anti-scam sites, a lot of other groups do it also. The scammers themselves, agency representatives, ultrafeminists (just-hating-men-on-general-principles), chatters (having nothing to say, but doing it with many words) and those just curious. The possibilty of disinformation is real, but maybe it's possible to suppress it by being longwinded and circumstantial.
And last, the most important. Internet-dating is after all only one aspect of the the eternal "war of the sexes". To understand net-dating, I believe it's necessary to paint a broader background canvas. Say, are we just a bunch of grumpy querulants or is there really a difference between not being able to get along with your next-door childhood love and a FSUW? Where and what is the difference? Even without a computer, a different cultural background or alcoholism, Sue-Ellen could still be a conartist or pro-dater. Especially if she's good-looking.
I'm not completely sceptical about FSU dating (internet or not). In the last app. 18 years I've had three longer relationships (in the biblical sense) with SFUW, lasting alltogether 14 years. These relationships broke up for the same personal reasons, as any other relationships do. And I've had my share of scandinavian psychos. For me the question is the PROBABILITY of meeting "straights" or "bends" in each group.
So I invite for wievs on this. And I have a few proposals for background-basics:
I believe, that we like all other animals fundamentally are biological robots. We have a digestive system with two openings, a need to reproduce and to fight for a place in a predatory system. That's our startingpoint. But compared to other animals, we also have rather complex emotions and intellect. We have a possibility, individually or culturally, to be more than just reptile-brained. And different individuals/cultures/subcultures use this possibility in various degrees.
And I also suggest to sort out the differences between women and men. For the present bunch of probably half-machos it's maybe an idiotic question. But believe me, in this time of unisex, feminism, equal opportunities and so on, the issue has seriously, repeatedly and heatedly been raised, if there IS any difference (in spite of different plumbing and men's inability to get pregnant). I strongly support the idea, that women and men are almost different species, and as in any other contact with ETs, we need a lot of diplomacy to establish peaceful contact.
01-18-2008, 02:42 AM #71Senior Member
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
A few personal comments. First of all, you and Ham are probably more intelligent, than I am.This is not false modesty; some people play mouthorgan well (something I've tried to do for 40 years with very little success); some people can make beautiful paintings; some have patience with their nagging wifes. All of which I can't do either.
But most of us have some talents in some areas and not in other. My intellect is sufficient for my purposes, but not at genius level. I'm content with that. My talent is in seeing patterns/connections, where most only see parts. And I have for about 45 years pursued the idea of finding a meaningful pattern in existence, taking as many aspects (not only intellectual) into the "equation" as possible.
Ofcourse such a journey through life, done with awareness if possible, leaves traces. Those traces are, what I try to put out here. The exchanges of opinions we have, is for me not a question of convincing anyone, that I'm "right". It's just swapping information and possible conclusions, though a nice little peaceful discussion can be invigorating at times.
My lifelong search has brought me to many subjects and activities, not all of them associated with FSUW. And some of them definitely weird, as many people would define it. So maybe your dreamwalker isn't a complete stranger to me. But let's see, how you present him. I'm curious.
In a later post, I will return to this post from you. It contains a lot of very interesting points, where we can both stay on the ground, and also soar as eagles.
01-18-2008, 06:46 AM #72Senior Member
quote:George S. Patton, THE most tenacious, arrogant, self-confident, strong-willed, bulldog of a general this country has ever known, basically was fired for being so bold as to publically side with Churchill on the issue.
- Join Date
- Sep 2005
So yes, Hitler had occupied nine countries in the beginning of the war, but Stalin had occupied five.
The war ends, the British & French empire collapse and Poland is as occupied as it was under Hitler (and until 1918 for ages ), plus a whole bunch of countries.
So western clowns like Churchill and Blum really botched it to the advantage of the USSR and USA, who were evidently not so in love with Britain as Hitler was.
Germany shared with Japan most of its technological breakthroughs, including jet airplanes etc, which the USA were attentive NOT to do with the USSR, but France & Britain as well.
quote:Scandinavia has some of the most developed public wellfare programs in the world.
quote:First of all, you and Ham are probably more intelligent, than I am.
i have studied all my life and will until i die.
Being "informed" (correctly) is what sets enlightened or wise people worlds apart from the gullible masses.
Information is everything and that is why governments put so much effort into controlling and distorting it.
One can be a natural genius and tell the square root of eight digit numbers in five seconds, but failing the correct information he might be a moron who thinks they invaded Iraq to bring porn cable TV, barber's shops & miniskirts in a truly solomonic and disinterested effort to obey "the guy upstairs" or whatever bollocks they are told, while only Nazis invaded countries out of greed and control thirst.
01-18-2008, 01:50 PM #73Senior Member
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
"i'd rather say "had"...during the 70s they were singing they'd never join the EEC, but later did as last resort (did they discover "cultural ties" only that late? Or was it seeking a share of EEC dole money? )."
Wellfare payments have (sensibly enough), gone down, and the rules are stricter. But it's still very generous and while the Swedish livngstandard doesn't top the world list anymore (the danish does), you can still make a decent living from dole or pension. But ofcourse people are grumbling. Poeple are always grumbling.
The reason for joining EU was not economical. Sweden pays about twice as much to EU, as it gets back (but then it's sometimes difficult to trust information, you get from swedish authorities. The neo-stalinistic influences in swedish political life for the last half of the 20th century, still has echos. We've been very close to dictatorship in reality, and the habitual twisting of information is a hard habit to lay off).
The real reason for Sweden (and possibly Denmark) to join EU, was that the "politically correct" openness to refugees was being more and more troublesome. It turned out to be too expensive, no functional integrationprograms existed, and the indigenous populations protested more and more loudly in various ways. Few established politicians dared openly suggest a restriction (those who did were hung out as racist or neo-nazis), so they used EU regulations for non-european immigration to hide behind.
"intelligence has little to do with information"
My point. Information, given or taken, should be a way to find truth (reality). Both in my lofty existential search or if the price of onions is reasonable. And information can take many expressions, not only intellectual.
01-18-2008, 04:05 PM #74Senior Member
quote: The real reason for Sweden (and possibly Denmark) to join EU, was that the "politically correct" openness to refugees was being more and more troublesome. It turned out to be too expensive, no functional integrationprograms existed, and the indigenous populations protested more and more loudly in various ways. Few established politicians dared openly suggest a restriction (those who did were hung out as racist or neo-nazis), so they used EU regulations for non-european immigration to hide behind.
- Join Date
- Sep 2005
England joined EEC at the same time of Denmark I think, brought Ireland along in the pursuit of making "European integration " difficult (that is why de Gaulle wanted them out ) in a broader political plan. Scandinavia failed referenda and openly stated they did not "need" the safety net or compass or whatever the EEC provided.
The cold war was still raging in the 70s.
It is openly documented scandinavian countries packed hefty money from both USA and the USSR (Finland had an ambiguous treaty in place with the USSR ).
Not so mysteriously, with the fall of the iron curtain and as oblivion befell to the cold war (for eminently monetary reasons; the USSR was on the verge of collapse & the USA had clearly bluffed all the way long about Star Wars ), expensive outbacks of the battling empires were gradually discarded.
The golden rain of illegal subventions and uninterrupted sponsorships to allies and undecided (EG the group of countries headed by India & Yugoslavia ) came to an end.
This prompted a fatuous afflatus of jingoism with the 1990 USSR putsch because at least few high-ranking officials understood the USSR was heading south, and so it was.
It was a rush for Russia to basically drop the high-maintenance outskirts of its empire; big mistake, as Russia now bellyaches because these new states sell themselves to the highest bidder, instead of keeping in line with orders from Moscow.
Italy was another "Mexico of Europe" (as i say, but without oil & other resources the real Mexico has ), third-rate country dropping dead after cold war crutches broke.
It turns out Mussolini was more right about what Italy could be than those clowns who wanted to ape America.
A sizable chunk of national wealth got literally down the drain during the massive crisis preceding the euro ( E.G monetary crises ).
Scandinavia was no exception.
Until and as long as gold kept coming from Moscow & Washington, they could ridicule the EEC and bathe in welfare welcoming scum from all over the world to bathe in affluence.
Here these days journals run daily stories about armies of poor people.
To be accepted as "poor" one must be a true charity case, typically feeding on private charity food supplies.
Recently one big religious charitable organization claimed they are literally running out of food.
Welfare is reserved mostly for parasitic minorities (EG South covered in uncollected trash ).
Perhaps (as I wrote and was called a fool ) there was never all that true/inborn affluence, except on the back of USSR & USA; once they stopped paying, there comes the crisis (hell, it shook even Cuba! ), so it was all smoke and mirrors.
Another burst bubble was that felons coming on a boat from Africa were the key to win the commercial war with China...too bad all we got are city ghettos now restricted in some cities by armored walls and barbwire...ha! so much for the "since in Germany the wall falls...".
01-18-2008, 05:43 PM #75Senior Member
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
On background of the wiever-poll of this topic "psychobabbling", I will in the time-honoured tradition of media-divas allow myself some extravagance. (For those of you only used to american humour: This was a personal joke. PeopleS and Ham can wash their hands of all the following, if they want).
Contrary to most media-divas I will not talk about such fascinating topics, as whom I last slept with or the colour of my socks, but instead make a summary of my ideas of how to handle information/finding truth/approaching reality. It will maybe bore or irritate a lot of the readers, but there's always the option to stop reading further.
At the heart of all human effort to communicate/ process information with existence is epistemology. This being a special branch of philosophy, it may sound too highbrow. But nonetheless we all use it in our daily lives; from from a university professor or the halfcrazed mystic living in a cave to the most braindead sheepwalker, who by an overdose of soapoperas or belief-system propaganda, is unable to formulate more than half a sentence at a time. In the later case, it is not called epistemology, but "common sense", thereby trying to give it some respectability.
We recieve signals from the rest of the universe constantly, ranging from expressions of how natural laws manifest themselves, to other humans' speculations about how to interpret this.
When we as individuals process the information from the outside, we rely mainly on two tools. Our perception-apparatus (physical senses and the various filter-mechanisms associated with them) and our preconceived models of "what is real" (eg intellectual, political, philosophical, religious, economical or plain cultural "explanations"). At the base of all such "programs" for the human mind, there are some basic premises (axioms, presumptions).
One way to catalogue various programs is to establish their ability to describe/find "truth". Ranging from the school of thought believing the whole universe (with all its parts) to be the greatest hoax of all, the ultimate con-trick (hinayana buddhism, gnosticism) to those who believe that matter/energy manifestations are solid ground for observation/information-processing (materialistic philosophy).
I will dish out my version here, hopefully as much in shorthand as possible.
As quantum physics and some theological philosophies have it, cosmos (order, natural laws, matter/energy, space/time etc) was banged into exsistence from chaos (the word not to be understood as "confusion" as in common use of it). Chaos is non-order, god, nirvana, magic, miracles, depending on your personal programming. In other words anything which doesn't follow the rules of cosmic order.
Cosmos and chaos aren't divided by a line making them totally separate from each other. Even inside the universe they mingle to a certain degree.
While the order in the universe (natural laws) possibly could represent some degree of "reality", many of the belief-systems constructed by human minds are pure fantasies. These fantasies DO have an inner coherence, seemingly making them true and often making the "believers" into fundamentalists. But a closer look at such belief-systems' premises will, with a minimum of rational thought, demonstrate their shortcomings for representing "reality". Why should this holy book, be more true than this other holy book. For that sake, why should our present "religion" science
be able to give final answers.
My personal belief-system is: Based on the manifestations of "natural" laws every single part of the universe, from the smallest quantum-aspects up to biological beings (and/or other complex beings), is "hungry". It strives for unification with differently charged polarities, such as minus to plus
in electromagnetically particles, up to (or above) human longing for food, sex, shelter etc. Correspondingly unification with similarly charged parts is avoided/rejected.
This process is "natural", following a set of mechanistic rules (predetermined if you like), and seems to be the general behaviour. It is also mostly predatory, if pragmatic observation is to be trusted.
So I agree with PeopleS to some extent. Power (as another word for a predatory system) IS a main factor, though I will not go so far as to say the only one. Remember that chaos is around also.
In chaos the possibility exists to be "outside" the laws of order/cosmos.
At the human level this non-ordered behaviour is often described as anarchistic (not necessarily the bomb-throwing variety so popular with belief-system propagandisers), weird or as "outsiders". Or to take an example from PeopleS culture. The native american medicine man (shaman), who was expected to behave irrational; irrationality being a proven method to contacts entities from other dimensions.
Believing in humanistic ideals is not "natural". It's an option based on non-mechanical epistemology/behaviour. Sheepwalkers, being mostly mechanical, usually aren't humanists (unless the live in a society, where humanism is part of the general programming). Sheepwalkers are part of power belief-systems, but being too lazy, dumb or brainwashed they will never get to the topdog positions. They have to stay at the level of wish-thinking, being spoonfed soapopera fantasies. Sometimes going so far in this direction, that they will turn the soapopera inwards and live in a continuous inner melodrama, making them virtual vegetables. A kind of existential autism.
A warning, dear reader. Given the slightest encouragement, I will later expand on the subject of "outsiders". These being the present days' shamans. So be careful, what you write here.
This long post is not only an expression of my colossal ego. I have actually tried to forward information, I find valuable.
01-18-2008, 06:00 PM #76Senior Member
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
I find your long political analysis interesting, but as you understand, my orientation is more towards other subjects. I do not
reject the value of your observations or conclusions, so this is the
only way, I can respond. I do simply not have the necessary information to form specific opinions in this matter.
Hopefully our different approaches will overlap from time to time. I do not feel the present lack of communication of our subjects to be negative. They just show different angles.
So passive readers of this. We do not have a modern-time type of Babel's tower here. I understand Ham, respect him, I'm just not qualified to answer him.
01-18-2008, 06:23 PM #77Senior Member
- Join Date
- Sep 2005
my last post was 438 words, yours 930, so i don't think that was so long after all.
News I gathered at school on specialized texts, but that were all over newspapers back then.
quote:Hopefully our different approaches will overlap from time to time. I do not feel the present lack of communication of our subjects to be negative. They just show different angles. So passive readers of this. We do not have a modern-time type of Babel's tower here. I understand Ham, respect him, I'm just not qualified to answer him.
01-18-2008, 07:19 PM #78Senior Member
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
My aversion to pollutics (mental as well as environmental) is based on my special approach to "reality". It's my opinion, that most polluticians lie a considerable part of the time, as do organised religions, commercials and the entertainment industry along parallel lines.
So my life is chemically clean of TV and daily newspapers. I can't stand the mental "noise" (some of you remember Robert Anton Wilson's "Fnords" in his Illuminatus trilogy?).
Whatever political knowledge I have, is based on common opinion from "the man in the street", plus a decent grasp of political ideologies.
Ham, I do not believe, we have outgrown the present debate, we only need common ground to start from. So if you don't feel such a proposal as intrusive, I'm quite sure, I can follow you, if you put forward your own, conctructive political ideology. I think, we agree to, that there's a lot of disinformation going around (you're quite good at exposing it), but have you any suggestions on how to make politics functional (that is to interact to "reality"). Even abstract ideas.
It seems, that our small group here put much importance on the sad fact of sheepwalking. Each from our personal angle. This could be one common point. There are probably other.
01-19-2008, 12:11 AM #79Senior Member
- Join Date
- Sep 2007
Hey guys! Quite an interesting match you have going. The EU is a bit outside of my general knowledge, so I really can't contribute to that topic.
I can say thay swede's "outsiders" might be considered to be part of what I referred to as the "dreamwalkers". It's a somewhat inclusive term referring to anyone who is able to think outside of the box. I general think of these people as dreaming of how things could be better for all mankind. This can be exemplified best by quoting the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. who said, "I have a dream!"
Vladimir Lenin had a dream that all people in his country could be united and equal under his philosophy of communism. I personally don't blame him for the abomination that others made of his dream.
Despite his well publicized faux pas about the Beatles being bigger than Jesus Christ, musician John Lennon was a "dreamwalker" who sang about peace and love for all races, and belived that it was something that could happen if enough people really wanted it to happen. If you ever have the chance to listen to his song "Imagine", you will get a picture of his dream of a peaceful utopian society. (... and no religion too...) As for the Beatles being bigger than Christ, realistically, at the time they were (at least with America's youth).
quote:So western clowns like Churchill and Blum really botched it to the advantage of the USSR and USA, who were evidently not so in love with Britain as Hitler was.
Like Patton, Churchill lost his job soon after![V]
quote: My aversion to pollutics (mental as well as environmental) is based on my special approach to "reality". It's my opinion, that most polluticians lie a considerable part of the time, as do organised religions, commercials and the entertainment industry along parallel lines.
Even for those of us who don't have such ambitions as to change the world, we still need to know and comprehend these groups in order to effectively manage or own affairs and to grow as much as possible within the constraints these groups have established.
quote:A warning, dear reader. Given the slightest encouragement, I will later expand on the subject of "outsiders". These being the present days' shamans. So be careful, what you write here.
01-19-2008, 01:55 AM #80Senior Member
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
"Even for those of us who don't have such ambitions as to change the world, we still need to know and comprehend these groups in order to effectively manage or own affairs and to grow as much as possible within the constraints these groups have established"
For my own part, I can only say, that my "missionary" days are over, but I do keep an eye on society to protect myself.
It looks, as if you already have a good grasp of the outsider idea, so I'll just start by saying, that outsiders are a group, who seem to be more or less immune to sheepwalker programming.
The name outsider was minted by the english author/philosopher Colin Wilson, and later the idea was researched and developed by the american/canadian psychologist/psychiatrist Maslow. Maslow made a survey of the outsidergroup and concluded, that app. 5% of humanity are outsiders. The rest being sheepwalkers (though he was too polite to call them that).
I have later privately tried to follow up this subject, and I have found, that the outsider group can be subdivided. Being an outsider you are prone to the miseries of social ostracism or worse, so the chances of ending up as alcoholic, junkie or neurotic is quite big.
Some outsiders will pass through this purgatory and come out wiser or at least only slightly eccentric. And some outsiders will say: "Hey, I don't believe in rules. I'm king of the world".
By being free of mechanical sheepwalker mentality, outsiders are normally very creative. Many great artists, social engineers and deep thinkers are found in this group.
The group of outsiders passing unscathed through the social ostracism, will often be advocates of some kind of beneficial ideologies and will be the natural opponents of those outsiders, who want to use their mental freedom for egoistic purposes. The first group is in my book the good guys, whom you'll find as instigators of good causes. The second group are more or less sociopaths, who will elbow their way to the top, writing special laws (if any) for themselves, but oppressing the sheepwalkers as much as they can.
Many politicians and power- or moneygreedy types are "bad guy" outsiders. The bad guy outsiders will do anything they can to stop the good guy outsiders from getting any influence. By gunpoint, legislation or framing medical diagnoses.
The legislation-variety is best exemplified by Timothy Leary. It's not, that I'm one of his most enthusiastic supporters, I think he had some pretty stupid (but harmless) ideas occasionally, but on the other hand he also showed moments of genius. He was framed with a viciousness quite of out proportion to his "crimes". His REAL crime was ofcourse, that he openly criticized the governemnt's sheepwalker programming tactics and proposed de-brainwashing procedures for sheepwalkers.
The medical framing: Wilhelm Reich, who really was a minor kind of nut, was harassed by authorities until he broke down completely. Russian dissidents, being diagnosed as mentally ill, because they were anti-communist.
The lists on both good and bad guy outsiders can be made long. And it is my theory, that the real fights are between those groups. Usually the sheepwalkers don't get high enough in any hierarchy to get any real power.
I'm anticipating the protests. Such ideas as I've just put out are very controversial.