Here is a logical phallacy: The dominant farming practices today are harmful for the biosphere, therefore ALL possible farming is harmful. Obviously this is not the case, there are ways of growing plants and animals that offer a very positive externalization to the environment. That is why NASA thinks that someday terraformation of Mars could be possible.

The problem is not in farming, but in what forces farming to become as extractive as possible, and to return to the Earth as less as possible. That thing is lack of population control, especially in Africa and regions of the Middle East where leaders encourage people to have as many future emigrants as possible; and the economy based on maximizing (especially short-term) profit and calling "wealth" to "exhausting wealth produced by nature."

In a world with population control and nations that defend their borders from demographic invasions, positive farming industries would be not only possible but widespread.

Farming can not be abandoned by Man, because all those animals and plants whose mere existence depend of our agrosystems do not deserve extinctions after so many millennia feeding us; and after we have killed off their wild varieties. Not only the domesticated species are to be considered, but also the many species that need agrosystems to feed. Many national parks in the world depend on agrosystems around them to keep their diversity.

We need to control our population and greed, shift to healthy farm practices that offer positive externalizations, and try to prevent the loss of diversity in agriculture, that is huge. And we need to keep on eating our animals and plants because they are part of our family; the Homo Sapiens phenomenon has never been just a bunch of individual hominids, but also the relationships with other species.

You are never too young to make decisions, and the capacity for becoming responsible of your actions increases gradually with age. When those decisions have grave consequences, some standards should be met. I think age is not what should matter, but the ability to understand and foresee those consequences and to take responsibility for them. This leads to different people having different degrees of privileged, or exclusive, legal capacities to make decisions, if social justice and equality before the Law are to be preserved. For instance, it would be unjust that everybody could run for mayor, or drive a car, regardless of criminal record, intelligence, knowledge...just because a certain age is reached! And the other way round: some gifted kids are mature for responsible voting at 13. They should just be required to prove it with a psychological and cultural test.

It is true that agriculture and farming can be way less cruel than nature, and provide a life to farm animals and domesticated plants that is both more pleasant and more interesting in terms of evolutive success than wild life. However Karl Stone, this is a potentiality that is rarely fulfilled. Nazivegans are right in denouncing that animals are not usually well treated in farms. And they forget about animals that are poisoned and exterminated to produce vegetables, which is much worse in terms of scale of global animal suffering.

The virtue is in the middle in my opinion; to keep and protect the biological and cultural diversity and economic viability of farmlands, but giving up practices that destroy diversity and produce insane amounts of suffering. In fact, both goals are more complementary than divergent.

Regions of the world able to protect their borders from demographic invasions, can allow themselves a healthy, optimal human population, and this management of demography in its turn makes possible to direct farming to ever increasing quality and not to ever increasing quantity. Nobody wants animals that have had horrible short lives as their meal, if that can be avoided. So at least (civilized) nations with well defended borders and the resulting capacity to control demographic surge, such as China or Russia, should shift to a better relationship with our beloved farm animals and plants.

Chatterbears, you need to decide which question you want to debate, the title of your post or the final question in the text. Notice that they are different, and require different answers. To the first one in the title, yes, I think our dominion over animals is ethical and positive in principle. Someday it will pay off when we fight back an alien invasion.

To the second one, no, there is no excuse for making other sentient beings, from insects to orangutans, suffer unnecessarily. Other animals can not do this, because they lack ethics; but luckily we do. We need to avoid pain and stress to other creatures when it is possible to do so. For example, when I kill an African cockroach (very invasive and nasty, like anything coming to Europe from hot Africa, I´m referring to exotic species and germs), I try to kill it quick, hopefully by stepping on it. If they are still alive, as many often happens because they are incredibly tough, I finish it off so that its agony is not longer than required. I have to kill them to protect the health of my family and pets, but I understand that I have no right to impose an undue extra pain over them when doing so.

Not even Hitler was really Hitler. Hitler has become a Darth Vader figure, a quintaessential villain. It´s no wonder than stupid people deny the facts of WW2; the period and especially the National-Socialist regime have been made too literary and archetypal.

I own two canary birds and a blue-gold macaw, and I can confirm canary sounds are way more bearable. I can report also, from years of direct observation, that sounds canary do are not meaningless. They aren´t an structured language, but they carry a lot of meaning. For example, if a bloody stray cat comes to visit my patio and I was asleep (early morning) the specific sound for "cat!" wakes me up so that I can get up and scare off the predator. But I don´t wake up with cheerful singing, that is way louder and longer; it´s because the sound for "predator here!" is very specific and used only when a cat is really there. Over time, you realize that sounds in birds are part of their behaviour management, like children playing alone and talking to themselves or chanting; and other birds read the patterns in those sounds like we read faces.

yes, but bear in mind that "Feminine" in Taoist and similar traditions in the West is not synonym with "womanly", but a way to refer to a trascendent cosmic principle, ultimaly unknowable. Women and Men, when they can escape gender politics indoctrination and breed-like-hell religions, tend to become the human incarnation of these principles; but Yin is not woman, woman is Yin. Likewise, religious iconography is not full of penises, but male penises are a human embodiment of the cosmic or spiritual principle of the Phallus.

Okay, I will re-read your comments to try to understand better

"So, given this frame of mind: To represent that which is metaphysically formless is to assign it form—thereby not capturing the formless given which is being addressed, but at best only pointing toward it".

Yes Havra, "pointing toward it" is the point. No symbol is the actual real thing in itself; but a symbol must partake of the reality it manifests for us. Like epiphanies, that are symbols of the Divine. For instance, formless emptiness is represented in cosmic wheels as an empty centre. It is "this nothing in the middle" that allows the wheel to spin and become a wheel, as the Tao te ching explained. So this axis is not universal Vacuum, but it is that vacuum in the representation, by virtue of what it shares, or partakes of, the Cosmic Emptiness: being the centre and source with no inner limitations.

Likewise, a circle is not Infinity, but it is infinity in the limited geometric context where is presented. If the painting is the whole universe, then the ouroboros is the rhythm of eternal motion; it doesn´t just represents it, it really is in the given context.

The Guardian is not a reliable source of what happens in reality. It´s very biased, very full of obsessions about race, gender, more race, why whites are evil, more gender, Trump is Hitler, is Christmas islamophobic? let´s vote again on Brexit please, and refugees welcome. It´s more of a pamphlet for driving lefties off the cliff than a source of reliable information.
In fact, usually newspapers are rarely good sources of facts about the world; most they can do is to alert you that something is going on somewhere, so that you do your own investigation.

very interesting approach to truth as being Eternal. It makes a lot of sense.

Javra writes: "Thing is, if all symbols are of our creation, and if truth is metaphysically uncreated, no symbol would adequately represent the truth itself as a metaphysical given". Well, while conventional signs (traffic signs, letters...) are very much determined by humans, symbols in their specific meaning as elements studied by Symbology are not exactly our creation. They always contain a strong natural element, because they are talking to our subconscious and not our conscious selves. For example, totalitarian ideologies (nazism, fascism, socialism, comunism...) tend to use RED a lot in their symbols, and this is no coincidence: red is a colour that makes us think of blood, fighting, transgression, passion. You can not pretend to make a revolution dressed in pink or like a fancy macaw, and that´s why LGTB movements are more annoying than really dangerous. Antifa on the contrary, got it right: red for passion and violence, and black for power and rebellion. Red and Black, in its essence, means Chaos and rejection of Light. Peaceful movements tend to use White: white is light, because it contains all colours; and purity, becouse clean linen is white, and all pure, white pieces of cloth are nothing but a reminder of snow coming from the heavenly level and covering the Earth with perfectly drinkable water, something that ancient cavemen got to see quite often. Only peoples that never left hot regions miss that connection, because they don´t usually see snow; and so white becomes the colour of death, or of a person who looks foreign; and the impressions of the vibration are then turn to black (symbolic inversion). So my point is if that even if you don´t know about symbology the corresponding natural vibration, condensed in colour, shape, sound...in symbols are still felt by your body-mind very strongly, and that makes symbols a natural thing and not just cultural.

Stability is sometimes represented with a square. The square, or number four, means stability because it is a point of dinamic equilibrium between opposite forces. Like the pillars Boaz and Hachim in the Solomon´s temple myth.

[b]it´s not made of particles, but of what particles do.[/b] And particles are made of what the Source (whatever that is) does with itself. It all goes down to this: a Unity that is capable of dividing itself to the point of making room for communication; communication in my view is partial integration, what happens when a body is not perfectly unified. Planets and stars attract each other because they communicate, in other words: they are falling into place again. As they come nearer, they communicate more strongly, until they are one.

In a sense, our consciousness is a polarized representation or experience of this long process of re-integration, both in our bodies and around them.

I think we are always dreaming, always unconscious, because we can only perceive inner representations. In our wake state a little more of our sensorial input is allowed to shape our experiences, so that we can interact with the world. In our sleeping state that input is kept to a minimum, and our conscious field works coordinating more complex experiences; while when we are awake the conscious is less active and mostly engaged with immediate responses that our body-mind has to produce to perform our different daily functions.

what is Consciousness anyway? For me consciousness is subjective experience, that is, physical data that are represented in a symbolic -or imaginary- structure where there is a core representing the coordination of the sensing and processing unit itself. Robots and I.A. have no consciousness because they do not build such symbolic worlds that link their activity inside with the activity outside. Cockroaches do: https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/news/2016/04/insects-could-shed-light-on-the-evolution-of-consciousness/

Humans and other highly intelligent animals have more complex languages to create these representations. This is due to the fact that these species tend to be social, that is: they are collective souls and not just individual souls. So images capable of communicating these microcosmos to some extent become necessary to build the collective level. Humans are particularly designed for this purpose, that is why we have such a rich, multi-layered consciousness that is created gradually when we start to interact socially.

This said, animal consciousness is not something out of the blue, but a particular definition of a natural function that existed before life on Earth and exists beyond what we know as life. Which is, in my view, the capacity of objects in the Universe to react to changes and communications with their environment in a non trivial manner.

I wanted to answer this question but, overwhelmed by the many notions I would need to explain first, I decided not to. Where to start? Ufff... Does it happen to other people? The simple answer is: the first comment is wrong because is based on a whole representation of the Universe that is wrong, at odds with manifest reality, especially as social and human spheres are concerned. It is possible that other members feel the same about my comments, as I know so little about many things. But now it´s my turn to feel overwhelmed.

Relativist, you need to re-read my last comment, this time trying to make the most of it, really putting some effort into comprehending what I say in it. A forum is not just about speaking our minds, is also trying to grasp what other members want to convey. We are all learning from each other.
You know I´m not asking for inconditional support for any president; please read again.

I assume you are all smart human beings because you comment in a philosophy forum and shit. You must understand that, if people voted for a real ape, say a chimpanzee, that what you´d get and you would need to support the chimp so that he makes good decisions and cause the least diplomatic trouble possible in the situation.

If Trump makes good reasonable decisions (rule of thumb: any political measure a Hollywood star doesn´t like/understand will probably qualify as such) he needs your explicit support. If he can do better, he needs to be told so politely and recommended an alternative path. A president with a very hostile opposition is be forced to "retrieve" to identitarian and populist measures and rethoric; a leader who can count with support from his antagonists now and then has more political margin to implement plans that are not "so safe". The real freedom of action of a president is always smaller than we think. And it has to be acted upon options only an elite can really see, because most of us simply do not have the real information. There´s so much intelligence, data management, hidden agendas, projection of scenarios that need to be taken into account, that I wonder how on Earth can we suppose that we know better just by half-reading a digital newspaper or watching the telly.

Politics is social Ethics. In real ethical practice, you do not have ideal dilemmas, where all imaginable options are available and their outcome is certain and clear. What you get is a very narrow set of real choices you have to ponder assuming many risks. In Politics too you have very very few real options, and you try all the time to minimize risks. Only real mad leaders, good or evil, take many chances. Most leaders, good or evil, are compelled to choose among paths they would not even consider in their previous lives.

A wild, rabid opposition like the one you are giving to Trump makes Trump´s mandate a lot worse, with less options available, and an increased political risk in all of them. That way, you are getting the worst Trump you can get, the version that can survive in such insane climate; always defensive, always suspicious, never confident that he can get any speck of support from anybody but his fan base that is always hungry for shocking statements. This is no good. It´s time to give the man a break and try to make the most of his years in office.

I´m neither conservative nor progressive, I quitted, really quitted for good this bidimensional political plane seven years ago. I´m not taking sides with Trump or with the Republican party; I just want the United States to continue in existence because Europe is falling and some part of the Western civilization needs to survive. If that loony Ocasio Cortez or another candidate became the next president, my position will remain the same. Precisely because the Office is bigger than the person and Society and its future bigger than the Office.

Let´s suppose Trump is corrupt, a liar, and possibly a reptile in human disguise. It´s still the American´s President, elected in real elections, unlike our president in Spain who´sliterally the head of a coup d´etat declared in Barcelona last year.
Trump the guy in tv shows and public soirees can be laughed at, but Trump the President, like any other American president, needs citizens that aren´t stupid all the time and whining all the time. Both Republicans and Democrats need to support him and his government, especially in difficult measures, and stop watching TV showmen and movie stars that for some reason think they know about how to run the country way better than the average citizen while their real lives are managed poorly.

Stop being so decadent. Save your country people. And for Dems in particular: if the next president is a Democrat, how will you like that Republican voters behaved with her like you behave with Trump? Would it be "okay" to call the next Dem president "Orangutan", "Nazi", "idiot"? Grow up for God´s sake.

you can not understant something until you place it in a context.. That is why, even if we do not have an evidence for ulterior dimensions, we can still consider an hypothetical fourth or fifth dimension to help us understand our 3D world. In Antiquity philosophers could not know if alien civilizations were even possible, but they speculated about life and intelligence in other planets because that helped to look at life on Earth and civilization under new perspectives.

Ying weeds and hardcore plants´ role in Nature is to pave the way for more delicate, but longer lasting, plants. They practice "terraforming" in badlands and abandoned urban areas. The same function is played by fast-reproducing-cheap-to-feed animals such as cockroaches or rats; they turn waste into edible food for other animals. Nature is so amazing, so well designed!

sounds like the next summer hit

I understand that many Americans consider owning guns, or at least having the right to, a very symbolic element of their democracy. Guns are never just guns, that´s why some barbaric countries have firearms or swords in their flags. Perceived unsafety and deterioration of order and democratic institutions lead to more people buying guns, due to the law of compensation and as a statement of your commitment with (the family level of ) society. That is why even Democrats buy more guns nowadays than in the past.
In addition to this, there arer very legitimate concerns of citizens as they become increasingly over-powered by the digital and military might of the police and army. In its turn, armed forces of order are responding to an ever greater capacity of gangs and terrorist organisations to create havoc in this super-connected and hyper-technological society.

Republicans and especially Democrats, must quit gun control as an identity and electoral weapon, and reach agreements to implement plans leading to the demilitarization of society.

In past centuries, it was common to carry weapons with you, because borders were poorly defended and crime on the streets and countryside were rife. In the Middle Ages, each town needed its own borders of stone, and kingdoms cut down woodlands because they could not keep them free of bandits and gipsies. Guns were quitted, at least in the civilized world, when they became increasingly unnecessary. Thus, the de-escalation of weaponization in society can only work as part of a greater plan to build safe urban environments where citizens´ rights are protected and there are no safe havens for crime and terror.

what exactly is consciousness Leo, and is it the same concept as subjective experience? We know how animals and plants have their experiences, and human experience is not that different (even cockroaches feel their lives subjectively apparently). Human way of experience the world is more imaginary and less direct than in other animals, but it doesn´t demand any different laws of Physics.

Perhaps you consider consciousness from a pantheistic standpoint, where all phenomena in all scales are conscious, so far as they imply an interaction of two or more elements with their environment.

this makes more sense, thank you. It is possible than popular science videos are a little misleading.
Perhaps what you mean is that time is probably not a separate phenomenon, but the way we experience other basic phenomena. Because there is no doubt that time is experienced by all of us and other living forms.

To remove guns from homes, you have to remove first guns from the streets

I don´t understand how spacetime is considered as space and time inseparable..., but then we can talk about what happened "before the Big Bang (Space) came to be?: or to put Time as a dimension in a series of spatial dimensions, like when you put "orange juice" in a series of types of oranges?

These absurd considerations can be exposed from a mere philosophical standpoint, because they are just nonsense physicists have to say because they do not really know what time and space are. They are supposed, as scientists, to play with words like that: because it´s very helpful when you need to explore. But often we forget these statements are just language games, and we accept that time is the fourth (spatial?) dimension, and things like that which confuse us all when we take them too seriously.

For instance, when philosophers propose an eternal universe as a "solution" to creatio ex nihilo, they are falling into this reification. From a logical point of view, there is no real ontological difference between a world created out of nothing and a world that always existed, even admitting the reification of our general idea of time. Because a universe "that always existed", is also ex novo, out of nothing. Considering time, real or constructed, is only a distraction which allows us to distance ourselves an imaginary step from the fact that Reality (when considered as a whole) is there for no good reason, and necessarily exists out of Nothing in a philosophical sense; both in potential and actuality.

"There will be another pair of directions, but I'm not sure what requirement you are putting on these directions by saying eccentric and concentric".

My mathematical understanding of reality is very poor. But I have read that spatial dimensions (the way we experience them anyway, that is, the way we make sense of our interaction with the underlying informational process) are such that the second dimension spreads orthogonally in relation to the first, and the third is projected perpendicularly, intersecting at right angles with the first and the second dimensions. This makes me think that a fourth spatial dimension has to interact (or be experienced as) a movement towards the centre or separating from the centre, in our 3D mindset. This would be noticed in our 3D world as objects that come from nowhere and go to nowhere, changing size and intensity of interaction with our plane along the way. The fact that we don´t get to see these anomalies very often, might be just the consequence of being too small to notice such events; we would only detect them considering huge spans of spacetime, like the ones studied in Cosmology.

I was hoping that you guys will tell me if this intuition is false or makes some sense, as I don´t have the mathematical tools to examine it. In my mind it feels right, but mixing coffee and beer also feels right in my mind.

We have right and left, back and forward, up and down; so I think the four spatial dimension might be outwards and inwards, an eccentric and concentric motion. That way the rule of orthogonal angle with the others spatial dimensions is preserved.
Moreover, I think the big bang and expansion of the universe is a fourth dimensional movement that we perceive "magically" as coming out of nowhere, just like flatlanders would perceive a sphere passing their bidimensional plane. I ilustrate my point with this picture, that contributes no helpful information but it´s really cool:

I think new religions are about to emerge, that will redefine our current notion of what religions are. The main religions now are totally out-dated and out of touch with natural, and worse still, social realities. They need ever greater violence (indoctrination, blasphemy laws, physical violence and persecution, more indoctrination) to keep people in check. They are about to fulfill their purpose, that is to bring about Doomsday, the resolution of all human conflicts. However, there will be survivors and those survivors will need fresh new religions that will not be book idolatries but a new kind (not necessarily better)

As some of these predictions are mutually exclusive, I hope that the colonization of Mars and the Moon is the one that comes true. I also hope those new countries have real border protection policies, so that they don´t get overflooded by I-´m-not-allowed-to-say-it-aloud that would make life ultimately impossible in those orbs. Cheap energy does not exist; because the cost of energy is not only the price of digging it, but also, and especially, the cost in terms of ecological and socio-cultural damage provoked by the exponential increase of chaos in the bio and human systems of the Earth. So the cheaper to get, the more expensive when the whole economical (in the true sense of economical) cycle is considered.

I´m currently a determinist too, because I can not even think of real processes not fully explainable via non deterministic causes, whether we know those causes or not. However I don´t think reductionism is a good way to understand the world. You say that everything can be explained in terms of the laws of physics and chemistry; and I wonder why you add chemistry at all, given that chemical processes are all jus part of an emergent level and not fundamental. More so, why the need to consider all levels of reality within the realm of physics, when they are all just emergent levels, relationships among other things that are at the bottom, or better said outside, spacetime.
I myself prefer to consider all levels as efficient causes, and not merely effects; this so because each level contributes new ways of organising energy and information, and these new interactions don´t stay in the level but communicate or radiate to the rest. You give the example of neuroscience and psychiatry, but these sciences are precisely based on studying the mutual influence among different levels. You can say that I get frightened at the sight of an armed thug because certain patterns in my neurons determine that reactions; but we can also say that those patterns exist becouse in the upper secondary level of my imagination and memory, I know that armed criminals are dangerous.
If all levels affect all levels (in different degrees), the whole picture is a universe (or meta-universe, or omni-verse, whatever the case) with many many levels of complexity and no real separation, as causes go up and down and everything interacts with everything. Now, if we accept that spacetime itself is emergent and not fundamental (as different theories claim to explain how spacetime could have a beginning), with spacetime out of the equation you only have one single object where the past and the future, the top and the bottom, do not follow one another, but co-exist and co-evolve. In a human body, you can say that everything that happen is just atoms behaving, or you can also say that everything that happens is just the manifestation, or effect, of an idea in your parents´mind. Both approaches are partly wrong, because they only consider as real and efficient one level of reality and forget about the rest, as they forget the context of the whole universe.

Reality seems to work through causal means, in a deterministic way; but considered in its totality, is acausal because Reality needs to rest on a question without answer, that is, why does Reality exists? Nobody can answer that. It just is. And it seems to communicate with itself following deterministic laws, so far as we know.

I suspect that Philosophy is too much focused in truth and abstract ideas, and not enough on feelings and relationships that is what women are (generally) interested in. When a woman seeks for what serious, legitimate Philosophy has to say about matters of the heart and practical living, she usually encounters existencialist and postmodern philosophy; that are not genuine philosophies, but really childhood and teenage traumas that some authors want to raise into universal categories; explained with words that yes, sound in the ears as if they were real philosophy. Or they may also encounter political slogans from revolutionary movements hoping to parasite her mind.

Women and also men interested in spiritual, vital concrete problems have real trouble finding really rational work on these issues, without a political agenda or personal freudian complexes behind. It might be that Jordan Peterson sells so well because he speaks rationally and deals with these problems, but he´s not a professional philosopher, but a scientist and therapist trying to fill in this mostly deserted philosophical niche. And there´s also Eastern philosophy, that still needs to find a common language with Western philosophy to really contribute to the progress of rational understanding of sentimental matters.

Ying, why do you think women are less interested in Philosophy than men? And what is different in women who are actually interested? Is it a natural-cultural sexual difference we should not tamper with, or just a misunderstanding?

that attitude won´t get you laid Ying. Women want men with an important ego, because male ego evolved to help women to keep in check their sea of feelings and emotions, that is sometimes very treacherous. In return, they create a sentimental shelter where this ego can heal its wounds and get ready for the fight again.

Try talking about your favourite philosopher and why your beard is more important than his. I promise you that it will work a lot better than "I'm an anonymous subject of perception. With a beard and moustache" as a chat-up line
"

Formal education is partly what makes people, people. Do you think society must help those people to share basic values and ideas of the world? Like, women can not be beaten for refusing to obey, or Law being over the quran or the bible? Education is not only about making better citizens. It´s also about having a society that works, with a core of beliefs and values. And that requires certain standards to be well, standard. Not just everybody teaching children what they want, whether is compatible with society or not. That doesn´t work.

when I think of democracy, I do not usually think of voting. Voting is just a technique to gather information about the citizens´ will on different issues. It´s not democracy; in fact elections can be made to work AGAINST democracy, by using the ritual as a personal sign that a given citizen gives up his fraction of sovereignty in favour of the powers in the regime.

Elections are important, but isolated they are meaningless. And they are only a minimum: together with paying taxes, it´s the least a citizen can do to satisfy his duties to the regime. Democracy properly understood in societies with masses of hundreds of millions of citizens, it´s a system that tries to afford as many personal differences as it can without jeopardizing the system, and implements channels for those differences to communicate with the system and contribute updates that in its turn influence the internal and external behaviour of a society.

It is comparable with our living bodies, as our trillions of cells, bacteria, viruses all have their say in the analysis of the state of the whole and its behaviour. Of course, some cells matter more than others, and neurons or bacteria in the gut have a greater influence in our thoughts and emotions than red cells or bacteria on our skin (unless there´s an illness). A system where everybody has the same weight in decisions is not democracy, is an indiferentiated expanse of plankton. That is why elections and taxes must be the bottom level of common participation, but then there are other paths a citizen can use to participate more if s/he is committed more.

In these other paths, the United States is traditionally stronger than Western Europe; freedom of speech, economic enterprise, judicial system...

I don´t know about colonial mentality, my country never had those and it´s a concept a little foreign and strange for me. Europeans ARE smarter and more educated than Americans. This is not my opinion, is just a fact, that I put in contrast with another fact, which is that Americans still have a better democratic regime than most European countries. Sharing objective data about the world says nothing in itself about my "mentality". Perhaps you have a perceptual filter that makes you relate the speaking of certain facts of the world with particular ideologies. This is only natural, we all have these, and the thing to do is to check if the statements are true and verifiable; that way we can understand that we were applying our subjetive filter and adding meaning that is not there. I´m working on this healthy habit myself.

America is ALSO Europe. Europe is not a geographical concept; it´s a civilization. Before Muslim invasions, Europa was just a princess in a fairytale. Europe is Classic Mediterranean civilization + all political and cultural institutions to fight against islam, including the forced Christianization and civilization of Northern Europe; until our complete surrender to the Arab ideology of peace and love.

Athena made a very good point about the importance of Consciousness. Revolution is a word with many meanings, but its political meaning, for historical reasons, is strongly tied to socialist uprising, outbreaks of violence the Mass is responsible for. Revolution is a very filthy word for many societies suffering a revolution in their recent past. I don´t like political revolutions at all, because they are irrational and do not work in favour of society or our values. People who glamourize revolutions have not really suffered the consequences of one in their lives and their families. Revolutions are only good in the context of an ideological Discourse, where reality is replaced by a myth. Revolutions do not bring about a greater consciousness, but a deeper fall into a dream that invariably turns into a nightmare when it manifests in social reality.