Well yeah good luck with that. Very often when people run out of things to say they speak of love, but they do so vacuously, with love meaning only some vague kind of compassion, with no specific way to implement in practical situations. So it's just like getting each other drunk on cheap wine.

You miss my point here. In the song it's a progression. When even force fails, after love and justice, in settling a problem, you talk to your imagined mother, the one who will always forgive you whatever you've done, who won't disagree with you when the chips are down. (In the song this provides no relief, as it turns out Mom is a robotised State). — mcdoodle

When force, love, justice and so forth have failed, you don't talk to your mom, you pack your bags and out you go :P

You say that 'the abstractions are what people use to negotiate'. I agree, but I'm saying it's the negotiation that's primary; the abstractions are just tools to use; for me, they aren't important matters that require Capital Letters. — mcdoodle

Yeah so? I'm just saying that the abstractions fail because people don't care about them - they don't really care about Truth. They treat it just like you, as an abstraction. And then their differences become irresolvable.

Systems logic is already being used in countless ways including to make weather predictions and meteorologists are already talking about implimenting weather control both on local levels and globally. — wuliheron

Sure it is used, but that's not what I'm asking for. I've actually studied and worked with chaos theory for engineering purposes with regards to structural dynamics. So I know it exists and it is used. But I gave a specific problem. How does one compete with Coca Cola in the production and sale of canned coke? How does systems logic answer THIS kind of question? This isn't a technical question - what is the weather over there, or what happens to this column in such loading/vibration conditions. I'm asking how systems logic helps address these non-technical, non-numerical problems.

It will be another twenty years before the computers can spit out the numbers, and probably a hundred before they'll collected most of the basic information required, but the beginning of the end will be within twenty years with the introduction of a Theory of Everything. — wuliheron

Okay, but I gave you a practical problem. I wanna beat Coca-Cola. How do I go about it? If this beginning of systems logic cannot even suggest a path to do that, why should I trust it? It seems to be no better than classical theories that we already know - they too fail to give a way.

And you haven't answered the question of what the world actually needs, I'm curious what you think that is!

On the communes I've lived on most people required at least three years just to figure out how group decision making functions because they've been taught all their lives politics is just about fighting for whatever you believe in. — wuliheron

So do you take it that organised society, both today and 2000 years ago is "bad", and we should be living and working in communes?

and can now mathematically predict how to destroy the resilience of organizations like the republican party — wuliheron

What stops the Republican party from doing the same? And more importantly, if you can predict with mathematical precision, then please predict for me how to destroy the resilience of Coca-Cola because I want to open a beverage company competing with them and winning :P

Contemplating your naval and playing politics might be productive in some ways, but the world needs more than that these days. — wuliheron

What does the world need then?

If you are self-employed and love what you do, could you do it without being paid for it? By work here, I mean getting a wage for labor. If that was taken care of, you can potentially do whatever you like doing and give it away or even sell it, if money still worked that way. But it would not be done out of necessity, simply out of the enjoyment of doing it. — schopenhauer1

Getting paid is part of what I like about working so no, I would definitely not do it without being paid (well depends who is asking for it without payment in practice). You do something meaningful and valuable for others, and they use a scarce resource that they care about, money, in order to show their appreciation. I have found that customers that I do small and cheap work for never appreciate it and never make much use of it themselves. However, customers that I can charge more end up actually appreciating the work, and coming back for more. So it's not that I need the money. I would charge even if I was a billionaire and doing this for pleasure, because charging is part of what makes it work. I have more money than I require for my needs (which are not many at all) so I never truly did it just for the money. My earnings are greater than my costs by quite a bit, and I don't spend on what other folks would like luxuries, and other non-essentials.

As I said, I can't imagine a world without work - without doing something valuable in exchange for other things from others.

To be "managed", told what to do, stressed out, and/or bored with repetition at a job setting, or be bored with a long stretch of leisure time? — schopenhauer1

Well that's not necessarily the case. You could be self-employed and working in something you like or care about for example. I think work is a necessity of life, and therefore I cannot even begin to imagine a world without work. Such a world would be hell for me.

It is egalitarian poetry which is something those with power and wealth can never comprehend. — wuliheron

Why can't the ones with power and wealth comprehend it? What is the necessary link between power and wealth ability of comprehension in this case?

And you reckon the Chinese Daoist masters would consider such gatherings as part of the Daoist practice? I feel they were more interested in statecraft and the art of governance - similar to Sun Tzu.

How about the idea of the "paradox of work" where people are generally annoyed by being at work and wish they did not have to actually be at a certain place at a certain time, but at the same time, are not happy listlessly luxuriating at their home, doing passive activities alone for extended periods of time. In other words, work provides avenues of concentrating one's attention and socializing, things humans crave due to our social nature and big brains that need to be occupied. — schopenhauer1

I agree.

So what would a post-work society be like? — schopenhauer1

Probably like this:

Is it one where we are isolated, listless, and depressed due to lack of social interaction — schopenhauer1

>:O

I've never had much sympathy with this position, because I don't really get bored. I like long stretches of indolence and inertia, and if anything disliked being forced into activity. Boredom means, in a way, that you are not interesting, because something external must stimulate you to make living worthwhile for you. True interest comes from within, nowhere else. — The Great Whatever

>:O You must be like some damn lion lying in indolence and inertia doing nothing. But common - how can one be interested just in themselves without ever desiring (not needing, but desiring) something external? That's like not even being in the world. You're saying that you could just lie on the couch and do literarily nothing day after day, except of course the necessary things like hygiene, food, etc. That seems to be a lie to me.

Unstressed quiet, done long enough, leads to boredom. — schopenhauer1

Yes, that is true. You have to do something in your unstressed quiet time. Read something. Watch something. Learn something. Talk with someone. Play chess. Write on TPF. etc. If you don't do anything in your unstressed quiet time and just sit in a chair doing nothing, of course you'll become bored. I have an acquaintance who literarily sits in a chair, smokes weed everyday, and plays video games. Doesn't even go out of the house. He lives with his brother. His brother works, pays the rent and buys the food. He doesn't do anything. He always complains that he's bored. Of course! How can he not be... he's not doing anything, not challenging himself, not focusing his efforts on doing something worthwhile.

All that's saying is that living is challenging though. You can't languish and be satisfied. And I'm sure that @Bitter Crank will agree with that.

I don't know, but he seems to be saying that being alive is better than being dead, in general, because the dead aren't aware of anything. — Marchesk

Okay, so if he were saying that, does it follow that one should therefore cling to life at all costs?

What he is saying is with reference to the afterlife. It is better to be ALIVE (in the real sense of alive) than dead. It is better to save your soul than to lose it. Jesus was treated like a dog in this life. And yet, this dog is the one who overcame. His spirit wasn't a dog, his spirit was a roaring lion. Socrates mocked the court who sentenced him - he was making fun of them. The guy bringing the hemlock - what are you doing, why are you crying? Bring it faster, there's nothing to be worried about. That's what Socrates was doing. In the flesh, he was a dog, forced to die. But in the spirit he was free - unlike the others, he didn't cling to a few more years of life. Diogenes! He overcame the great Alexander! While others were cowering in front of Alexander because they sucked up to get a share of the pie, Diogenes openly mocked Alexander and told him to get the fuck out of his light. Alexander respected Diogenes because he gambled with his life, he wasn't a petty dog (in the spirit), clinging to life (in the flesh) for a few more seconds. But rather he was GREAT - that's why Alexander said to all those suckers who were laughing around him - truly if I wasn't Alexander, I would be Diogenes. But it's better to be a dog (in the flesh) and to live (in the spirit), than to be a lion (in the flesh) and succumb (in the spirit).

Take heart. I have overcome the world. If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can look at this mountain and say move - and it shall move. Thus spoke Jesus.

But the idea of life being a struggle to be embraced for a better life later on is an interesting idea. If only there were evidence. — Marchesk

Except that I don't embrace struggle for a better life. I embrace it because the SPIRIT is greater than the FLESH - IN THIS LIFE. You can kill the flesh, but never the spirit. if I never give up, even if I end up dead, so what? My spirit was never killed. My spirit was never touched. My spirit clinged to itself, and thus saved itself. The real death is when your spirit is killed. When you bend down, for a few more seconds of life - THAT my friend, is the real death. To be attached to life is disgusting, it is shameful. It's saying that your spirit, your will, is worth less than this brutal and petty life itself. You'll take this hell itself, over your dignity. That is shameful.

I think Solomon is just making some pessimistic observations about life. You're turning it into a Nietzschean overcoming the world thing with a Christian afterlife. — Marchesk

No answer my question. Is Solomon saying that it is better to humiliate yourself in order to live longer? Is he saying that or not?

So according to you Solomon says the following:

If someone, under the threat of death, tells you to have sex with them (for example), then you should do it, because it's better to live than to die? No - it's much better to die with honour, as Socrates did, as Jesus did, as Seneca did, as the world's greatest of human beings did - than to cling to life like some dirty and shameless scum, willing to do anything for a few more seconds of life. Is your spirit not greater than this earthly life itself? Would you humiliate yourself for a few more seconds of life? Is this what Solomon could possibly be saying? Tell me. Is he saying do whatever it takes to live a few more seconds? Is he saying have no shame, have no honour?

As a story, anyway. How many couples in love do you suppose want to die young so that their love can be immortalized? — Marchesk

That's because they're weak and petty, and worth nothing. They are like worms and vermins, they will do anything to cling to one more day of earthly life. That's their pettiness. They have surrendered the only freedom they truly had, the freedom of dignity, for what? To live like beggars and scum a few more days, hours or years. What difference does it make, 5 more years or 50 more?

A saying comes to mind: "A live dog is better than a dead lion". Might have even come from Solomon. — Marchesk

You should read it in context:

This is an evil in all that is done under the sun, that there is one fate for all men. Furthermore, the hearts of the sons of men are full of evil and insanity is in their hearts throughout their lives. Afterwards they go to the dead. For whoever is joined with all the living, there is hope; surely a live dog is better than a dead lion. For the living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward, for their memory is forgotten

It's talking about the afterlife, not about this life. "Whoever shall lose his life for my sake - shall gain it". That's the promise Jesus made. Whoever throws this earthly life as if it were nothing, and gambles with it for eternity - they are those truly worthy for the Kingdom and Heaven, and they shall overcome, despite the appearances. They shall be eternal, and live amongst the stars. While those who cling to life, scared, they will perish and will be forgotten - that's the GREAT irony. Those who cling to life will lose it, but those who gamble with it as if it were nothing shall take it all back, just as Jesus Himself did.

What was the plan before Adam & Eve screwed the pooch? Just give people the virtue up front and a ticket straight into paradise? — Marchesk

That's why they screwed the pooch, you answered it yourself. Because they only want paradise aftera life of great struggle. it's the struggle that teaches them about themselves (spirit) and about God.

Guess what? In your envatted world, you get to be in charge and ban all such shows. Although, it won't affect any of the other envatted minds, so you might not get the same satisfaction from doing so. That's one strike against being envatted. I suppose you could choose to delude yourself during the envatment procedure. — Marchesk

Yes, banning them only makes sense if I am opposed. Romeo's and Juliet's love only made sense because of the great opposition against it. Because they had to throw their lives to keep their love, that's what made them great, that's why they are eternal - they will be remembered. It is those who overcome the greatest obstacles based on their love for Truth and Justice that have overcome the world. It's not even about achieving - it's about fighting, it's about never giving up, it's about not yielding. That's what matters - not success. Romeo and Juliet failed in the flesh. And yet, in the spirit they have overcome - they have left this world with their heads up high - unlike other petty fools who cling to a few more days of life, these two threw it all on the line, gambled with it as if it was nothing. Their detachment from life - based on their greater attachment to Love - that was what overcame the world, that was what propelled them from mere mortals into eternity. It was their leap of faith.

Tyrants, dictators, and psychopaths - they are the world's greatest failures, because they undermine the very opposition they need in order to be great. Take a rapist. A rapist enjoys the sexual conquest of a woman, and thus does ANYTHING in order to achieve it. BUT - there always comes a point when she will stop resisting, and that moment the rapist will encounter his own pettiness and his own nothingness. There's nothing great about having sex with a stone. He has total obedience, but it's worth nothing. It's different than the obedience that comes out of the woman's own submission, out of her own free will. That latter is earned, the latter is worthy, but the former is nothing, it's petty, it's disgusting.

I'm glad you find it to be great. Very Nietzschean of you. Here's a thought, though. Do you ever wonder why we live in such a technological world? It's probably because people were never entirely happy with the way the world was, and figured out some way to tailor it. We could all just be overcoming lions and thirst on the Savanna with our two legs and opposable thumbs, but someone clever was always dissatisfied. — Marchesk

Yes and I congratulate those who were dissatisfied and did something about it. They have made something out of nothing. They are great.

If only we could all endure the holocaust. What titans of virtue we would become. — Marchesk

Well the people who did endure the Holocaust did become titans of virtue. I have great admiration and respect for people like Viktor Frankl - who showed that the human spirit is greater than the world, even in the worst of circumstances.

Making a better world than this. Question for you. Why is it that believers wish to enter paradise when they die? Why not more character building? — Marchesk

Yes making it better is worthy only if there is the struggle to make it better. Believers want paradise, because after living a life in hell, one wants a quietus. But that's only AFTER the great struggle is over, not before.

I mean more like playing a video game, where you can accomplish goals, or fail to, but one tailored completely to your desire to suffer and overcome. — Marchesk

No - because a world tailored to my needs takes away from the merit of my character. The world we live in isn't tailored to anyone's desires. That's great!

Some people manage to get enough money and power to make it a little more tailored. But that's no guarantee against a thousand things that could go wrong at any moment. — Marchesk

Pity on them. While the gaining of the power may be meritous, the mere use of it to make the world more tailored is lowly. It's the making of something out of nothing that is great. In fact, the greater the opposition, the greater the victory, the greater the triumph. God overcame the impossible to create the world - made the world out of nothing. What greater triumph than possibility beating impossibility?

Yeah, The Walking Dead is entertaining to watch, but it would be hell to live. — Marchesk

I don't find that entertaining, actually that's fucked up and disgusting. If I was in charge, I'd ban all horror movies for teaching and entertaining psychotic mindsets. Take Saw for example - why the hell would anyone watch that? Some folks even find it cool. Their mind is fucked.

And if you get to suffer and overcome in the best possible world for doing that as Agustino, instead of this life, with all it's happenstance, would you still refuse? — Marchesk

You mean a world where my overcoming is guaranteed instead of merely possible? I would refuse, because then it wouldn't be my merit. My virtue, my character - neither would be the result of me, but rather the inevitable result of history.

Who is right and what is true? Neither are "right" or "wrong" and the only truth about the situation is who is going to pay the bills. The boy's interest in biology is probably transitory and the parents interest in prestige and earning potential is quite possibly self-referential. The boy may not care much about either prestige or big bucks. — Bitter Crank

Yes neither are right - the boy's interest is transitory (despite the fact he thinks otherwise), and the parents' interest is self-referential and wrong-headed (you don't mention that most doctors don't have that great prestige nor that great earnings - while Bob the farmer next door who has no education but owns 20 cows and growing will in 5-10 years earn more than the great doctor who spent years in med school - not to mention that he will pretty much also be self-sufficient - that's the great shame about parents doing this for money. If they really wanted their children to have great earnings they should have sent them on the streets to start selling something - anything - to do real valuable work out there for anyone who needs it - not pay tens of thousands of dollars for university. I could never understand how most parents think. Some of my friends already have children, and they're thinking which schools their children should go to and whether or not they should invest part of their money on a private tutor - and the reason they're thinking about it is because they want their children to be rich. What nonsense. If all you want is that your kid is rich - and you don't care whether he's knowledgeable or virtuous or anything else - then send him on the street to do useful work. That way he'll have what it takes to become rich. I never understood this lawyer/doctor obsession. Most doctors and most lawyers don't have great earnings, nor great prestige - end of story).

My advice would be for the parents to stop worrying about income and prestige, and get the boy some high quality vocational testing and counseling (which is probably not being provided by the school). — Bitter Crank

But you see - you are still playing the game, as if either the parents or the child actually gave a fuck about what the truth is. As if they actually cared. But the truth is neither cares. The parents care about some ideal they fell in love with - some personal vision they have of the child, who is their product and therefore his achieving that vision is THEM achieving one of their purposes. The child cares about some momentary passion he has, and him pursuing that is HIM achieving his current purpose. And that's all there is to it. Neither cares for the Truth, and that is PRECISELY the problem.

Given any situation where people disagree as to what ought to be done, how could the purported truth of what ought to be done be known? — John

I think the problem isn't that the truth can't be known, but rather that folks don't give a fuck about the truth.

Whose will then ought will to prevail? — John

The one who can compel the others - for whatever reason - to do as they say. Power or Truth - Mammon or God. You have to take your pick, you cannot serve two masters.

Yes but it's vacuous. It's empty of content. It makes no difference if you are a brain in a vat, or you are actually a living human being - it makes no difference to the actual business of living. Descartes was fucked up because his skepticism undermined itself. Such skepticism undermines the meaning of truth, and thus renders its own truthfulness non-existent and incoherent - it destroys the context in which talking about truth and falsity makes sense, and then proceeds to talk about truth and falsity. The evil demon, brain in a vat, etc. hypothesis is nonsense - utter nonsense.

I think the actual distribution is skewed to the left ;)

not about these abstractions of truth and rightness. — mcdoodle

Yes but these abstractions are precisely what folks use to negotiate.

about (in)tolerance, power-relations and negotiations — mcdoodle

Intolerance is inevitable as my post shows. It's merely the fact that we are different that ensures that there will always be intolerance - because we'll always have to deal with matters that we can't accept, as will others. Power (violence) is one way to deal with this - but this should be avoided, at least with people who are close to you - family, friends, etc. Power is also inexistant if you're not talking from the same levels. Negotiations can't do anything because folks are not willing to compromise on these matters that I'm referring to. The child ain't wiling to compromise with his parents, neither are his parents willing to compromise. The only solution remains leaving - going out on your own, making your own journey, for both parties.

In the last resort we talk to the person who will always think we're right, won't she? — mcdoodle

Ehmmmm I don't understand this "need" to have anyone agree with you. That seems to me to be the height of absurdity - going to a person, or talking with someone just so they agree with you, because, if you have any brain, chances are that you know they only agree for show. I've gone through life with most people - including my parents - always disagreeing with me. I never felt the need to have someone agree. I live my way - you have yours.

I googled this rainbow warrior and all I found is some native American tribes, and nothing to do with Taoism. There seems to be no Taoist rainbow warrior - at least not in China.

ethics is fundamentally a practical activity, founded in our experience of this world. — andrewk

Yes.

I could never be in the position to make that choice because for the choice to be possible the world would have to be so inconceivably different from how it is that 'I' - the person with the preferences, inclinations and values that the organism writing this has - could not be in it. — andrewk

What is it that you mean here? I'm trying to understand the sentence and read it a few times but I don't get it. Are you trying to say you don't think you're in the position to decide what would be good for everyone else in the world?

The world is shit, I'd press it in a heartbeat. — dukkha

Maybe for you. I for one cannot conceive life without suffering. The possibility of suffering is an integral part of what it means to be alive. Yes the world is full of suffering, some of it great suffering. But that does not entail the emotional judgement "the world is shit". You can look at life and perceive it to be just as full of suffering as the man who calls it shit and yet not call it shit - I cannot call it shit because I cannot imagine it without suffering. Without suffering it loses its value. Without suffering virtue is impossible. Without suffering there is no courage, no loyalty, no perseverance, no chastity, no patience, no charity, no knowledge, no nothing of value. All value - like diamonds - appears under pressure.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. — C.S. Lewis

It seems you may just be that tyrant. You project your own fear of suffering as a driving motive in everyone. But not everyone wants to get rid of their sufferings. For example if someone told me they will fulfil all my desires - anything I want - today and get me rid of all my present sufferings, I will say no. That would be the absolute worst thing someone could do to me. The whole thing is that I want to do it myself, I want to overcome obstacles, develop my character, and learn myself. I don't want someone else to do it for me. That would be the horror of horrors.

I wouldn't press that darn button mate. Just leave the world as it is, it's already great.

>:O

So is it ever good to cause stress in others? When is it justified to cause someone stress? — schopenhauer1

Yes, if your plan is to become the most knowledgeable man of your times - someone of the likes of Aristotle or Newton or Einstein - and your mission is to provide great knowledge and understanding for your civilisation you can stress everyone around you so long as you're getting closer to the goal. If you're the new Alexander and you're going to expand the borders of your civilisation - then likewise you can stress everyone around and make them commit to the vision.

Schopenhauer was right - unrest is the mark of existence. But if regardless of what we do we have to keep running, we can at least devote our lives to a worthy cause - knowledge, morality, civilization building, and so forth.

No. There is a genuine support for Putin. It's the people like those who in America vote for Trump, vote Putin in Russia. The majortity of the so-called Intelligentsia likely is against Putin.

Putin stopped the economic collapse that happened during the Yeltsin years. Now Russia has regained that dramatic fall. And he has annexed parts of Georgia and Ukraine and stopped the NATO enlargement. Many genuinely support that in Russia. Now the economic difficulties Putin can blame on the West. (While likely the reason is the fall in oil prices) — ssu

No this is wrong. Most of the intelligentsia in Russia supports Putin. You're making a terrible mistake in thinking that Leftist ideals happen to be the ideals of other peoples. Putin has tremendous popularity amongst Russians. You presuppose, without explanation, that people would prefer democracy, and would aspire for diversity, globalization and so forth. But this is not true. Many - in fact MOST people would not support such ideals. If you look in history you will see that great nations were always built by great men (or women) - but it was the individual that made things possible. What is seen as acceptable and worthy in Western society in modern times is absolutely rotten if we are to look at it historically. Take Obama - the guy just goofs around - he is a clown compared to someone like Putin. And yet people think Obama is a great leader.... That guy who goes around joking and laughing about this and that, that guy is a great leader. The guy who Trump and folks like him can MOCK and HUMILIATE on TV, that guy apparently is a great leader according to many in the West today. The fact is that a great leader is judged by one criteria only: does he get the job done, and is he respected by people under him (meaning do they LISTEN and ACT when he tells them something)? And by that criteria, Obama is nothing.

Look at Alexander the Great - that's a great leader. He alone was great - he alone took a bunch of men and brought done the greatest empire of his times. Could Alexander have done that if he was like Obama? No chance in fucking hell. His own people would have laughed at him. They wouldn't have listened. They would have disobeyed. A true leader gets his people to follow him, and go to their deaths to achieve the goal at hand if they have to. A true leader doesn't care about conventions - a true leader purposefully breaks them - because he must. He cannot be judged to be a mere mortal, because no one follows a mere mortal - if you are like the average person, if you have the same desires and the same habits as the common folk, then you cannot lead. Yes, people do want their leaders to be just. But justice is compatible with greatness.

Putin is not a great leader, but he's much better than Obama or pretty much any other modern Western leader. The West has lost its path, especially Europe. Europe used to be the greatest continent on Earth - the greatest geniuses, the greatest conquerors, the greatest heroes - they used to be from here. We used to be great - today we're running just on the inertia of our past greatness. Europe has a golden present, and a pitch black future at the moment - because we have handed ourselves over the the slave morality of the Left. We've made a God of money and sex. We're so big about sexual rights and making sure the transexuals have their own bathrooms, and so forth. We're educating our men to be slaves to pussy - to do anything for sex - to have no shame and no honor. Such lack of virtue will never breed greatness. One cannot serve both God and Mammon. Money and sex together have a life of their own it seems.

And by the way - the cheap oil price actually IS the doing of the US who has discovered massive reserves of shale underneath its soils (https://www.eia.gov/energy_in_brief/article/shale_in_the_united_states.cfm), and is dumping the oil on the market precisely to HAMPER Putin, because the truth is that Putin is winning. If it wasn't for the low oil price, Putin's Russia would have been a far far greater threat today. I mean how can it not? We're sitting here in the West doing nothing. Let's be real now. What the fuck are folks doing? They're spending their time in sloth and laziness, without any focus on making something for their nation. They are not devoting themselves to their civilisations, either in learning (as men like Plato, Aristotle, Schopenhauer, etc. did) or in politics (as Napoleon, Alexander, Caesar, etc. did) or in morality (as the Saints have done), or in business (as a Henry Ford used to do for example). Where the hell is the modern day Einstein? There is none. We're so smart, we have such a great civilisation, and the fucking Renaissance had a higher ratio of genius to population than we do. People today are selfish, they live just for themselves. They live petty lives - their passions are - I don't know - going to Hawaii, traveling the world, shagging their neighbour. That's what their passions are. Greatness cannot be built on such crooked foundations. Of course Russia is beating us. What the fuck are people thinking? They're like Crooked Hillary Clinton - they think they can sit in bed and win. Listen - greatness in this world is achieved by blood and sweat, not by comfort, not by a "nice" life, but by sacrifice, by focus, by vision, by unrelenting drive. And if we don't succeed, then we'll be at the feet of those who do - including Russia and China. We have to wake up for fuck's sake. We've got a lot of work to do. We've got massive amounts of work to do.

It can be if you want it to be, but its the only sizable butch matriarchy left in the world today and their lifestyle is rather primitive. — wuliheron

Yes but I'm talking about your discourse - you talk as if patriarchy is bad, and matriarchy is good - that's what your discourse is saying.

There is one matriarchal culture that supports such things, but modern civilization is based on patriarchal culture and money takes on a life of its own. — wuliheron

Is this the POMO propaganda that male = bad and female = good? :D

Call me stupid, ignorant or morally fucked up but I for one fucking believe that biological sex is one and the same with gender! >:O

Any proof or evidence for any of this? Where do you get this stuff from?

The next race is to conquer self-assembling robots with the navy putting 30-40 thousand robots in the oceans alone. Swarm technology is going to make predator missiles look quaint with millimeter size robots that hunt your down wherever you go and larger ones that blow up in your face. With quantum technology they are even intent on conquering time itself and China has already forbidden the use of time travel as a plot device in their mass media. You can run, you can hide, you can threaten all you want, but your ass will belong to someone else. That's what has Putin all pissed off. — wuliheron

Do you actually believe this Sci-Fi stuff of self-assembling robots? >:O We can't even cure diseases - like cancer for example - and we'll create self-assembling robots which swarm the ocean, and self-assembling robots of milimeter size which hunt you down? >:O Like for real?

I find it quite condescending to say that some nation that has given so much in culture (and science too) needs a strong man, a dictator. The argument that "some countries need strong men" is in the end quite condescending towards the people. — ssu

Why? This is only condescending if you presuppose that not having a strong man is better than having one. I think that's false. I think great nations have always been ruled by strong men, and will always be ruled thusly. Though it is true that there have also been many despicable strong men.