Intervention Theory: An alternative to Darwinism and Creationism

[CoinCube]

I...seem to be...committing myself to... the impossibility of any objective measure of... Truth.

...

Thus I am... free to choose... values/ethics.. I feel...benefits me.

...

I am not going to wrap myself in a silly set of arbitrary rules

...

group... values... violate... my optimal degrees-of-freedom.

...


my value system... wasn't clearly conceptualized and articulated

...

my failures in life were due to not clearly defending my values

...

I ... suffered ... greatly in my life

I have reduced your argument to its core premises and conclusions. It is for you to decide if further reflection is warranted.

That is bullshit that you gutted the context. For example when I stated that I am free to choose a set of values, it is in large part because there either wasn't a well defined value system in my family (upbringing) or it was a hodgepodge of values that wasn't working for my nuclear family. Thus why would I emulate/continue what wasn't working?...

Afaics, you are moralizing and judging (probably because you observe that I have vacated the foundation of your value system of an absolute truth, therefor you must attack mine). Please read Jesus's wisdom in Matthew 7.

The words above are your own. My contribution was only to shorten them and invite you to consider the possibility that your stated conclusions follow naturally from your starting premises. I tried to abbreviate your arguments for clarity and it was not my intent to alter your meaning. However, when we abbreviate the writings of another there is always some danger that without context the meaning will change.

You are correct that I disagree with your opening argument on absolute Truth. However, my opinion in this instance is entirely irrelevant. What matters in this particular case is your opinion.

If you are interested in my opinion I shared it in a recent debate on the nature and consequences of nihilism.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg15883731#msg15883731

Also there you will find counter arguments from the perspective of nihilism which are more in line with your starting posit that there is no absolute Truth.

[iamnotback]

Religion has destroyed so much too. Including friendships.

There are more productive activities. You are clearly trying to find a fault in me personally, to justify your religion conceptually. So what does that say about your value system.

The words above are your own.

Absolutely not! You can't take words out-of-context and claim they convey the intended meaning. Not to mention that I can't possibly convey all my intended meaning, because I don't have time to write a book on this topic. Value systems are complex. I have many thoughts and points about this which I don't have time to write down right now.

My contribution was only to shorten them

Removing context when in fact what I need to write to express myself adequately is much, much more involved and longer than that quick attempt to dump some thoughts.

I know what you are doing. You are trying to make me see that I need to subjugate myself to a higher authority (when in fact I already stated that we all are subject to the NATURAL LAW whether we admit or not). You are pushing the dogma that provides your self-esteem on me by trying to find a weakness in my words. To bolster your confidence in your unfalsifiable God, you will of course relish the moment to say, "I told you so" (even a broken 12-hr clock is correct twice a day).

As I wrote upthread, you (we all) are in a competition (and sometimes also cooperation) to prove that our group evolutionary strategy is the better and correct one.

But I am not measuring my value system by how much others who don't choose my value system suffer, except in the case of the leftist, because the leftist do the one thing that I think is unequivocal evil and that is they force their religion on those who choose not to participate in their religion. Leftists are the most violent and oppressive religion on earth, including any other religion that tries to force everyone to convert. Religious zealots seem to relish in pointing out how everyone else suffers if they don't follow the "correct" religion.

... and invite you to consider the possibility that your stated conclusions follow naturally from your starting premises.

Have you not considered how much more difficult it may be to formulate a stable set of values given the logical conclusion that there are no absolute truths. I consider it much more challenging than accepting some faith that some unfalsifiable God is absolute. But to each his own. My most important value is that I abhor those who force their value systems on those who opted-out. I try to observe and understand other cultures. It doesn't mean I shouldn't and can't have my own value system, even perhaps one that is unwavering or eventually consistent with my perspective of the world.

Religion and value systems lead to war. As evident right now in this conversation. Implying to someone else that they are inferior or evil because of their value system is war. You had better be sure about your decision when doing that. I am sure about that when I say leftists are evil. I know they will make war against me, even I try to opt-out, so I lose no potential peace by fighting back and telling them what they really are.

I thought you were a peaceful person.

You are correct that I disagree with your opening argument on absolute Truth. However, my opinion in this instance is entirely irrelevant. What matters in this particular case is your opinion.

If you are interested in my opinion I shared it in a recent debate on the nature and consequences of nihilism.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg15883731#msg15883731

Also there you will find counter arguments from the perspective of nihilism which are more in line with your starting posit that there is no absolute Truth.

You are constructing a strawman, because I specifically stated in the part of my comment which your elided from your bullshit quote, that one of the reasons I have a value system is because I love people. So to equate me with some philosophy that says humans have no value, is a fucking lie. What does your religion say about liars who bear false witness and false testimony?

[iamnotback]

Morals and values are a very difficult topic for people from different backgrounds to discuss. This is the reason for so much strife between ethnicities.

That is one reason I leaned towards not even wanting to think about it for most of life.

[CoinCube]

Have you not considered how much more difficult it may be to formulate a stable set of values given the logical conclusion that there are no absolute truths. I consider it much more challenging than accepting some faith that some unfalsifiable God is absolute...

So to equate me with some philosophy that says humans have no value, is a fucking lie. What does your religion say about liars who bear false witness and false testimony?

I don't have a religion at the moment other then general Ethical Monotheism though I am considering several options. However, I did not equate your position to a philosophy that says humans have no value.

There are several branches of nihilism one of these is epistemological nihilism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism#Epistemological_nihilism

Epistemological nihilism

Epistemological nihilism is a form of skepticism in which all knowledge is accepted as being possibly untrue or as being unable to be confirmed true.

This is very similar to your prior posit:

I am approaching ("seem to be coming to" which isn't entirely committed) committing myself to the impossibility of falsifying any total order of the universe and thus the impossibility of any objective measure of absolute Truth.

There doesn't seem to be any other choice if one is rational.

The link I gave to the debate on Nihilism earlier was a debate between myself and nihilnegativum who argued in favor of a metaphysical nihilism, that is a nihilism in ontology and epistemology. He argued that his position did not lead to moral nihilism though he did not provide much detail about that. Since his position appeared to be at least superficially similar to yours I simply thought you would find the debate interesting.

Morals and values are a very difficult topic for people from different backgrounds to discuss. This is the reason for so much strife between ethnicities.

That is one reason I leaned towards not even wanting to think about it for most of life.

It is clear that instead of prodding to self-reflection I only managed to offend which was not my intent.  
I have stated my position on the matter and I will leave any last words or comments to you.

[qwik2learn]

You are correct that I disagree with your opening argument on absolute Truth. However, my opinion in this instance is entirely irrelevant. What matters in this particular case is your opinion.

If you are interested in my opinion I shared it in a recent debate on the nature and consequences of nihilism.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg15883731#msg15883731

Also there you will find counter arguments from the perspective of nihilism which are more in line with your starting posit that there is no absolute Truth.

In that thread I mentioned one metaphysical fact, which is an absolute:

"the world in which we live is not the only one in which we shall live or have lived"

it is one which has been recognized by eminent researchers throughout the ages. A great link for anyone who is curious about intellectuals who profess religious belief.

Here is another absolute, this time it is an ethical fact:
11. YOU MUST NOT IMPOSE NOR FORCE YOUR FREE-WILL UPON THE FREE-WILL OF ANOTHER. ALSO KNOWN AS "THE LAW OF NON-INTERFERENCE".

I think that this law #11 professes absolute moral correctness, so it is obviously by definition a moral system, in my opinion.

Any group which thinks it has the absolute moral correctness, is already by definition an immoral system IMO.

Believing in moral absolutes like law #11 is not immoral per se; if such belief were immoral, then knowing a moral fact and believing in it would be immoral--by definition.

Like I mentioned in that thread, to solve the valuation problem, a wide diversity of moral lessons and instructions must be comprehended and evaluated because of the lack of a priori truths; that is to say that each one is on his/her own spiritual journey. Lessons can even come from non-physical teachers (e.g. extraterrestrials) and I am lucky enough to have found useful teachings (from beyond Earth) that I will share here: I opine that the contents of Phoenix Journal #27 are impressive and obviously the result of INTERVENTION; this Journal lays out the laws of GOD and Creation in full detail.

Why will you not consider the messages that are offered for your protection and wisdom? THE LAWS OF GOD ARE FIXED...IMMUTABLE...MAN MAY CHANGE WHAT HE WILL BUT HE WILL NOT CHANGE THE LAWS OF GOD FOR THEY ARE THAT WHICH WAS GIVEN FOR BALANCE WITHIN THE CREATION.

I also mentioned this about values:

"In another context, man may find himself giving up those values that were (somehow) discerned ex-nihilo and instead return his free will to GOD and live by faith according to the rules given unto mankind for the total transformation of the species (true progress)."

The Operator-Owner Manual is a source for those rules; I have always sought out new and diverse teachings and I wish to share the benefits of this strategy by pointing out these valuable writings. I do agree that the right values will take a genius very far in life.

Many geniuses are still being born into the world, but they are not being given the recognition needed for survival for the point of the corruption is to destroy that which is already present as values and prevent the new of beauty and perfection to flourish.

[qwik2learn]

More on the difference between thinking and knowing:

So this is a story about the importance of taking action to find our very center of our ecstatic point where God resides. This is the only place where true change can take place. I plan to reveal how world war two was affected and even ended by the meditating of certain people. Yes meditation did in fact save the lives of thousands even million[s ]of people and very few realize this important fact.

Your meditating into and using your ecstatic point is vital to your survival. You[r] masterliness of life is the fruit of your meditation.

Individual thinking creates the illusion that we are separate beings. Our senses have convinced us of this. Yet history shows us that all mankind has always sought the Light of God for thousands of years. That Light is invisible to the senses and belongs to our knowing just as beauty does. It's not your body that senses beauty remember?

The difference between you and your very own genius is that when you attempt to create without your ecstatic point you are using only your body. But when you include that zero literal miracles come from your own hands. This is the marking of your soul into becoming the wonderful being of God's intent.

https://books.google.com/books?id=UgmirRl4JRMC&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48&dq=In+vain+do+we+build+the+city+if+we+do+not+first+build+the+man&source=bl&ots=nlIkR70s0Y&sig=UsbMfmCwTtTFfAJ3nvq9-sBzr0M&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKsOzt8YbRAhUiq1QKHWHDBY8Q6AEIIzAB#v=onepage&q=In%20vain%20do%20we%20build%20the%20city%20if%20we%20do%20not%20first%20build%20the%20man&f=false

[qwik2learn]

Ancient artifacts from other beings, but very little of this makes any sense without Intervention.

https://youtu.be/dtBkkY7txhY

[iamnotback]

The only generative essence absolute I can think of so far which I can't refute, is our desire to give meaning to our perception of our existence.

This explains the necessity of death. Eternal continuity of perception could not coexist with wonderment because everything that exists would have always been. We'd lose that fundamental absolute which drives the differentiation between the past and future light cones of relativity.

[practicaldreamer]

Have you not considered how much more difficult it may be to formulate a stable set of values given the logical conclusion that there are no absolute truths. I consider it much more challenging than accepting some faith that some unfalsifiable God is absolute. But to each his own. My most important value is that I abhor those who force their value systems on those who opted-out. I try to observe and understand other cultures. It doesn't mean I shouldn't and can't have my own value system, even perhaps one that is unwavering or eventually consistent with my perspective of the world.

By far Anonymints most perspicacious piece of writing on any subject on these boards IMO - though I would never claim to have trolled through the entirity of his voluminous meanderings.

In philosophy (the philosophy of science) there is a concept (and adherents to the concept) of verisimilitude. This is close, I believe, to what both Anonymint and myself would both ascribe to. The notion can likewise be applied to ethics and political philosophy. That is, we can only ever have an approximation to truth, not a hold on it absolutely.

Coincube, on the other hand, seems to ascribe to a more pragmatic approach to ethics - and in its way this is not a million miles from the approach mentioned above and championed most notably by Karl Popper. That is, for the pragmatist, the "truth value" of an ethical proposition can most readily be ascertained by its practical application - further, the practical "unfolding" of a precept is its only meaningful measure.

Of course, Anonymint then goes off at a tangent when he starts banging on about "leftists" - which is ironic really, as the idea's that he has propounded above come as close to Mao's idea of the "permanent revolution" as anything you will find this side of Beijing.

Anyhow, 2 random thoughts that I'll give you. The first is that you can't have knowledge without doubt. I can be in no doubt about a logical tautology of the nature "Its either raining outside, or its not raining outside" - but of course, this tells us nothing about the weather or the world.
    And two, a quote from the economist JK Galbraith - "The fortunate find virtue in that which perpetuates their good fortune". And that in a nutshell captures and explains the large part of any absolutist theory of morality.

[qwik2learn]

Some nonphysical beings can be and indeed are proven to exist as i have already discussed in detail. So consider the messengers and the information they bring. God is subject to doubt by humans but does this also apply to other beings of a different kind? I choose to read their wisdom because i doubt that humanism will elevate the human races.

[CoinCube]

I opine that the contents of Phoenix Journal #27 are impressive and obviously the result of INTERVENTION; this Journal lays out the laws of GOD and Creation in full detail.

http://phoenixsourcedistributors.com/html/j027/

I have to disagree here qwik2learn

I have watched and waited as you have taken Truth and turned it into lies. I have watched as those of the evil adversary have labeled themselves as MY CHOSEN PEOPLE and called themselves "Jews"

The text appears to argue that the Jews are followers of Satan "the evil adversary". Lets entirely ignore for a moment the moral problem of calling an entire people agents of Satan and focus only on the logical fallacies of this claim.

The Phoenix Journal #25 (as noted up-thread) claims that the Jewish oral law (The Talmud) is a blasphemous text. It reaches this conclusion 1) because Christianity is criticized in the Talmud and 2) from the inference that modern Jews are the ideological descendants of Pharisees and thus the same people who called for the death Jesus. The exact wording used by the Journal is "the spirit of the ancient Pharisees survives, unaltered". From this criticism comes the claim that Jews are agents of "the evil adversary".

This simply does not hold up under logical scrutiny. The charges of Phoenix Journal do not apply to all of Judaism. Specifically, Karaite Judaism follows neither the the oral traditions nor is it a descendant of Pharisaism. The Karaite Jews may even be descendants of the Sadducees the major political opponents of the Pharisees and the Jewish elite during the time of Jesus. Thus according to the Christian worldview the worst a Karatie Jew could be accused of is operating under an incomplete truth.

For those Jews who do believe in the Talmud it would be surprising if this book lacked criticism of Christianity. If you are an orthodox Jew the Talmud is divinely inspired wisdom. From this perspective Christianity leads people away from Judiasm and should be challenged on theological grounds. If you are not a rabbinic Jew the Talmud is simply a collection Jewish rabbi philosophy. No one disputes these rabbis were human and it is part of human nature to critique a competing faith.

Finally I was bothered by the omissions in the Phoenix Journal. The Phoenix Journal provides of list of 18 of "THE HIGHEST COMMAND OF THE LAW OF THE CREATION" Here it provides 18 "commands" listing the majority of the 10 commandments and adding a bunch of new ones. However, despite all of the additions it entirely skips over the 9th commandment.

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour" [Exod 20: 16]

https://www.prageru.com/courses/religionphilosophy/do-not-bear-false-witness

Ironically the skipped commandment appears to be the very one the Journal is guilty of violating. Thus after review I believe the listed source Phoenix Journal is not the result of heavenly intervention but the work of man. Specifically the work of someone who does not like Jews very much.



This is not to say the Jews as a people have not committed horrible crimes. They like all peoples have participated in great evils but I would argue that these evils can mostly be attributed to the Jewish Left. Specifically to large number of Jews who abandoned their faith for Leftism which can be looked at as a competing religion. For an honest critique of the Jewish Left the best sources are Jews themselves.

Left-Wing Jews Are Embarrassing Judaism
http://www.dennisprager.com/left-wing-jews-are-embarrassing-judaism/

...
So, I say this with only sadness: Many American Jews on the left, including rabbis and lay leaders, are embarrassing Jews and Judaism. I say this to ring an alarm in Jewish life and to tell non-Jewish America that these people represent leftism, not Judaism. Furthermore, I am talking only about leftist Jews, not liberal Jews. Unfortunately, however, liberalism has become synonymous with leftism both within and outside Judaism.
This past week, the embarrassing behavior of left-wing Jews reached a new level.
...

How are we to understand this?

Here’s one explanation: When Jews abandoned Judaism, many of them did not abandon Judaism’s messianic impulse. From Karl Marx — the grandson of two Orthodox rabbis — and onwards, they simply secularized it and created secular substitutes, such as Marxism, humanism, socialism, feminism and environmentalism.

Prager who is Jewish argues that Jews who abandon their faith are particularly susceptible to embrace the extreme left. Rabbi Yosef Tzvi ben Porat goes farther.

Why Did Hitler Hate Jews?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTYSv_YQOVo

Hitler claims in his book, that the Jews are communists. They created the Russian Revolution where they killed 30 million Russians all the intelligent ones in a cruel and horrific way... the next in line is Germany. They founded the Communist and Socialistic parties. If we don't defeat them now they will eliminate us, and they will slaughter another 20 million...

And he is right the Russian revolution was facilitated by the Jews. The Russian army was built by Trotsky who was an incredible genius a (Jewish) anti-Semite like no other. He created the Jewish division of the communist party who's members informed on their fathers, mothers, brothers and sons whomever owned a Siddur (Jewish prayer book) or even a Hebrew learning book... He destroyed everything.

In the first Communist Government out of 13 members, six were Jews. Who founded the KGB? Jews. So everything is clearly written. (Hitler) didn't hate the Jews because they had payot (Jewish sidecurls). He didn't hate them for observing Mitzvoth, (He hated them) because they were communists and he writes it clearly.

Now you understand why they don't teach this in schools because who writes the curriculum those same leftists. Of course they will not teach that Hitler wanted to kill the Jews because they are the forefathers of the Left and the forefathers of Marxism, Communism and Hellenism. But that's what he writes!

Earlier iamnotback provided us with an analysis of Leftism and argued that it should be considered a religion in its own right. Below is that argument mildly edited for language.

Leftism is the religion which promises the individual he/she can entirely free, protected, while protecting the right of everyone else to be entirely free and protected.

Sounds very noble right? Read on...

All religions exist to protect the society (and the family) against the defection of the individual. Traditional religions argue that subjugation of some of the "evil" whims of the individual (e.g. extra-martial affairs) is necessary to maximize the success of the society, e.g. children who grow up without their fathers usually do statistically much worse in life in various metrics, including health.

Whereas, in leftism the "evil" is not "protecting the right of everyone else to be entirely free and protected". But what does this really mean? It is double-speak. It really means to steal from production so as to enable people to abandon their moral responsibilities so that the society can be utterly destroyed by hedonism and other ramifications of offering everyone "state-supported freedom" (which is a guaranteed megadeath hell in the future).

But don't dare tell the leftist, atheists that their idealism is corrupt, bankrupt, and disingenuous. They will gut you with a knife if you dare challenge the veracity of their beloved social justice.

"Entirely free" means you can do what ever you want and there are no NATURAL LAW ramifications (the State will always support your right to do what ever you want), as long as you support the State's right to protect and economically provide for everyone's right to do what ever they want. In other words, a "free for all" of political correctness and stealing.

But NATURAL LAW in inviolable. No State can protect every individual from the NATURAL LAW. And if you tell people they can be entirely free (including economic freedom for everyone and every whim), then you have lied.

In short, leftism is a Tragedy of the Commons. Thus is a false religion. It lies. It is Satan's religion.

Thus it is important not confuse the Jews with Leftists who happen to be former Jews. However, if current trends continue this may be a moot point as it is possible that Leftism is also toxic on an individual level.

American Jewish Fertility by Religious Current

Religious Sect	Average No. of Children per Woman
Ultra-Orthodox	6.72
Modern Orthodox	3.39
Conservative	1.74
Reform	1.36
Secular	1.29

As Jews move further away from their historic religious tradition their fertility plummets. Secular Jews have a shockingly low fertility of 1.29 among the lowest in the world.

I will close out my arguments with what I believe to be the most important consideration when when discussing religious differences between Jews and Christians.

It would certainly be incorrect to say that the suspicions of the two religions of one another are a thing of the past. What can be said is that, in an age of greater religious tolerance, there has been a growing realization that the two have enough in common to enable them to work in harmony for human betterment.

[BADecker]

I opine that the contents of Phoenix Journal #27 are impressive and obviously the result of INTERVENTION; this Journal lays out the laws of GOD and Creation in full detail.

http://phoenixsourcedistributors.com/html/j027/

I have to disagree here qwik2learn

I have watched and waited as you have taken Truth and turned it into lies. I have watched as those of the evil adversary have labeled themselves as MY CHOSEN PEOPLE and called themselves "Jews"

The text appears to argue that the Jews are followers of Satan "the evil adversary". Lets entirely ignore for a moment the moral problem of calling an entire people agents of Satan and focus only on the logical fallacies of this claim.

The Phoenix Journal #25 (as noted up-thread) claims that the Jewish oral law (The Talmud) is a blasphemous text. It reaches this conclusion 1) because Christianity is criticized in the Talmud and 2) from the inference that modern Jews are the ideological descendants of Pharisees and thus the same people who called for the death Jesus. The exact wording used by the Journal is "the spirit of the ancient Pharisees survives, unaltered". From this criticism comes the claim that Jews are agents of "the evil adversary".

This simply does not hold up under logical scrutiny. The charges of Phoenix Journal do not apply to all of Judaism. Specifically, Karaite Judaism follows neither the the oral traditions nor is it a descendant of Pharisaism. The Karaite Jews may even be descendants of the Sadducees the major political opponents of the Pharisees and the Jewish elite during the time of Jesus. Thus according to the Christian worldview the worst a Karatie Jew could be accused of is operating under an incomplete truth.

For those Jews who do believe in the Talmud it would be surprising if this book lacked criticism of Christianity. If you are an orthodox Jew the Talmud is divinely inspired wisdom. From this perspective Christianity leads people away from Judiasm and should be challenged on theological grounds. If you are not a rabbinic Jew the Talmud is simply a collection Jewish rabbi philosophy. No one disputes these rabbis were human and it is part of human nature to critique a competing faith.

Finally I was bothered by the omissions in the Phoenix Journal. The Phoenix Journal provides of list of 18 of "THE HIGHEST COMMAND OF THE LAW OF THE CREATION" Here it provides 18 "commands" listing the majority of the 10 commandments and adding a bunch of new ones. However, despite all of the additions it entirely skips over the 9th commandment.

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour" [Exod 20: 16]

https://www.prageru.com/courses/religionphilosophy/do-not-bear-false-witness

Ironically the skipped commandment appears to be the very one the Journal is guilty of violating. Thus after review I believe the listed source Phoenix Journal is not the result of heavenly intervention but the work of man. Specifically the work of someone who does not like Jews very much.



This is not to say the Jews as a people have not committed horrible crimes. They like all peoples have participated in great evils but I would argue that these evils can mostly be attributed to the Jewish Left. Specifically to large number of Jews who abandoned their faith for Leftism which can be looked at as a competing religion. For an honest critique of the Jewish Left the best sources are Jews themselves.

Left-Wing Jews Are Embarrassing Judaism
http://www.dennisprager.com/left-wing-jews-are-embarrassing-judaism/

...
So, I say this with only sadness: Many American Jews on the left, including rabbis and lay leaders, are embarrassing Jews and Judaism. I say this to ring an alarm in Jewish life and to tell non-Jewish America that these people represent leftism, not Judaism. Furthermore, I am talking only about leftist Jews, not liberal Jews. Unfortunately, however, liberalism has become synonymous with leftism both within and outside Judaism.
This past week, the embarrassing behavior of left-wing Jews reached a new level.
...

How are we to understand this?

Here’s one explanation: When Jews abandoned Judaism, many of them did not abandon Judaism’s messianic impulse. From Karl Marx — the grandson of two Orthodox rabbis — and onwards, they simply secularized it and created secular substitutes, such as Marxism, humanism, socialism, feminism and environmentalism.

Prager who is Jewish argues that Jews who abandon their faith are particularly susceptible to embrace the extreme left. Rabbi Yosef Tzvi ben Porat goes farther.

Why Did Hitler Hate Jews?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTYSv_YQOVo

Hitler claims in his book, that the Jews are communists. They created the Russian Revolution where they killed 30 million Russians all the intelligent ones in a cruel and horrific way... the next in line is Germany. They founded the Communist and Socialistic parties. If we don't defeat them now they will eliminate us, and they will slaughter another 20 million...

And he is right the Russian revolution was facilitated by the Jews. The Russian army was built by Trotsky who was an incredible genius a (Jewish) anti-Semite like no other. He created the Jewish division of the communist party who's members informed on their fathers, mothers, brothers and sons whomever owned a Siddur (Jewish prayer book) or even a Hebrew learning book... He destroyed everything.

In the first Communist Government out of 13 members, six were Jews. Who founded the KGB? Jews. So everything is clearly written. (Hitler) didn't hate the Jews because they had payot (Jewish sidecurls). He didn't hate them for observing Mitzvoth, (He hated them) because they were communists and he writes it clearly.

Now you understand why they don't teach this in schools because who writes the curriculum those same leftists. Of course they will not teach that Hitler wanted to kill the Jews because they are the forefathers of the Left and the forefathers of Marxism, Communism and Hellenism. But that's what he writes!

Earlier iamnotback provided us with an analysis of Leftism and argued that it should be considered a religion in its own right. Below is that argument mildly edited for language.

Leftism is the religion which promises the individual he/she can entirely free, protected, while protecting the right of everyone else to be entirely free and protected.

Sounds very noble right? Read on...

All religions exist to protect the society (and the family) against the defection of the individual. Traditional religions argue that subjugation of some of the "evil" whims of the individual (e.g. extra-martial affairs) is necessary to maximize the success of the society, e.g. children who grow up without their fathers usually do statistically much worse in life in various metrics, including health.

Whereas, in leftism the "evil" is not "protecting the right of everyone else to be entirely free and protected". But what does this really mean? It is double-speak. It really means to steal from production so as to enable people to abandon their moral responsibilities so that the society can be utterly destroyed by hedonism and other ramifications of offering everyone "state-supported freedom" (which is a guaranteed megadeath hell in the future).

But don't dare tell the leftist, atheists that their idealism is corrupt, bankrupt, and disingenuous. They will gut you with a knife if you dare challenge the veracity of their beloved social justice.

"Entirely free" means you can do what ever you want and there are no NATURAL LAW ramifications (the State will always support your right to do what ever you want), as long as you support the State's right to protect and economically provide for everyone's right to do what ever they want. In other words, a "free for all" of political correctness and stealing.

But NATURAL LAW in inviolable. No State can protect every individual from the NATURAL LAW. And if you tell people they can be entirely free (including economic freedom for everyone and every whim), then you have lied.

In short, leftism is a Tragedy of the Commons. Thus is a false religion. It lies. It is Satan's religion.

Thus it is important not confuse the Jews with Leftists who happen to be former Jews. However, if current trends continue this may be a moot point as it is possible that Leftism is also toxic on an individual level.

American Jewish Fertility by Religious Current

Religious Sect	Average No. of Children per Woman
Ultra-Orthodox	6.72
Modern Orthodox	3.39
Conservative	1.74
Reform	1.36
Secular	1.29

As Jews move further away from their historic religious tradition their fertility plummets. Secular Jews have a shockingly low fertility of 1.29 among the lowest in the world.

I will close out my arguments with what I believe to be the most important consideration when when discussing religious differences between Jews and Christians.

It would certainly be incorrect to say that the suspicions of the two religions of one another are a thing of the past. What can be said is that, in an age of greater religious tolerance, there has been a growing realization that the two have enough in common to enable them to work in harmony for human betterment.

Jews have always lived off the wealth of whomever they can. It just happens to be Christians this time. Jewish leaches.

[CoinCube]

Jews have always lived off the wealth of whomever they can. It just happens to be Christians this time. Jewish leaches.

This is inaccurate. The reality is that all current and historic societies embrace collectivism. Thus as time progresses we increasing lionize and reward all sorts of human leaches. This collective error eventually weakens and destroys human societies.

The Jews when strictly following the the guidance in the Old Testament/Torah sit outside the collectivism and are thus not destroyed by it. In doing so the Jews create a stable evolutionary structure which is why they are still here and have a nation despite multiple historic events that should have shattered them as a people.

Although I disagree with some of his language iamnotback laid out the basic argument correctly upthread.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1624708.msg17222888#msg17222888

In theory Christians should have similarly good outcomes if they also strictly follow their religious traditions.

[iamnotback]

The only generative essence absolute I can think of so far which I can't refute, is our desire to give meaning to our perception of our existence.

This explains the necessity of death. Eternal continuity of perception could not coexist with wonderment because everything that exists would have always been. We'd lose that fundamental absolute which drives the differentiation between the past and future light cones of relativity.

I had a 1 hour "Merry Christmas" conversation with my mother and all was going well until I explained that AGW is a farce (we got off on that tangent because I mentioned that Trump might help the immigration of my relatives and my mother said "if the country survives Trump" and I told her not to worry because the liberals would probably win the next Presidential election). My mom explained the reason she believes in social justice because she said in her lifetime we have proof it works. She said we in the Deep South saw the end of racism against blacks. I am even old enough to remember how much discrimination against blacks has improved in the Deep South. So I agreed with her on that point. She was aghast that her son wouldn't care about the environment we leave to our offspring. She said she only has maybe at most 20 more years remaining in her life, thus the meaning of her existence is all tied into leftism. She was ready to hang up the phone in a bad mood, and I told her, "mom I do care about the environment, but environment is not climate.". She said she didn't understand that distinction but we ended up on a happy ending because she was relieved that I do care about the environment.

So that is an example of both my quote above and also why leftists can destroy society because of their own ignorant social justice. It is true that humans can impact the environment, but they can't impact the long-term climate.

I quote another example from Martin Armstrong:

I am frequently asked, why do I do what I do? Why not relax on a beach? That question incorporates the assumption one can simply ignore the political changes coming. I too have a family. I may not be around by 2032 – we all have expiration dates. What I do, I am compelled to do. I am at least trying to leave behind a better place for my posterity and on the other hand, I am curious if humanity can learn from the past and make that one step as Neil Armstrong said when he set foot on the Moon:

That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.

History is our map to the future. It creates wonder and fuels the imagination, which is the basis of man’s desire to understand and discover. To quote Albert Einstein, – “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.” Indeed, Imagination is everything. All inventions emerge only from our imagination, which stimulates all progress and thereby gives birth to evolution in every field. This is why government is always the enemy. It is incapable of imagination and harbors only paranoia of what happens if the people what their freedom at the expense of its power.

If I can show that we have a choice to take that one step forward based upon our knowledge of the past, then I have fulfilled my personal goal in life. We can create a new world, but only when this one crashes and burns. If we embrace the knowledge of the past, and learn just for once, then we can crossover to a new way of doing things and let Laissez–faire guide us to a new world of liberty and freedom from the manipulations of the left and government.

More on leftists and globalized social causes:

70% of those who voted are leftists. Thus for sure mankind is doomed. But the planet will be doing just fine regardless.

I voted to save the planet. That doesn't mean that I am a leftist. If you check my post history, you can see that a lot of people here have accused me of harboring far-right ideology. I just want to preserve the planet for the future generations. I don't want my kids to suffer from the misdeeds of our generation. They also have a right to live on this planet.

But (if) your ideology causes you to need to enforce your will on others who desire to opt-out and govern themselves. Thus you are a leftist.

I may care about the environment, and I may agree with local communities regulating against wanton environmental destruction.

But global social justice is evil regardless of the nobleness of your intent.

In short, stop worrying so much, as linked video in the following quote explains:

Leftists don't care about mankind. They care about their self-importance, Volvos, and bike paths. And they are the most violent threat to freewill and mankind.

[iamnotback]

American Jewish Fertility by Religious Current

Religious Sect	Average No. of Children per Woman
Ultra-Orthodox	6.72
Modern Orthodox	3.39
Conservative	1.74
Reform	1.36
Secular	1.29

As Jews move further away from their historic religious tradition their fertility plummets. Secular Jews have a shockingly low fertility of 1.29 among the lowest in the world.

While talking with my mother she was doing baby talk with a cute chihuahua in the grocery store. I remarked, "mom, all those 100s of dogs you have rescued, they are all your grandchildren". My mom replied, "yes I have empty nest syndrome and the dogs are all my kids".

Females are engineered for bearing children and nurturing. Some westerners have turned to animals as children (note I also love animals and my mother was raised on a farm so there is a reason we love animals in our family). I remember once in 1996 when I couldn't afford to buy milk for my infant son and I was only eating rice and beans, I asked my mother if I could borrow $100. That was when I was developing Art-O-Matic (the precursor to CoolPage which ended up making me wealthy by 1999). She said she didn't have the money, but later I learned she had spent $1500 for hip surgery for her dog. (Note she didn't know I had a son, I had told her I couldn't eat). My mother has helped me (even recently at her advanced age) so please don't take it as my mother being entirely callous.

My parents weren't happy that I had gone off the jungle. (Yet isn't that exactly what my Dad did when I was 5 years old, leaving us and my mother to go live in Belize with his 2nd wife).

Any way, I don't blame my parents for what are my own responsibilities and decisions in life.

My point herein is that society functions normally when females are bearing children.

P.S. when I was agreeing with my mother about all the great accomplishments of the liberals since the 1960s, I added "abortion" to my list including women's rights, feminism, birth control, etc.. My mother wasn't too happy about abortion being touted. I presume she remembers me advising my sister to abort her only child in 2001 because the father was a pyscho drug addict (who ended up murdering my sister by 2006). But I have always regretted giving that advice. Why? Because mother's instinct would have saved my sister's life! Huge mistake I made. But the liberals educated me with that thinking. And they were wrong! Dead wrong!

[BADecker]

Jews have always lived off the wealth of whomever they can. It just happens to be Christians this time. Jewish leaches.

This is inaccurate. The reality is that all current and historic societies embrace collectivism. Thus as time progresses we increasing lionize and reward all sorts of human leaches. This collective error eventually weakens and destroys human societies.

The Jews when strictly following the the guidance in the Old Testament/Torah sit outside the collectivism and are thus not destroyed by it. In doing so the Jews create a stable evolutionary structure which is why they are still here and have a nation despite multiple historic events that should have shattered them as a people.

The Old Testament is, in part, a history of the Hebrew nation. These people were not Jews, in general, until starting at the times shortly before the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls - around 400 B.C.

The Old Testament history shows that the Hebrew people seldom followed the laws of the O.T. for very long. Often they were the greatest breaker of the O.T. laws, more than the other nations of the world.

The reason the Hebrew nation still exists in and under the current Jewish nation, is that God has always had mercy on them.

The Jews are made up of groups of people who infiltrated the Hebrew nation and led them astray from the laws of God. In part, the Jews are from lines of ancient Babylonians. The Talmud is from the Babylonian captivity, is NOT the law of God, and should be kept on a lower level, away from the Torah and the Tanakh.

Although I disagree with some of his language iamnotback laid out the basic argument correctly upthread.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1624708.msg17222888#msg17222888

In theory Christians should have similarly good outcomes if they also strictly follow their religious traditions.

The term "Christian" covers two broad groups of people. There are those who are Christians for political (informal political) reasons. Then there are those who are Christians because they believe in the salvation of God... Jesus salvation.

All people die. Only those who believe in Jesus salvation are assured of good things, good outcomes. These people even gain much good from God here, in this life.

Jesus is the Messiah of the Old Testament. The Hebrew people, at the prompting of the Jews, rejected the Messiah when they rejected Jesus. It is only through God's remembrance of His promise to Abraham that the Jewish/Hebrew nation exists at all physically.

A time will come, and is coming now, when the Hebrew people will formally turn to God, almost en masse. When that happens, Jesus will return at their call.

[CoinCube]

This is inaccurate. The reality is that all current and historic societies embrace collectivism. Thus as time progresses we increasing lionize and reward all sorts of human leaches. This collective error eventually weakens and destroys human societies.

The Jews when strictly following the the guidance in the Old Testament/Torah sit outside the collectivism and are thus not destroyed by it. In doing so the Jews create a stable evolutionary structure which is why they are still here and have a nation despite multiple historic events that should have shattered them as a people.

The Old Testament is, in part, a history of the Hebrew nation. These people were not Jews, in general, until starting at the times shortly before the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls - around 400 B.C.

The Old Testament history shows that the Hebrew people seldom followed the laws of the O.T. for very long. Often they were the greatest breaker of the O.T. laws, more than the other nations of the world.

The reason the Hebrew nation still exists in and under the current Jewish nation, is that God has always had mercy on them.

The Jews are made up of groups of people who infiltrated the Hebrew nation and led them astray from the laws of God. In part, the Jews are from lines of ancient Babylonians. The Talmud is from the Babylonian captivity, is NOT the law of God, and should be kept on a lower level, away from the Torah and the Tanakh.

Although I disagree with some of his language iamnotback laid out the basic argument correctly upthread.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1624708.msg17222888#msg17222888

In theory Christians should have similarly good outcomes if they also strictly follow their religious traditions.

The term "Christian" covers two broad groups of people. There are those who are Christians for political (informal political) reasons. Then there are those who are Christians because they believe in the salvation of God... Jesus salvation.

All people die. Only those who believe in Jesus salvation are assured of good things, good outcomes. These people even gain much good from God here, in this life.

Jesus is the Messiah of the Old Testament. The Hebrew people, at the prompting of the Jews, rejected the Messiah when they rejected Jesus. It is only through God's remembrance of His promise to Abraham that the Jewish/Hebrew nation exists at all physically.

A time will come, and is coming now, when the Hebrew people will formally turn to God, almost en masse. When that happens, Jesus will return at their call.

BADecker I have three comments:

1) The status of the Messiah or the Talmud could be debated I suppose on theological grounds from an Islamic or Jewish perspective but I have the neither the knowledge, desire, nor the qualifications to do so.

2) As you mentioned the Hebrew nation often broke with the laws of the O.T.  If one chooses to view the Talmud as another such breach there is no actual need to hypothesize some sinister infiltration. The Hebrew nation has show itself perfectly capable of leading itself astray on multiple occasions.

3) If we operate from the premise that your most recent post is absolute truth that does not invalidate my prior arguments which as far as I can tell are not falsified by what you just wrote.    

  

[practicaldreamer]

Do not Libertarians, or right wing free market advocates have a set of values ? Of course they do.
Why are they, then, left off the hook when it comes to imposing these values on those that don't share them, over the "leftists" ?
If an ideology is an idea system used to maintain an exploitative domination, then from where I'm sat, the free market ideology has by far created the greatest amount of inequality and stifled life chances on the world as a whole .
 
1% own half this world.

But the ideas that legitimate this gross inequality are somehow OK because ......?? Or are their ideas somehow exempt from tyrannical abuse purely because they are the ones writing the rule books and history ?
Doesn't make any sense.

[qwik2learn]

The gross inequality is a natural result of elites who could not care less about those living in subhuman conditions.

The latest example of hypocritical elites is the FAKE charitable foundation run by Hillary Clinton; I am convinced that her election loss was sealed once voters realized that she had been saying one thing and doing another while taking boatloads of people's hard-earned money during the 2010 Haiti earthquake.

The 1% are a globalized force to be recokoned with; they have set up their tax haven strongholds and it seems that the people lack the political strength to force their hand. When OWS brought up the "Tobin Tax", it was a breath of fresh air, but unfortunately I have not heard any new ideas from the Left since then and I think that it will be hard to restrict freedom in the future.
Without the free market you would not have any way to empower yourself whatsoever. A lot of self-healing must be done before one can heal the planet.

A free market in charities is a good idea mainly but I am open to better ideas from the Left way of thinking. For example, the Tobin Tax is a fair way of correcting many injustices but how can it be administered without corruption? The elites are so sick and corrupt that they hid a child pornography ring in the basement of UNICEF!

What is needed is for each one to be responsible and empowered. The easiest solution is obviously to become wealthy yourself. There is a free market in ideas and these ideas are what is powerful. Once you understand wealth mechanics then it is your responsibility to teach and mentor people into wealth, then you will have immense power just like the elites.

[iamnotback]

Do not Libertarians, or right wing free market advocates have a set of values ? Of course they do.
Why are they, then, left off the hook when it comes to imposing these values on those that don't share them, over the "leftists" ?

The salient distinction is that the free market by definition means no top-down edicts are directing the outcome, rather the Invisible Hand of opportunity costs are. Free markets anneal to the NATURAL LAW economics of nature. Whereas, top-down edicts do not anneal and become megadeath because of non-intended outcomes. For example, the 57 million who starved in Communist China, because of the top-down management of agriculture. The AGW proponents are trying to achieve a similar megadeath through corrupt top-down governance.

If an ideology is an idea system used to maintain an exploitative domination, then from where I'm sat, the free market ideology has by far created the greatest amount of inequality and stifled life chances on the world as a whole .

Top-down governance is corrupted also. The leftist's preferred system is just as exploitative as any natural power-law or exponential distribution of wealth. Because giving power to representatives is a power vacuum and thus will always be victors to the most corruptible. The 160 IQ Eric Raymond explained this well:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=984 (Some Iron Laws of Political Economics)

1% own half this world.

The unequal distribution of wealth is a fact of nature. There is nothing you can anyone can do about this, other than improving technology so that everyone's standard of living is lifted. The following references are taken from my whitepaper for a new altcoin project I am working on:

J. Doyne Farmer, John Geanakoplos. Power laws in economics and elsewhere. Chapter from a preliminary draft of a book called “Beyond equilibrium and efficiency”, §4.1 Summary of empirical evidence for power laws, p. 15, May 14, 2008.
Adrian A. Dragulescu, Victor M. Yakovenko. Exponential and power-law probability distributions of wealth and income in the United Kingdom and the United States. Physica A 299, pp. 213–221, proceedings of NATO workshop Applications of Physics in Economic Modeling, Prague, Feb 2001.
Adrian A. Dragulescu, Victor M. Yakovenko. Statistical Mechanics of Money, Income, and Wealth: A Short Survey. Modeling of Complex Systems: Seventh Granada Lectures, AIP Conference Proceedings 661, pp. 180-183, Sep 2, 2002.
Victor M. Yakovenko, J. Barkley Rosser, Jr.. Colloquium: Statistical mechanics of money, wealth, and income. Rev. Mod. Phys. 81(4), 1703, Dec 2, 2009.
Jean-Philippe Bouchard. Power-laws and Scaling in Finance: Empirical Evidence and Simple Models. Conference on Fractals 2002, Emergent Nature: Patterns, Growth and Scaling in the Sciences, pp. 157–171, Mar 17, 2002.
Xavier Gabaix. Power Laws in Economics: An Introduction. Journal of Economic Perspectives 30(1) pp. 185–206, §What Causes Power Laws?, Winter 2016.
Thomas Lux. Financial Power Laws: Empirical Evidence, Models, and Mechanism. Power Laws in the Social Sciences: Discovering Complexity and Non-Equilibrium Dynamics in the Social Universe, §IV. Multi-Agent Models in Behavioral Finance, 2006.


Also the extreme excesses in concentration of wealth are not due to the free market, but are due to the top-down political corruption that the leftists advocate. The solution the leftists advocate is the poison that gives them the reason to advocate their "solution". It is a vicious cycle of ignorance, akin to a dog chasing his tail.

It is quite sad to see such retarded humans destroy themselves and civilization along with it. Repeatedly.

But the ideas that legitimate this gross inequality are somehow OK because ......?? Or are their ideas somehow exempt from tyrannical abuse purely because they are the ones writing the rule books and history ?
Doesn't make any sense.

You retards never learn to stop chasing your tail. It is sad. I see you leftists as a cancer and a virus, that I need to inoculate from my life.

CoinCube won't approve of my language, but I use this language because you leftists are evil and violent and the "soft glove" approach doesn't register in your corrupt minds. You need to be told what you really are bluntly and frankly. And moreover, because you always talking so highly of your ethics and you belittle (very condescending tone!) the ethics of the free market proponents, so I just want to put the mirror in your face.