TODAY! Listen up. Lifting all sanctions from Iran; your thoughts, please

[just me]

???

 

[just me]

I see the Obama administration as seeking a deal to credit the administration, rather than to keep peace in the world. Going around proper channels in the US government, what is happening seems to be mere lip service with no binding roots. It is merely another way to stall for Iran. There may be some in both countries that wish to seek a proper deal, but they are not at the table. Iran is now wishing to keep their buried facility spinning centrifuges, though they spoke earlier of using the site solely for research.

Iran knows how bad a war would be for them and other countries, especially in a time when countries are strapped for money. Iran wants the sanctions lifted, and the world does not want to see a nuclear-armed Iran. It has been stated and will continue to be stated: No deal is better than a bad deal. In the meantime, Iran has bought another 15 months' time and will be seeking more after they walk away from the table empty-handed.

The real question remains concerning enforcement: What does the world plan to do to keep Iran from coming out of the closet? just me

 

[La Sagna]

polarized politics

Each side claims to know the 'truth' but the truth is usually somewhere in the middle.

 

[just me]

Ever hear of a Malteese Kross? We used a polarisKope to check lenses for proper heat treating. There was a light underneath two polurized lenses, turned at opposite axis' with a space between them. After temprossing a lense, we would hold the lense in between the two polurized lenses. A Malteese Kross would appear. The better the heat treating, the more distinct the cross.

Without the Light of God, there can be no true agreement. Without the light, there was no malteese Kross(link had appeared, so I misspelled it): only darkness.

Bad spelling purposefully committed.

 

[just me]

A lense was truly temprossed only when it had been brought in heat to its breaking point, then quickly cooled by streams of air.

 

[muir]

polarized politics

Each side claims to know the 'truth' but the truth is usually somewhere in the middle.

No the truth is not always in the middle

In fact hegelian dialectics is about creating two poles from which they then synthesis the result that they want

They control both poles and there are whole other options beyond those poles many people aren't even aware of

 

[muir]

I see the Obama administration as seeking a deal to credit the administration, rather than to keep peace in the world. Going around proper channels in the US government, what is happening seems to be mere lip service with no binding roots. It is merely another way to stall for Iran. There may be some in both countries that wish to seek a proper deal, but they are not at the table. Iran is now wishing to keep their buried facility spinning centrifuges, though they spoke earlier of using the site solely for research.

Iran knows how bad a war would be for them and other countries, especially in a time when countries are strapped for money. Iran wants the sanctions lifted, and the world does not want to see a nuclear-armed Iran. It has been stated and will continue to be stated: No deal is better than a bad deal. In the meantime, Iran has bought another 15 months' time and will be seeking more after they walk away from the table empty-handed.

The real question remains concerning enforcement: What does the world plan to do to keep Iran from coming out of the closet? just me

Iran is allowed under international law to develop nuclear power

Iran does not have nuclear weapons but israel does

If you do not call for the destruction of Israels nuclear weapons then you are a hypocrite

You clearly believe in one rule for one group of people and a different rule for another group...that is imo drifting into the realm of racism

Israel won;t sign the international non-proliferation (of nuclear weapons) treaty....they have also been declared war criminals under the geneva convention

Israel clearly thinks it is above the law

If you argue that it is ok for israel to be above the law then you are saying that you don't respect international law...therefore you then have no right to try and prevent any other country doing anything

 

[La Sagna]

No the truth is not always in the middle

In fact hegelian dialectics is about creating two poles from which they then synthesis the result that they want

They control both poles and there are whole other options beyond those poles many people aren't even aware of

You are right that the truth is not always in the middle, as I said, it is usually somewhere in the middle, and I stick by that.

Your interpretation of hegelian dialectics is interesting. You seem to think that the two opposing forces are created by 'they' enabling a chosen result. I would argue that that was not what Hegel was describing. The opposing forces have a life of their own and the results are not pre-determined by human beings. In my opinion the problem with your position on most things is that you give too much credit to human beings. I do not believe that there is any group of human beings who have the intellect, self-control and skills to be able to do what you claim. People are way too weak and flawed. You give them too much credit.

 

[muir]

You are right that the truth is not always in the middle, as I said, it is usually somewhere in the middle, and I stick by that.

Your interpretation of hegelian dialectics is interesting. You seem to think that the two opposing forces are created by 'they' enabling a chosen result. I would argue that that was not what Hegel was describing. The opposing forces have a life of their own and the results are not pre-determined by human beings. In my opinion the problem with your position on most things is that you give too much credit to human beings. I do not believe that there is any group of human beings who have the intellect, self-control and skills to be able to do what you claim. People are way too weak and flawed. You give them too much credit.

It doesn't matter what hegel meant, what matters is what people then do with the teachings

So the banking fraternity that formed the US federal reserve banking cartel originated largely from Germany. Those families sent their sons to university in berlin where they studied under Hegel himself

Personally i think philosophers are often given too much credit. I think much of the time they are simply elucidating ideas that have been known for a long time. The philosophers are the ones to write it down in an academic context though and history therefore associates their name with them forever more

I'm going to stick my neck out here and say that your viewpoint regarding the truth always lying in the middle is often held by women and it tends to make them very conservative at times where decisive action is needed. At these times they can be heard justifying their choice to stay with the current, harmful situation by saying ''better the devil you know''

But personally i'd rather not know the devil (in that sense)

An example of this would be referendum votes

Now on one hand that kind of calmer, gentler less active approach can be good because it allows women to be the glue of a family or a society but sometimes we really do need to take action even though it can be scary to do so

Just as equally it can be bad to go too far in the other direction and to leap without looking can also be destructive

You might say that this is a sexist view or unpolitically correct but I'm just speaking from my own observations about how women react in certain situations and also from the fact that the only people i've heard saying what you've said are women

 

[La Sagna]

It doesn't matter what hegel meant, what matters is what people then do with the teachings

So the banking fraternity that formed the US federal reserve banking cartel originated largely from Germany. Those families sent their sons to university in berlin where they studied under Hegel himself

Personally i think philosophers are often given too much credit. I think much of the time they are simply elucidating ideas that have been known for a long time. The philosophers are the ones to write it down in an academic context though and history therefore associates their name with them forever more

I'm going to stick my neck out here and say that your viewpoint regarding the truth always lying in the middle is often held by women and it tends to make them very conservative at times where decisive action is needed. At these times they can be heard justifying their choice to stay with the current, harmful situation by saying ''better the devil you know''

But personally i'd rather not know the devil (in that sense)

An example of this would be referendum votes

Now on one hand that kind of calmer, gentler less active approach can be good because it allows women to be the glue of a family or a society but sometimes we really do need to take action even though it can be scary to do so

Just as equally it can be bad to go too far in the other direction and to leap without looking can also be destructive

You might say that this is a sexist view or unpolitically correct but I'm just speaking from my own observations about how women react in certain situations and also from the fact that the only people i've heard saying what you've said are women

Ad Hominem Argument: Also, "personal attack," "poisoning the well." The fallacy of attempting to refute an argument by attacking the opposition’s personal character or reputation, using a corrupted negative argument from ethos. E.g., "He's so evil that you can't believe anything he says." See also Guilt by Association. Also applies to cases where valid opposing evidence and arguments are brushed aside without comment or consideration, as simply not worth arguing about.

Thanks for the Ad Hominem - Apparently you think that my opinion is tainted by the fact that I am woman who doesn't have the guts to change anything. Wrong! Tell that to my ex who thought the same thing and just realized that I have way more guts than he ever had.

The fact that I am a woman does not make my argument any less valid. Try using proper logical arguments as opposed to a logical fallacy next time. Attacking my character does not prove your point, and lumping every woman as the same is no more valid than lumping every man as the same.

 

[muir]

Thanks for the Ad Hominem - Apparently you think that my opinion is tainted by the fact that I am woman who doesn't have the guts to change anything. Wrong! Tell that to my ex who thought the same thing and just realized that I have way more guts than he ever had.

The fact that I am a woman does not make my argument any less valid. Try using proper logical arguments as opposed to a logical fallacy next time. Attacking my character does not prove your point, and lumping every woman as the same is no more valid than lumping every man as the same.

I wasn't attacking your character i think you're reading too much personal stuff into what i'm saying

Let me give more context so that you can see where i'm coming from

But before i do i want to say that yes i am generalising and that no i'm not lumping all women into one category

The idea that the truth always lies in between two poles is a fallacy because it depends where the two poles are to begin with (hence the political term 'gerrymandering' which is to move the goal posts as and when it suits you)

An example would be how the media is framed in the public sphere. So the powers that be want to conceal from people that there are options relating to how you can order a society from people so to conceal that they frame the public dialogue into a box of their creation

To hide the true left they will call centre-right newspapers or political parties 'left wing' thereby making the public think that those centre right institutions represent the left wing of the political spectrum thereby removing the true left pole from public sight

here's a clip of chomsky talking about the myth of the 'liberal media'

[video=youtube;KYlyb1Bx9Ic]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYlyb1Bx9Ic[/video]

This works in every area of life because if you control the parameters of peoples thought then you control what they perceive as being possible

So for example lets say you are the powers that be and you want to mislead the public about the nature of our universe then you tell them that the world is flat and you persecute, burn or imprison anyone who says that the world is round

By doing this you create a box within which human thought is controlled. For anyone unable to think outside the box all their thought and conversation is founded upon a belief that the world is flat

If you can constantly tell people that something is the case then you can make them believe it and then behave the way you want them to behave. The nazis called this the 'big lie'

So if you want to control the global population numbers because you are a eugenicist then you make toxic vaccines and you tell the public that the vaccines are there for their health; you even bribe or fool people the public look upto into promoting the vaccines to create the impression that they are safe

You have created an illusion in their mind...a box in which their thought is contained. They cannot conceive any possibility outside that box and if someone comes along and offers them contrary information they will instantly dismiss it as 'crazy' because they have been conditioned to think that only things within that box are possible

Inventors and visionaries are people who are unconstrained by the boxes...they see beyond them

If you look at the banking fraternity for example who use hegel's dialectics...the most prominent clan amongst that fraternity is the rothschilds. 'rothschild' means redshield and they took the name (they were originally called bauer) because their house in frankfurt had a red symbol on the front of it of a 6 pointed star

The six pointed star is most commonly called these days the 'star of david' but its older name is the 'seal of solomon' and it is made up of two triangles. One triangle points up and one points down. The triangles are overlayed.

The upward pointing triangle represents the male phallus and the downward pointing triangle represents the female yoni. In magical or alchemical terms then the symbol siginifies the union of opposites

So what are these opposites? Jung would speak of the anima and the animus

Also these banking fraternities are also freemasonic. In freemasonry you have the two pillars of solomons temple. These pillars are the male and female energies or what the chinese would call 'yin and yang'...two polarities

The initiate entering the temple represents the third pillar in the middle....the union of opposites as they seek to integrate the parts of their psyche and find balance (like the buddhist 'third way')

If you are Jung helping people with this knowledge then you could be said to be one of the 'good guys'

However if you are a banker who wants to dominate the world financially and politically then it is not in your interests to help people find balance; in fact you can then use this knowledge about human psychology to shape society in such ways as to deliberately throw people off balance and thereby keep them divided within themself and amongst themselves so that you can more easily exploit them and control them and so they won't be able to stand up for themselves and challenge your control

For example you can mess with language in the ways Orwell outlines in his book '1984' and you can mislead people as to what represents 'left' and 'right'

In fact once you become rich enough you can buy up all the media (now consolidated into 6 mega corporations in the US all controlled by the CFR...a forum for the corporate network including the banking fraternity) and you can then use the media to tell the public whatever you like. Heck if you told them the world was flat enough times some of them would begin to believe it because you are using the principle of 'plato's cave' ie you are controlling the flows of information to peoples minds and thereby controlling how they perceive reality and also the limits of their understanding and awareness

You can also buy up politicians and judges and so on. With enough money you can influence many people. Those you can't bribe you threaten or kill.

Going back for a moment to solomon whose wisdom people always talk about. The most famous story about solomonic wisdom is the story of the two women and a baby isn't it?

two women are brought before solomon each claiming that a child is theirs. Solomon says that he will chop the baby in half so that they can each have a half. The babies true mother breaks down and says 'no let her have the child' so that she can save the life of her baby

this story is showing how a person can be psychologically manipulated. Solomon synthesises a result from the dilemma he creates for the true mother

 

[Matt3737]

Personally i think philosophers are often given too much credit. I think much of the time they are simply elucidating ideas that have been known for a long time. The philosophers are the ones to write it down in an academic context though and history therefore associates their name with them forever more

According to Hegel, "Heraclitus is the one who first declared the nature of the infinite and first grasped nature as in itself infinite, that is, its essence as process. The origin of philosophy is to be dated from Heraclitus. His is the persistent Idea that is the same in all philosophers up to the present day, as it was the Idea of Plato and Aristotle." For Hegel, Heraclitus's great achievements were to have understood the nature of the infinite, which for Hegel includes understanding the inherent contradictoriness and negativity of reality, and to have grasped that reality is becoming or process, and that "being" and "nothingness" are mere empty abstractions. According to Hegel, Heraclitus's "obscurity" comes from his being a true (in Hegel's terms "speculative") philosopher who grasped the ultimate philosophical truth and therefore expressed himself in a way that goes beyond the abstract and limited nature of common sense and is difficult to grasp by those who operate within common sense. Hegel asserted that in Heraclitus he had an antecedent for his logic: "... there is no proposition of Heraclitus which I have not adopted in my logic."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel#Heraclitus

 

[Matt3737]

[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION]

Why is it that you only read into that bit what you wanted to see? Yes, Hegel's philosophy is directly attributable to Heraclitus. The other point is that he himself openly acknowledged it, so that the point you made about being given undue or excessive credit for the work of others is NOT applicable. He gave credit TO Heraclitus.

Hegel's philosophy was idealistic and dealt with abstractions. You unfairly interpret it when you use it to support your political idealogy. Yours has more in line with Marxist's philosophy (which he himself claimed was in direct opposition to Hegel's) with its emphasis on class warfare:

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels proposed that G.F. Hegel had rendered philosophy too abstractly ideal:

The mystification which dialectic suffers in Hegel's hands, by no means prevents him from being the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner. With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell.

In contradiction to Hegelian idealism, Karl Marx presented Dialectical materialism (Marxist dialectics):

My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life-process of the human brain, i.e. the process of thinking, which, under the name of 'the Idea', he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of 'the Idea'. With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectism#Marxist_dialectics

 

[muir]

@muir

Why is it that you only read into that bit what you wanted to see? Yes, Hegel's philosophy is directly attributable to Heraclitus. The other point is that he himself openly acknowledged it, so that the point you made about being given undue or excessive credit for the work of others is NOT applicable. He gave credit TO Heraclitus.

Hegel's philosophy was idealistic and dealt with abstractions. You unfairly interpret it when you use it to support your political idealogy. Yours has more in line with Marxist's philosophy (which he himself claimed was in direct opposition to Hegel's) with its emphasis on class warfare:

Once again...it doesn't matter what hegel said...it matters what people think

here we were (me and lasagna), some people on the internet, discussing a concept and calling it hegel's (when as you demonstrated it wasn't hegel's)

So hegel is often being given credit for something that wasn't his....he just took heraclitus's idea and packaged it for academia

In all likeliness the idea is older than heraclitus!

You're next mission, should you choose to accept it, is to find out who was the genuine originator of Plato's cave idea because apparently it wasn't plato and yet we all call it 'plato's cave'

Concerning the whole marxist thing......people use the world 'socialist' differently. In fact chomsky discusses this too...he says that some words like 'socialism' and 'capitalism' are so misused by the mainstream media that they have lost their meaning

This is true and you can experience this by trying to have a debate on socialism online (there used to be epic debates here on socialism between satya and billy) and before any real progress can be made there has to be some agreement over what is meant by the term 'socialism'

So for example when i use the term socialism i am talking about the workers owning and controlling the means of production.

But david rockefeller (ex-chairman of the CFR, creator of the tirlateral commission and head of the banking and oil rockefeller dynasty) wrote his thesis at university on fabian socialism

Now why would a billionaire banker looking to gain greater and greater market share and profits be interested in socialism?

It's because when he uses the term 'socialism' he does not mean the same thing as me. What he means is the creation of a central world government that will be run by him and his fellow banking fraternity. The rockefellers donated the land in New York for the building of the headquarters of the United Nations which is a prototype world government

So i believe in decentralised power where you and i have a say in the running of our communities but david believes in centralised power where only him and his buddies have a say in the running of things...basically they dictate to us how things are going to be like the nazis did

This takes us back to Plato. Plato wrote a book called 'the republic' in which he laid out his vision of the perfect society and in that vision the society was run by a council of illuminated beings which Plato called 'philosopher kings' who by dint of their greater education supposedly had the right to rule over the rest of us

The vision of david rockefeller and his fabian 'socialist' buddies is for the creation of a centralised world government run by david and his pals who see themselves as illuminated 'philosopher kings'

David has admitted as much in his writings....this is not speculation

So a lot of marxists out there are not really talking about liberating you; they may talk a very good game but really what they are working towards is a centrally controlled 'planned economy'

Under a centrally controlled 'planned economy' you and me have no say in matters...we are just worker drones told where to live, what to eat and what tasks to carry out

Sound like fun?

[video=youtube;GdtX9ZZAi3k]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdtX9ZZAi3k[/video]

 

[Matt3737]

[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION]

Yes, you are right. People misuse and misunderstand words and concepts quite often such as 'socialism,' 'capitalism,' and 'Hegelian dialectics.'

My point is not to debate your philosophy, but to make a clarification. I think your dialectics is Marxist, not Hegelian. I hope you can respect that distinction, just as you hope people will understand similar distinctions when using words such as 'socialist,' 'anarchist,' 'capitalist,' and so on and so forth.

We (academics) cannot go further back in history to attribute ideas to people because history begins with written records, everything preceding that falls into 'prehistory.' You are very likely correct though and that these ideas possibly even originated with the appearance of Cro-Magnons or modern humans (homo sapiens sapiens).

 

[muir]

@muir

Yes, you are right. People misuse and misunderstand words and concepts quite often such as 'socialism,' 'capitalism,' and 'Hegelian dialectics.'

My point is not to debate your philosophy, but to make a clarification. I think your dialectics is Marxist, not Hegelian. I hope you can respect that distinction, just as you hope people will understand similar distinctions when using words such as 'socialist,' 'anarchist,' 'capitalist,' and so on and so forth.

We (academics) cannot go further back in history to attribute ideas to people because history begins with written records, everything preceding that falls into 'prehistory.' You are very likely correct though and that these ideas possibly even originated with the appearance of Cro-Magnons or modern humans (homo sapiens sapiens).

I wasn't saying what my views were so it is not possible for you to say what 'my dialectics' are

I was speaking about hegels dialectics of 'thesis, antithesis and synthesis'

I'm not a marxist...i'm not a materialist

This is where some people get confused about zionism. The mainstream zionist controlled media tells them that to be jewish is to be a zionist but that is simply not true

To be jewish is to be of the jewish faith

Zionism is a political movement and the people at its core are not of the jewish faith...they are marxist materialists

 

[Matt3737]

I wasn't saying what my views were so it is not possible for you to say what 'my dialectics' are

I was speaking about hegels dialectics of 'thesis, antithesis and synthesis'

I'm not a marxist...i'm not a materialist

How are you not and how would I not know what your views are? You adamantly exclaim them and will gladly remind people of that fact whenever they doubt your sincerity. Have you not been posting this information for quite some time?

How are you also not a materialist? Is it not almost a mantra of yours to tell people to "Follow the money."?

 

[muir]

How are you not and how would I not know what your views are? You adamantly exclaim them and will gladly remind people of that fact whenever they doubt your sincerity. Have you not been posting this information for quite some time?

How are you also not a materialist? Is it not almost a mantra of yours to tell people to "Follow the money."?

It was the advice given by the informant of woodward and bernstein that led them to exposing the corruption of nixon to ''follow the money''

If you explain what you think i am and why you think it i'll tell you if its true

or

you could stick to the subject at hand

 

[Matt3737]

No it was the advise given by the informant of woodward and bernstein that led them to exposing the corruption of nixon to ''follow the money''

If you explain what you think i am and why you think it i'll tell you if its true

I've already told you why I think your political philosophy has more in common with Marxist's philosophy. Do you not also talk about the class struggles between the rich and the poor?

Why are you so hesitant to accept a label as a general outline of your thoughts? I consider myself Hegelian and Heraclitean, so I am annoyed when I feel you misuse those terms the same way you might be annoyed or frustrated when people misuse political labels.

before any real progress can be made there has to be some agreement over what is meant by the term 'socialism'

If you believe that most all ideas have been thought of before, then it stands to reason that your thoughts and ideology has been expressed before. Why is it difficult to give a general label to it?

Why don't you tell me what sort of philosophies your ideas most resemble and what labels you'd use to describe them?

 

[muir]

I've already told you why I think your political philosophy has more in common with Marxist's philosophy. Do you not also talk about the class struggles between the rich and the poor?

Why are you so hesitant to accept a label as a general outline of your thoughts? I consider myself Hegelian and Heraclitean, so I am annoyed when I feel you misuse those terms the same way you might be annoyed or frustrated when people misuse political labels.



If you believe that most all ideas have been thought of before, then it stands to reason that your thoughts and ideology has been expressed before. Why is it difficult to give a general label to it?

Why don't you tell me what sort of philosophies your ideas most resemble and what labels you'd use to describe them?

I think i will probably answer that question over a period of posts but this thread is about Iran and I think that you are trying to make it about me

this is something you do again and again man.....forget me and look at what i'm saying

I have already clarified that by hegels dialectics i am speaking about his theory of 'thesis, antithesis and synthesis' and how some powerful people have taken this idea and used it to manipulate people....i'm not sure how you think i am misusing hegels ideas?