On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 10:03:13 AM UTC+1, Alberto G.Corona wrote: > > Threads like this have no relation with questions about what this list is > about: the ultimate reality. > > Well...wait... Why questions like this are discussed here? My guess is > that yes, indeed. This is a question about the ultimate reality. GW is a > question of belief, about where we go, one of the most fundamental > questions after "where we come from" and "what we are". > > And the people´s mind unconsciously and naturally direct these questions > to this list. > > That is a bit irritating for me but at last it brings invaluable > information about what is my main interest: people and what they believe. > > In my thesis about the religious instinct GW match perfectly with what is > a primitive religion. I mean primitive in the sense that it demand > sacrifices almost as expensive as the supposed benefits it brings. In this > sense, the structure of GW is close of the one of the Aztec religion: For > the Aztecs the world would end if there were no human sacrifices. The > benefits were a solid war machine in defense of the empire and security for > the citizens. > > This war machine and solid commitment of the people comes from the very > high price that people pay in their sacrifices. This is an investment in > the continuity of the society and culture. The investment works as follows: > if each citizen does not defend from disorder and the disorder break the > structure, his investment will dissipate into nothingness. > > If two men fall in a island, to collaborate, one consciously but also > unconsciously demand sacrifices from the other in order to build trust. > That is the religious instinct. They end up having common goals about what > to do to be saved. If both agree to look for resources in the island, one > demand to the other some result, or the signs of effort in the task if it > has not been sucessful. Many tasks in a culture do not produce direct and > visible products. Then signs of pain and sacrifices are demanded in a group > to create mutual trust. These sacrifice becomes with time ritualized > presented, codified and shared in a formal religion. > > GW is a religion in his infancy. It demand eco-sacrifices: slow down > industrialization of poor countries and so on. I would say that also demand > human sacrifices if we count the promotion of abortion and the forced > abortions in many third countries that the UN is promoting in the name of > the Mother Earth. The supposed benefits are a World Government of > enlightened people that will solve all our problems. > > From the said about Aztecs, it is absolutely mandatory for the GW > believers that everyone without exception believe in GW. For this purpose > GW must be undisputable and "deniers" must be prosecuted. The world is > warming? this is because GW. The world stay the same? This is because GW. > It is coling? that is predicted by GW. Every country must implement > anti-babe anti-familly policies to stop population growth: feminism, > homosexualism, > abortion, destroying the history of the western countries in order to > create supranational structures governed by enlightened people etc. > > > What is said for the individuals apply now for the countries. Third world > Countries that adopt the UN Agenda are strongly subsidized (Their elites, > i mean). That happens with China, for example with his one child policy. > The deniers are attacked by the propaganda. etc > > This is not centralized conspiracy. It is religion. Once a idea is set in > the mind of some powerful people and they invest on it, the the rest of the > ideas and processes start to work and accommodate themselves for the common > goal. People do not conspire. People´s interests do with no much > intelligence neither effort. It is simply natural. > > The sort of additional details that will most speak to the value of this thesis, pertain to any distinctiveness you attach to the two "belief" and "thesis", mer. lost clearly stated in terms of one-another. Given you can supply that, the most valuable next kind of detail, would be the concrete steps you took to ensure whatever distinction the first additional details supplied, were derived as robustly as possible, so as to eliminate or minimize the single property on which, in fact, the value of your thesis full-spectrum depends from a pile of shit to a work of fuck-me-you-are-a-genius, that property being 'belief', its definition being whatever you said it was.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
