George S

A dear friend since departed was Dorla Gundershiemer author of "Tricking the Devil." She was a German Jew post WW II immigrant to the US who survived the holocaust without ever going to the camps or hiding underground.

She confirmed my suspicion that the holocaust was an escalating effort to chase Jews from Germany that finished with resorting to slaughtering the ones that didn't leave. By 1940, after the world devastation from vast depression and war, the ones that hadn't left no longer had anywhere to go nor ways to get there.

I believe when the war started they were no longer permitted to leave because of their intelligence value to the Allies, not because they were Jews. Nazis were happy to get rid of Jews any way they could.

I also suspect rabbis held them in Germany with promises of rescue, perhaps messianic rescue, for fear of losing their entire congregations as they scattered around the world. Does anyone know if that was true?

Will you progressive or socialist bigots (you aren't "liberals" as most of you fraudulently claim) illicitly delete this again because it embarrasses you?

The left, supposedly the champions of free speech, are continually trying to restrict or mute oppositions' access to public comment.

Do they fear the opposition might break the mind control hold they have from indoctrinating young people in the schools they dominate?

Are they afraid the romantic idealistic delusions they indoctrinate into vulnerable students will be broken by more pragmatic true liberal ideals or conservative pragmatism?

Examples:

They have tried, and often succeeded, at limiting how much can be spent for financing broadcast time while not limiting the endless broadcasts from academic pulpits they dominate.

They frequently invade presentations by their opposition and shout down the speakers, sometimes forcing the cancellation or abandonment of speech.

They campaign for the restriction of "hate speech" other than their own hateful tirades.

Below are accurate economic philosophy definitions. Today in the US most progressives and some socialists fraudulently call themselves "liberal."

True liberalism advocates: individual freedom, weak government, and free markets. Progressives advocate: social concern, omniscient government, and controlled markets. Socialism advocates: social responsibility, omnipresent government, and collective markets. Conservatism advocates: moral responsibility, strong government, and protected markets ("neo-cons" with international businesses have adopted freer market policies).

I was raised under unusually community oriented cultures who would not respect family members committing reprehensible acts. I can't understand the family patriarch in that movie persistently seeking vengeance for his son's death when his son was a horrible criminal killed by one of his victims' rescuing father.

Would such tightly family oriented cultures actually persist in vengeance when the son, by my judgement, morally doesn't deserve such devotion?

I suspect idealistic do-gooder world leaders, particularly in the UN, see themselves as heros with a mission to redistribute resources, first and foremost food. They would take it from the less overpopulated nations and give it to grossly overpopulated ones impoverishing themselves. They usually assume they can break very long traditions of uncontrolled human reproduction and so avoid the redistribution only fueling another population explosion. That would ultimately bring the desperate impoverishing of the entire world.

Do enough do-gooder world leaders have such a plan and is it so ridiculously naive as I believe it is?

I recently learned from a PBS broadcast that Paul and James conflicted on whether gentiles could become "Christians" without first being circumcised and converting to Judaism. James wouldn't relent to Paul's insistence that Gentiles could convert directly without circumcision and without keeping a kosher diet. Peter waffled, although he preferred Christianity remain Jewish and keep Mosaic law.

Apparently Paul, Barnabas, and a Gentile named Titus proselytized among the Gentiles to the North of Israel and created todays form of Christianity. James and Peter remained in Jerusalem and kept the Jewish version of "Christianity."

What of the other apostles and early Judea and Palestine disciples? Did they all hold the Jewish version? Do today's "Christians" in the native Middle East churches (like Coptic and Maronite) practice a Jewish version or a Roman/Greek/Egyptian/Phoenician Gentile version?

Only most Euro-cultures have stopped pumping out so many babies their economies eventually decline to famine unless they consume other species' and/or other people's lands. In modern times they also consume other people's economies. Ultimately those practices force war.

Spurts in technological advancement have rescued us many times by rapidly increasing resource access and product production. However the spurts don't come consistently and each time they also rapidly escalate resource depletion.

Even the Euro-cultures who stopped overpopulating didn't do it to avoid the famines and wars they all suffered repetitively until they stopped overpopulating. They coincidentally benefitted when they stopped to delay or avoid the lifestyle interference of children. Even so their economies are sucked away by the desperate cheap labor in societies who didn't stop overpopulating.

Is the recognition blinded by instinct and emotional drive to produce limitless relatives? Are those subconscious drives fed by the need for reliable allies in people's push against each other for more resources their expanding numbers must have?

If so why do so few recognize the irony in that? Please don't blame just religion, self-destructive pressure from earlier generations to produce offspring, or peer pressure to follow their lead into parenthood. I saw all of that in cultures who stopped overpopulating but just the desire to continue their single or "DINK" (double income, no kids) lifestyle deflected all that.

My conclusion is the overpopulating cultures bow to the pressures because they so fear the thought of the famines and wars they create that they blunder right into those mindlessly. Ironically they close their minds to the disasters that panic them and so run right into them blindly because they can't see them coming. Instead they blame everyone who doesn't suffer with them.

Is my evaluation too simplistic or is that what actually happens?

Black racists are crying for his blood while presuming he wasn't justified. Whether or not he was depends entirely on whether or not Martin did punch him down and whether Martin then backed off or moved in for more pounding. Black racist don't know or care. They have already convicted him because he is not black and killed a black person.

Could high concentrations of electrolytes in the body stimulate ADD, autism, schizophrenia, and epilepsy in people sensitive to that? I wonder if such things, that seem like malfunctions in the electrical operation of the brain, might be triggered by something so simple as insufficient hydration or just excess electrolyte production. Are there any research physicians out there who could investigate that?

I suffer ADD from "thought storms" and my sister has a much more serious problem. I am testing hydration on myself, particularly when the thought storms are present, but testing yourself is notoriously unreliable.

I understand China, and Japan even more so, is nearly all ethnic people of those nations. I heard that particularly Japan doesn't welcome an influx of foreign races. Should China and Japan welcome a flood of Africans and Europeans so they would be more diverse?

Will our descendants blame the economic ruin they cause by squandering and overpopulating on the wealthy people they envy like we and our ancestors did? Will they again go far into debt pretending they too are wealthy? Will they excuse the overpopulating cultures spewing hordes of excess labor undercutting their wages, taking their jobs, and tearing away the industries sustaining their economies like we are and our ancestors did?

Will they do it all again like we and our ancestors did nearly a century ago while yet again blaming the same fall guys?

PS: Sorry I obscured the question last time with unnecessary rhetoric.

The Western masses are happy that their profligate squandering and unreasonable debt incurred to pretend they were much wealthier than they actually were is being ignored. The Eastern outrageously overpopulating hordes who ignore how that has long ravaged them and now devastates the whole world are glad to see everyone else ignoring it too. Happiest of all are the neo-Marxist bigots who once again are focusing all the blame on the people they hate for not sharing their fortunes with them ... er, they mean the poor people.

It all happened once again like a century ago when huge hordes of excess labor from Great Britain and Europe swarmed out to undercut wages there and across North America bringing economic devastation. Then too the public had squandered and gone deeply into debt pretending they were wealthier than they were. Then too the blame was all focused by Marxists onto "greedy capitalists" who exploited the reckless stupidity of the public.

So the reckless squandering and indebtedness of the masses is being ignored again. The mindless, or worse the intentional, pumping out of far more babies than the parents or their lands and economies can support is being ignored again. The hordes of desperate excess labor they grow into dumping wages and whole economies with them is being ignored again.

Meanwhile the wealthy "greedy capitalists" we all envy for being above it all are being burned at stakes again by Marxist inquisitors while we cheer with glee. So relieved are we to have someone else sacrificed so we can avoid the guilt.

Then in a few generations yet again will it all be repeated just as it has been now? No one will remember how we, the masses, set up the pretty and sparkling but flimsy economies; or how all of us before and some cultures still now flooded it with so many excess people we crushed it.

Will the masses still find some "greedy capitalists" the next time to burn at the stakes and again be relieved they won't need to face their own guilt for setting up the pretty but flimsy economies then crashing it all down yet again?

The mice people, still everywhere except the Euro-cultures who only a couple generations ago started using effective birth control, are multiplying by the hundreds of millions and billions. They are eating up, often literally, the economies of the world.

Are you middle class people focusing only on the relatively few upper class pig people eating the fancy roots you would like for yourselves while the lower class swarms of mice people are consuming entire grain fields and other economic staples?

This reference is just partly symbolic. The overpopulating "mice" people are literally consuming the world's staples; but far beyond that they ruin economies undercutting wages with their huge hordes of excess labor, destroy the environment by spreading out into the habitat of all other species, and force wars for the increasing amount of land and resources their burgeoning hordes must have.

Would including the omission have made it more acceptable?

I gave an answer to the question from Auhem117: "Politics: Do you think of me as a girl although I'm transgender?" I foolishly omitted that because I entertain the possibility people have spirits (souls, etc), transgender is automatically possible in my mind, and I do not understand why religious people who believe in human spirit/soul would question its possibility.

I did note in my answer that I view her generally as how she was born, but accept wherever she goes from there. I also recalled long ago passing an extremely beautiful lesbian and I could not avoid thinking: "Oh no, not you."

I know many LGBT wouldn't like my answer to Auhem117 and/or my reaction to the beautiful lesbian, but I make no apology for anything but the omission.

If you do object to my reaction to the beautiful lesbian, why would you ever expect a straight male to react otherwise? Can you see it's bigotry in you that would, not in me? Do you actually think I could or would ignore the extreme beauty of a woman and not desire her just because she happened to be lesbian? Of course I would not expect her to respond to me nor be so ridiculous to try convincing her to "change."

I have great regret for my omission, but if it was the desire for a beautiful lesbian that got me trashed, I would like an apology for that PC insanity.

I gave an answer to the question from Auhem117: "Politics: Do you think of me as a girl although I'm transgender?" I foolishly omitted that because I entertain the possibility people have spirits (souls, etc), transgender is automatically possible in my mind, and I do not understand why religious people who believe in human spirit/soul would question its possibility.

I did note in my answer that I view her generally as how she was born, but accept wherever she goes from there. I also recalled long ago passing an extremely beautiful lesbian and I could not avoid thinking: "Oh no, not you."

I know many LGBT wouldn't like my answer to Auhem117 and/or my reaction to the beautiful lesbian, but I make no apology for anything but the omission.

If you do object to my reaction to the beautiful lesbian, why would you ever expect a straight male to react otherwise? Can you see it's bigotry in you that would, not in me? Do you actually think I could or would ignore the extreme beauty of a woman and not desire her just because she happened to be lesbian? Of course I would not expect her to respond to me nor be so ridiculous to try convincing her to "change."

I have great regret for my omission, but if it was the desire for a beautiful lesbian that got me trashed, I would like an apology for that PC insanity.

It's become a brain-sucking ghoul. It eats rodent brains and leaves the rest. Are we safe from it while we sleep?

The two colors were traditional here for Halloween and so were black caped witches and harvest pumpkins. Since the references in Halloween are heavily from Celtic myth, and the US was heavily invaded initially by Scot-Irish Orangemen and later a great many "black" (Catholic) Irish, I wondered if the colors were coincidental or not.

is it mostly independent references from all attitudes? Which do you actually practice? Was your answer really honest, or just what you want to pretend is true?

I learned Diogenes never found an "honest man," even the mirror, because we are all trained to deny reality and substitute what we want to pretend is true. That indoctrination begins from our parents and continues from our educators.

Apparently Stalin and Hitler made a deal to split Poland. Britain and France attacked Germany over that. Why didn't they also attack the Soviet Union?

If Shirley was white would she be lynched in the press even before being fired? Would she then have no chance of being rehired even after vindication?