On Today’s Ron Paul Liberty Report:
With polls suggesting a Republican victory in the House and Senate today, the mother of all battles seems to be brewing between old-guard Republican leadership which favors endless money for Ukraine and a populist/conservative wave that is increasingly skeptical. GOP voters are trending strongly away from Ukraine support. Who will win? Also today: what to think while voting, and finally… a new US base in Syria!
Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity.
No.
The military/intelligence/industrial complex always wins these battles, regardless of which neoliberal Wall Street war monger party is in office. I’ll be very pleasantly surprised if the U.S. cuts off or even substantially reduces aid to Ukraine. And BTW, I think that they’re only talking about financial aid, not military aid, the latter being the one that should evoke the most concern.
Ukraine will be the New Israel, it will get the most military and economic aid in the world and Israel will move to 2nd place. Both nations will be excused by the US and its allies for whatever they do.
Unfortunately, I think that’s already happened. I’m pretty sure that Ukraine has already gotten more U.S. aid than any other country, and the U.S. already excuses all the Nazi crap there. All the U.S. cares about is expanding its empire and stealing resources from other countries.
Ohhhh awesome. A new base in Syria. I’m sure it’s for the bestest of intentions, and perfectly legal to occupy to acquire oil, deny farmland to the locals, and wage war on…well…whomever…right?….right!?
Hey, what’s not to like? U.S. empire imperialism at its finest, with only a small fraction of 1% of the public objecting to it.
That’s the rub, innit? Even when the proles actually find out about the shenanigans the empire is doing, most stare blankly, and go back to chewing their cud, while the rabid war piglets scream “THEY’RE FIGHTING FOR YOUR FREEEEEEDOOOOOMMMM”
But tell them they’re changing the Monday night football theme song, and they lose their collective minds.
My wife doesn’t like football, but she likes the songs.
Relevantly, I’ve been saying for about 15 years that the only real and permanent solution to our major problems is a major evolution of human minds, both mentally and spiritually (not religious!). Without that, it’s just a downward spiral.
Not a fan of American helmet Rugby, but I am a football supporter:)
(and Hank Williams Jr did it best, change my mind).
You’d need to define “spirituality” vs “religion”, and why one is preferable to the other for me to understand that.
As far as a mental evolutionary advance, I see the planet consumed by our sun as it expands into a red giant long before we as a species rewire that bucket of gray pudding bobbing around up top.
So as far as a permanent solution *shrugs* perhaps realistically we can look at something akin to “The Mote in God’s Eye- Niven” type of scenario.
Well, at least until red giant intrudes rudely:)
Spirituality would be things like the realization, knowledge, and feeling of oneness with everyone in the universe (I don’t call other forms of life “things”), shedding desires, empathy with all life, etc. Religion is a set of beliefs that requires blind faith and worships some god. Hard to explain without really thinking about how to state this in intellectual terms, and it would be too much for here. Be Here Now is spirituality; the Bible is religion, that’s the best I can do here.
It’s not true that it would take billions of years for humans to evolve enough mentally and spiritually to start living correctly and stop obsessing on the wrong things like materialism, ego, and intellect. Many traditional indigenous cultures are or were well on the way down that path, only interrupted by “civilized” people killing them and destroying their cultures.
Permanent solutions mean fixing root causes of problems. What I meant is that if you don’t fix root causes, you have no chance of permanent solutions.
Thank you for your reply.
I see what you’re saying. I would however, strongly disagree that religion requires blind faith. This concept discounts several thousand years of development of logic, and reason for the existence of a supreme creator.
For example, the cosmological argument from contingency, the teleological argument from fine-tuning, the ontological argument from the possibility of God’s existence to his actuality, to name a few.
In light of these, I reason that there are good arguments for God’s existence. That is to say, they are logically valid; their premises are true; and their premises are more plausible in light of the evidence than their negations.
I would disagree with the concept that Aboriginal’s were on a special path somehow different from other cultures. Although the more developed concepts of philosophical thought were lacking, the basic ideas were there.
The belief in a creator supreme being is very much central to Aboriginal animism.
The Disney view of stone age hunter-gatherer Aboriginal’s does not serve anyone well. There were wars of conquest, genocides, slavery, long before first contact. This is not to excuse anyone, of anything. It’s just the way of the world.
I’m not sure why it wouldn’t take Homo sapiens sapiens billions of years to “live correctly”, which of course is subjective, not objective. At best we have 850,000-1.1 billion years before the sun’s luminance increases to the point of killing all vegetation on the planet. And well, you can imagine what’s next.
I would agree with you unreservedly that if you don’t deal with root causes, you ain’t fixin’ the problem. Although we both would have a different perspective on how that would be accomplished. Jaw jaw better than war war, yeah?
As to the existence or not of god: Trying to figure this out is a fool’s errand. I don’t claim one way or the other, and it doesn’t matter one bit to unevolved corporeal being like us. If there were a god, it would be more evolved beyond us than we are beyond an amoeba, and we wouldn’t even begin to be able to recognize nor understand it, let alone communicate with it (which makes praying totally idiotic, for example). Just like there’s no way to know what if anything happens to us after we die, there’s no way to know whether there’s a god or gods. All that said, what people mean by “god” is created by humans, not the other way around. People create gods that fit their view of life, so the people of the Middle East created a violent vengeful god, for example. We clearly strongly disagree on this, so I suggest that we agree to disagree, I don’t want to get into an endless argument here.
As to religion: This is rather nuanced, and begins with one’s definition of “religion.” Native religions in what is now North America all seem to believe in The Creator, aka god. But the difference is that they didn’t have things like the Bible that laid out all sorts of laws & rules based on what The Creator supposedly said. Buddhism is commonly considered a religion, but has no god or gods (forget Tibetan Buddhism, it’s a very weird form of it). But any religion that requires belief in a literal god or gods does require blind faith, because there is absolutely no way to prove its or their existence, nor even any substantial evidence of that. My big problems with religion are that 1) they are anti-spiritual, at least the monotheistic ones. Instead of teaching and meditating on oneness, they teach false dualities, such as body & soul, heaven & hell, etc.; 2) the monotheistic religions are completely evil, advocating human supremacy and human destruction of the planet; and 3) advocating dominance over and/or destruction of other peoples and cultures. Again, we should probably agree to disagree here, I’m certainly not going to change my mind on this absent major evidence to the contrary, which is less likely than winning the lottery.
As to traditional indigenous people: First, I’m talking about hunter-gatherers. Stories of wars, slavery, etc. among these people are mostly false and the ones that aren’t are way overblown. War and slavery are results of civilization (people living densely in urban areas). Hunter-gatherers don’t overpopulate like agricultural societies do, and the largest hunter-gatherer community I’m aware of was 40 people. Good luck fighting a war or keeping slaves with that number of people or fewer. Second, I’ was talking about how mentally and spiritually evolved they are or were (the large majority of them were killed off by civilized people). I challenge even our most brilliant scientists to explain or even understand concepts like the spider-grandmother (the full concept, not the beginning/obvious portion) or the dream time, to list just two examples off the top of my head. One of the major things wrong with humans is that they obsess on the intellect instead of focusing on wisdom, empathy, and expanding consciousness. The latter is what many if not most hunter-gatherers did. I’m not saying that all of these people were mentally and spiritually advanced, but enough of them were and are that we can learn from them instead of being arrogant and egotistical and thinking that we know better, because it’s just the opposite. The intellect is only one of many ways to view life and the universe, and if you obsess on it, you miss out on most of life. That’s what modern humans do.
Finally, I agree: Peace!
I challenge even our most brilliant scientists to explain or even understand concepts like the spider-grandmother (the full concept, not the beginning/obvious portion) or the dream time…
So, you want scientists to explain Aboriginal creation myths? How does/can science explain the metaphysical?
You mix Hopi, with Aussie? Aboriginals are not uniform, any more than all Arabs, Europeans, Asians, or Lutheran’s are.
Didn’t you say that it was impossible to prove God’s existence? But scientists are supposed to prove, what???
You seem to accept Aboriginal myth history as absolute, yet ignore thousands of years of written accounts by other people’s. I find this hard to fathom.
One of the major things wrong with humans is that they obsess on the intellect instead of focusing on wisdom, empathy, and expanding consciousness. The latter is what many if not most hunter-gatherers did. I’m not saying that all of these people were mentally and spiritually advanced, but enough of them were and are that we can learn from them instead of being arrogant and egotistical and thinking that we know better, because it’s just the opposite. The intellect is only one of many ways to view life and the universe, and if you obsess on it, you miss out on most of life. That’s what modern humans do.
Ah, nope. Wildly generalized, and simply not true on any level.
Anyway, peace be with you.
As to traditional indigenous people: First, I’m talking about hunter-gatherers. Stories of wars, slavery, etc. among these people are mostly false and the ones that aren’t are way overblown. War and slavery are results of civilization (people living densely in urban areas). Hunter-gatherers don’t overpopulate like agricultural societies do, and the largest hunter-gatherer community I’m aware of was 40 people. Good luck fighting a war or keeping slaves with that number of people or fewer.
So, Aboriginals didn’t have a “civilization”? War, and slavery are human activities known through all people’s of all times. It is certainly not limited to urban, agricultural based societies.
Killing of the menfolk, and taking the women, and children as slaves was common as war was a constant throughout North America.
The Huron were almost completely exterminated by the Iroquois who engaged in a wide ethnic cleansing pogrom.
40? Really?
Clayoquot, BC, 30,000 (under Chief Wickaninnish) 1780’s
Woods Cree, Sask, 5,600, 1670
Woodland Cree, Alberta, 3050, 1670
Coast Salish, BC, 15,500, 1780
Tsuut’ina, Alberta, 2200, 1832
Oct 25, 1870, The battle of Belly River. The last great battle between 1st Nations in North America.
500-800 Cree of the Iron Confederacy, invaded our lands, and praise be to the Great Spirit were driven away by our warriors.
Aboriginals are not Disney characters. We did not spend our time traipsing around talking to deer, and communing with rabbits. We were/are capable of all the good/evil of any other civilization.
…the existence or not of god: Trying to figure this out is a fool’s errand…and it doesn’t matter one bit to… being like us. If there were a god, it would be more evolved beyond us…and we wouldn’t even begin to be able to recognize nor understand it, let alone communicate with it…
The pursuit of knowledge is never “a fool’s errand”. You blithely wave your hand, and dismiss a couple thousand years of philosophy, Aristotle, Aquinas, etc, yet provide not one element of negation to any of the main arguments. If you do not have any experience in this field I understand (I guess) your reluctance to wade into it. God, being the maximally greatest being would certainly be able to communicate with his creation, on any level. And could never evolve because, well, he would be at maximum.
But we’ll leave this, as you say.
Native religions in what is now North America all seem to believe in The Creator, aka god. But the difference is that they didn’t have things like the Bible that laid out all sorts of laws & rules based on what The Creator supposedly said.
So? But, Aboriginal religions do have a ultimate creator. Not having a written work is not surprising when one doesn’t have a written language.
But any religion that requires belief in a literal god or gods does require blind faith…
No it simply does not. I was an atheist, and came to theism through logic, and reason. I can’t take your statement seriously when it is so easily refuted.
because there is absolutely no way to prove its or their existence, nor even any substantial evidence of that.
Aiii caramba. This is asinine, and I’m being very generous. One can never find, what one does not look for.
My big problems with religion are that 1) they are anti-spiritual, at least the monotheistic ones.
Wut??? Dude….
Instead of teaching and meditating on oneness, they teach false dualities, such as body & soul, heaven & hell, etc…
You assume dualities are false based on what exactly? And “oneness” is valid? Again, based on what? What objective metric are you using to determine this position?
2) the monotheistic religions are completely evil, advocating human supremacy and human destruction of the planet; and 3) advocating dominance over and/or destruction of other peoples and cultures.
Completely evil? Really? Soup kitchens, women’s shelters, food banks, homeless shelters, adoption agencies, charities, medical centers, universities, and on, and on.
Your 2+3 are simplistic as they are shallow.
Like I said, I don’t want to get into an endless argument here. This is not the proper forum for this, and we should agree to disagree here.
If you want to continue this, I’ll just ask one question. Please provide a concise reply, or nutshell it if it’s too complicated and/or nuanced for that. What substantial and relevant evidence do you have that god exists?
BTW, my feeling about this is that if there’s anything in the universe equivalent to god, it’s like the Force in Star Wars. You can’t communicate with it, it would barely know you exist because it’s so much more evolved than you.
You don’t want to get into an endless argument, but you want me to lay out 2000 years of philosophy to you…in a nutshell.
You’re right, this isn’t the forum.
I’m not up for an argument. Not the time, nor inclination for it.
If you’re serious, and want a discussion, merely two chaps having a chinwag, exploring some ideas, we could do that. Not trying to convert anyone, you’re going to do whatever you’re going to do…or not.
What say you, then?
There’s your answer: you don’t have any evidence, you just have philosophy. Again, that’s called blind faith.
LOL, you said this was not the appropriate forum.
I offered someplace else to continue a civil discussion.
You instead make a vacuous statement, and run away.
I propose you are an intellectual coward.
From your previous statements you obviously do not know what science is, nor does.
You think that is the only avenue of knowing.
It is not.
You actually demanded scientists explain a Hopi creation myth. Which you apparently believe in (talk about blind faith).
Tell me something, what science experiment would you run to discover the meaning of love?
Or human consciousness?
Or free will?
Or morality?
Or the meaning of life?
Or existential truth?
I offered to you previously in this thread, three, of the several main arguments for the existence of God. You have never even heard of them, telling me you have spent exactly zero seconds exploring this question. Yet you run your mouth with school boy prattle of a most uninformed, and willfully uneducated mind.
So what can we discern from this? You have never audited a philosophy course in your life. Your science class must have been spent smoking heej outside, and history was frittered away with drool forming from your gap.
Off you go then, “blind faith” indeed, sir, a gray parrot would offer me more mental stimuli.
It’s football Saturday, I shall pour my Guinness, cheer the lads on the pitch, and quite quickly forget about you.
But…I will help with you with one question to set your course aright.
The scriptures clearly tell us (which science cannot) the meaning of life.
Mark 17:3
“…and John did look up to our Lord, and said; but, my Lord, and my God, what then is the meaning of life?
Jesus doth answered him saying; it is 42”.
What forum do you propose? I’m happy to continue the discussion somewhere appropriate.
And BTW, my point was that even the most brilliant scientists could not understand the more advanced mythologies from societies that are far more mentally and spiritually advanced than modern ones, because those people are so much more mentally and spiritually advanced than we are. Scientists are widely considered the smartest people in our society and they can’t understand mentally and spiritually advanced concepts, that’s my point.
I’ll address the rest in another forum, once you provide it.
Peace be with you.
I’ve emailed you my email address. Go ahead and remove your previous post.
One thing about being “advanced.” Being advanced does not at all mean having advanced technology. In stark contrast, it means eschewing technology to the extent possible and focusing on expanding our consciousness. Focusing or obsessing on the physical/material world is the opposite of being advanced; look at the Hindu mythology, for example. As theoretical physicist Michio Kaku (NYU) said, if beings came here from another planet and we were truly advanced, they would barely notice us, if at all.
And yes, Fritjof Capra (The Tao of Physics and The Turning Point) is the ultimate of what being a scientist can be.
Yeah got it. I’ve sent you the starting premise.
Not a chance.
Republicans aren’t known for their courage, most are wimps, RINOS or have been to Epstein Island and can be blackmailed.
Their silence on the blatant theft of the midterms says it all.
Will Republicans Have Enough Seats To End Welfare For Ukraine?
No — if for no other reason that even if they had a 2/3 veto-proof majority in both houses, they wouldn’t try to.
There aren’t enough of them who want to do that. The Democrats are worse on this issue, but the Republicans are generally awful too. The ones who would be willing to stop sending money & weapons to Ukraine are a small minority.
Maybe after they stop Dems from stealing elections.