Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

I've never been impressed by Harari's work. After all these years, Harari still seems unable to grasp that ideology does not flow in a single direction from storytellers to scientists. The relationship is circular. To claim that "stories control facts" is, ultimately, a mistake. What is striking is how... much of his framework rests on an extraordinarily fragile dualism. He assumes that there are brute, pre-conceptual, neutral facts simply waiting to be discovered, and that the nuclear scientist, to use his own example, is merely an executor of objective truths, while the storyteller is the true holder of symbolic and narrative power. That reflects a remarkably naïve understanding of how ideology actually operates. Scientific facts do not exist independently of interpretation. They emerge within conceptual frameworks and established scientific practices. There is no such thing as a pure accumulation of facts. Harari's position remains captive to a distinctly Rousseauian form of political naturalism. It assumes that human nature is inherently rational and fundamentally good, only to be corrupted by external narratives. Ultimately, Harari portrays science as a privileged mechanism of self-correction that, unlike religion or political ideology, merely eliminates error without ever producing ideology itself. That is profoundly naïve, AGAIN. To claim that science stands outside ideology is itself an ideological claim.show more

Guilherme Gomes Santos

17,344 subscribers

13,910 Aufrufe • vor 16 Tagen •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

There are so many who claim that what’s inside a mother’s womb is simply a clump of cells or fetal tissue, but not a human child. One of the greatest proofs that this is not true, outside of an abundance of scientific proof, is the fact that the first person to respond to the Christ child was a child inside of his mother’s womb.

There are so many who claim that what’s inside a mother’s womb is simply a clump of cells or fetal tissue, but not a human child. One of the greatest proofs that this is not true, outside of an abundance of scientific proof, is the fact that the first person to respond to the Christ child was a child inside of his mother’s womb.

Amir Tsarfati

11,905 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

It is inevitable that such a monumental figure (Pt. Nehru) will have his life and work analysed and critiqued — and that is indeed as it should be. Although the temptation to divorce him from his times, the challenges he had to face, and to look at him devoid of the historical context in which he functioned has become quite widespread. Yet, while we welcome ongoing analysis of his contributions, what is not acceptable is the systematic attempt being made to denigrate, distort, demean, and defame him. The sole objective of this is not only to diminish him as a personality and undermine his universally recognised role in India's independence struggle and his leadership in the early decades of an independent nation grappling with unprecedented problems, but also to demolish his multifaceted legacy in a crude and self-serving attempt to rewrite history. Analysis is one thing, but deliberate mischief with what he said, what he wrote, and what he did is quite another — and totally unacceptable. And who are the forces that have launched this project? We all know that they have worked for years and years—for decades—and finally, here they are. They belong to an ideology that had no role whatsoever in our freedom movement, that had no role whatsoever in the making of our Constitution. In fact, they even burnt it and were totally against it. It is an ideology that long ago fanned an atmosphere of hate that ultimately led to the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi ji. His killers today continue to be glorified by its adherents. It is an ideology that has consistently rejected the ideals of our founding fathers. It is an ideology with a bigoted and viciously communal outlook. Its approach to nationhood is based on stoking prejudices of all kinds. Let there be no doubt whatsoever that the project to vilify Jawaharlal Nehru ji is the main objective of the ruling establishment today. Their goal is not just to erase him; it is actually to destroy the social, political, and economic foundations on which our nation has been founded and built. The road ahead is not easy. But there is simply no option but for each one of us, individually and collectively, to stand up and confront this project. We not only owe it to the memory of Jawaharlal Nehru ji and his comrades—we owe it to ourselves, and even more to the coming generations. : CPP Chairperson Smt. Sonia Gandhi ji at the launch of The Nehru Centre India

It is inevitable that such a monumental figure (Pt. Nehru) will have his life and work analysed and critiqued — and that is indeed as it should be. Although the temptation to divorce him from his times, the challenges he had to face, and to look at him devoid of the historical context in which he functioned has become quite widespread. Yet, while we welcome ongoing analysis of his contributions, what is not acceptable is the systematic attempt being made to denigrate, distort, demean, and defame him. The sole objective of this is not only to diminish him as a personality and undermine his universally recognised role in India's independence struggle and his leadership in the early decades of an independent nation grappling with unprecedented problems, but also to demolish his multifaceted legacy in a crude and self-serving attempt to rewrite history. Analysis is one thing, but deliberate mischief with what he said, what he wrote, and what he did is quite another — and totally unacceptable. And who are the forces that have launched this project? We all know that they have worked for years and years—for decades—and finally, here they are. They belong to an ideology that had no role whatsoever in our freedom movement, that had no role whatsoever in the making of our Constitution. In fact, they even burnt it and were totally against it. It is an ideology that long ago fanned an atmosphere of hate that ultimately led to the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi ji. His killers today continue to be glorified by its adherents. It is an ideology that has consistently rejected the ideals of our founding fathers. It is an ideology with a bigoted and viciously communal outlook. Its approach to nationhood is based on stoking prejudices of all kinds. Let there be no doubt whatsoever that the project to vilify Jawaharlal Nehru ji is the main objective of the ruling establishment today. Their goal is not just to erase him; it is actually to destroy the social, political, and economic foundations on which our nation has been founded and built. The road ahead is not easy. But there is simply no option but for each one of us, individually and collectively, to stand up and confront this project. We not only owe it to the memory of Jawaharlal Nehru ji and his comrades—we owe it to ourselves, and even more to the coming generations. : CPP Chairperson Smt. Sonia Gandhi ji at the launch of The Nehru Centre India

Congress

11,248 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

There is no amount of gaslighting that can be done to me to convince me that a hijab, burka, or niqab is liberating for women. None. Third World Islam is the antithesis of "feminism," and the liberals in the West are too dumb to understand that, so they're embracing an ideology that is designed to oppress women.

There is no amount of gaslighting that can be done to me to convince me that a hijab, burka, or niqab is liberating for women. None. Third World Islam is the antithesis of "feminism," and the liberals in the West are too dumb to understand that, so they're embracing an ideology that is designed to oppress women.

Avery Daye

21,080 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Professor Jones, whose work sits at the center of the climate change modeling apparatus, stated plainly that he would not share his data even if the World Meteorological Organization requested it. His reasoning was that 25 years of work had gone into the research, and he saw no obligation to hand it over to people whose aim was to find something wrong with it. That statement is worth reading slowly, because it is a precise inversion of how science is supposed to work. The whole point of publishing a scientific claim is that other researchers can examine the underlying data, attempt to replicate the result, and either confirm or challenge the conclusion. That is not a hostile process. That is the process. Replication is the mechanism by which a scientific claim earns the right to be called scientific. When a researcher withholds the data behind conclusions that are being used to drive policy affecting hundreds of millions of people, the enterprise has left the domain of science and entered the domain of politics. The 25 years invested in the work is not a justification for withholding it. If anything, the scale of that investment makes independent scrutiny more important, not less. You do not get to claim scientific authority while simultaneously blocking the one process that confers it.

Professor Jones, whose work sits at the center of the climate change modeling apparatus, stated plainly that he would not share his data even if the World Meteorological Organization requested it. His reasoning was that 25 years of work had gone into the research, and he saw no obligation to hand it over to people whose aim was to find something wrong with it. That statement is worth reading slowly, because it is a precise inversion of how science is supposed to work. The whole point of publishing a scientific claim is that other researchers can examine the underlying data, attempt to replicate the result, and either confirm or challenge the conclusion. That is not a hostile process. That is the process. Replication is the mechanism by which a scientific claim earns the right to be called scientific. When a researcher withholds the data behind conclusions that are being used to drive policy affecting hundreds of millions of people, the enterprise has left the domain of science and entered the domain of politics. The 25 years invested in the work is not a justification for withholding it. If anything, the scale of that investment makes independent scrutiny more important, not less. You do not get to claim scientific authority while simultaneously blocking the one process that confers it.

Randall Carlson

25,234 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Judaism is never Zionism. Judaism is a religion and Zionism is a political ideology that has nothing to do with Judaism. How can being against Zionism count as being against Jews or Judaism? Zionism is a political ideology created a century ago by Zionist leaders who did not even believe in Judaism. The mainstream media, which is under the control of the Zionists, constantly lies to you as if all Jews are on the side of Israel, but this is a big lie. Thousands of Torah Jews in the world are against Israel and Zionism. Rabbi Chaim Brisker, one of the greatest rabbis a century ago, once said: “There have been many heretical groups in Jewish history, but Zionism is the worst. Being against Zionism is never Antisemitism. Criticizing Israel is never antisemitism. Zionism is not Judaism. Israel is not a Jewish state. There are thousands of anti-Zionist, anti-Israel Jews in the world, and now you claim that Jews are the enemies of Judaism.

Judaism is never Zionism. Judaism is a religion and Zionism is a political ideology that has nothing to do with Judaism. How can being against Zionism count as being against Jews or Judaism? Zionism is a political ideology created a century ago by Zionist leaders who did not even believe in Judaism. The mainstream media, which is under the control of the Zionists, constantly lies to you as if all Jews are on the side of Israel, but this is a big lie. Thousands of Torah Jews in the world are against Israel and Zionism. Rabbi Chaim Brisker, one of the greatest rabbis a century ago, once said: “There have been many heretical groups in Jewish history, but Zionism is the worst. Being against Zionism is never Antisemitism. Criticizing Israel is never antisemitism. Zionism is not Judaism. Israel is not a Jewish state. There are thousands of anti-Zionist, anti-Israel Jews in the world, and now you claim that Jews are the enemies of Judaism.

Voice of Rabbis

381,726 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

🇺🇦 Zelensky: At the heart of Russia’s war against Ukraine is the false claim that Ukraine does not exist, that it is supposedly part of Russia. It is not just a matter of history, not just politics or ideology. This is the basis of their goal – to completely wipe Ukraine off the face of the earth. And not just Ukraine. Russia has repeatedly openly stated that it wants to control all its neighbors. It wants to decide what security should be in Europe and whether it should exist at all. Russia has spread its idea of war all the way to Syria and Africa. This is truly a global threat. It is important that many in the world perceive it as such – as a global threat.

🇺🇦 Zelensky: At the heart of Russia’s war against Ukraine is the false claim that Ukraine does not exist, that it is supposedly part of Russia. It is not just a matter of history, not just politics or ideology. This is the basis of their goal – to completely wipe Ukraine off the face of the earth. And not just Ukraine. Russia has repeatedly openly stated that it wants to control all its neighbors. It wants to decide what security should be in Europe and whether it should exist at all. Russia has spread its idea of war all the way to Syria and Africa. This is truly a global threat. It is important that many in the world perceive it as such – as a global threat.

MAKS 25 🇺🇦👀

13,932 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

“Are you aware that the DNA from the scene consisted of a mixture of at least five individuals?” (paraphrasing only slightly). Is that an established fact? I don’t believe that’s an established fact. Asking a loaded question to an improper “expert” based on a non-established (contested) “fact” is the basis of a legitimate objection. “Objection: assumes facts not in evidence”. Unless that fact is in evidence, and I am not aware of it.

“Are you aware that the DNA from the scene consisted of a mixture of at least five individuals?” (paraphrasing only slightly). Is that an established fact? I don’t believe that’s an established fact. Asking a loaded question to an improper “expert” based on a non-established (contested) “fact” is the basis of a legitimate objection. “Objection: assumes facts not in evidence”. Unless that fact is in evidence, and I am not aware of it.

Viva Frei

142,193 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Islam is not a religion and Sharia Law is not a divine Law Muslims indoctrinated to believe that they have a duty to implement Sharia Law all over the world by any means necessary and replace Man-Made Law, but Sharia itself is Man-Made law, and Islam is a political ideology that hides behind fake religion, and this all system of brainwashing peoples from young age is to control them and turn them to soldiers of Islam for political gains

Islam is not a religion and Sharia Law is not a divine Law Muslims indoctrinated to believe that they have a duty to implement Sharia Law all over the world by any means necessary and replace Man-Made Law, but Sharia itself is Man-Made law, and Islam is a political ideology that hides behind fake religion, and this all system of brainwashing peoples from young age is to control them and turn them to soldiers of Islam for political gains

Bob

26,076 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Judaism is never Zionism. Judaism is a religion and Zionism is a political ideology that has nothing to do with Judaism. How can being against Zionism count as being against Jews or Judaism? Zionism is a political ideology created a century ago by Zionist leaders who did not even believe in Judaism. The mainstream media, which is under the control of the Zionists, constantly lies to you as if all Jews are on the side of Israel, but this is a big lie. Thousands of Torah Jews in the world are against Israel and Zionism. Rabbi Chaim Brisker, one of the greatest rabbis a century ago, once said: “There have been many heretical groups in Jewish history, but Zionism is the worst. Being against Zionism is never Antisemitism. Criticizing Israel is never antisemitism. Zionism is not Judaism. Israel is not a Jewish state. There are thousands of anti-Zionist, anti-Israel Jews in the world, and now you claim that Jews are the enemies of Judaism.

Judaism is never Zionism. Judaism is a religion and Zionism is a political ideology that has nothing to do with Judaism. How can being against Zionism count as being against Jews or Judaism? Zionism is a political ideology created a century ago by Zionist leaders who did not even believe in Judaism. The mainstream media, which is under the control of the Zionists, constantly lies to you as if all Jews are on the side of Israel, but this is a big lie. Thousands of Torah Jews in the world are against Israel and Zionism. Rabbi Chaim Brisker, one of the greatest rabbis a century ago, once said: “There have been many heretical groups in Jewish history, but Zionism is the worst. Being against Zionism is never Antisemitism. Criticizing Israel is never antisemitism. Zionism is not Judaism. Israel is not a Jewish state. There are thousands of anti-Zionist, anti-Israel Jews in the world, and now you claim that Jews are the enemies of Judaism.

Voice of Rabbis

38,263 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

“Our ideology is perfect.” No one says that and no one would believe it. The purity narrative is a way of presenting one’s own ideological positions such that one acknowledges all the injustices that have come from it, but then fashions them as mistakes, as errors, as not the real embodiment of whatever that ideology is. “That wasn’t the real socialism. That’s not what Cuba was supposed to be. That’s not what Russia was supposed to be.” And so on and so on. The problem is that histories of Western mass injustice like capitalist exploitation, colonialism, slave trade, are presented as systemic and structural (and still operating today!) whereas once we start talking about the histories of the Left, then they’re presented only as mistakes.

“Our ideology is perfect.” No one says that and no one would believe it. The purity narrative is a way of presenting one’s own ideological positions such that one acknowledges all the injustices that have come from it, but then fashions them as mistakes, as errors, as not the real embodiment of whatever that ideology is. “That wasn’t the real socialism. That’s not what Cuba was supposed to be. That’s not what Russia was supposed to be.” And so on and so on. The problem is that histories of Western mass injustice like capitalist exploitation, colonialism, slave trade, are presented as systemic and structural (and still operating today!) whereas once we start talking about the histories of the Left, then they’re presented only as mistakes.

Michael Shermer

19,606 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

Indian Ambassador to Russia Vinay Kumar says, "The first outcome of the visit is that there is full understanding of the threat that terrorism emanating from Pakistan poses to the larger international community, not only India. Second, there is a complete understanding that this threat needs to be tackled... It has been stated by Russian officials yesterday that the fight has to be joined, and there is unflinching support for the fight against terrorism. There is also an understanding that it cannot be business as usual and that there is a need to take a tough stand. While we all want this problem to be resolved through political and diplomatic means, India has the right to defend itself if Pakistan does not stop using terrorism as a state policy."

Indian Ambassador to Russia Vinay Kumar says, "The first outcome of the visit is that there is full understanding of the threat that terrorism emanating from Pakistan poses to the larger international community, not only India. Second, there is a complete understanding that this threat needs to be tackled... It has been stated by Russian officials yesterday that the fight has to be joined, and there is unflinching support for the fight against terrorism. There is also an understanding that it cannot be business as usual and that there is a need to take a tough stand. While we all want this problem to be resolved through political and diplomatic means, India has the right to defend itself if Pakistan does not stop using terrorism as a state policy."

Aditya Raj Kaul

118,780 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Regarding Neil Ferguson “And so my conclusion from that is not that he was stupid or that he was doing bad science. He wasn't doing bad science. He was doing exactly what he needed to do and he was paid to do it and he did it knowingly and intentionally. So I think it's a mistake to go too deep into showing how these papers are scientifically wrong and he didn't consider this and he didn't consider that and the model is this and the model is that. From the beginning, the entire thing is just a piece of propaganda. So his job is to be a propagandist. And so anything that he puts out cannot be analyzed or considered as a scientific production. It is not a production of anything that has to do with science. It is a production of propaganda and public relations.” Debbie Lerman Episode 445 NEVER FORGET WHAT THEY DID TO US

Regarding Neil Ferguson “And so my conclusion from that is not that he was stupid or that he was doing bad science. He wasn't doing bad science. He was doing exactly what he needed to do and he was paid to do it and he did it knowingly and intentionally. So I think it's a mistake to go too deep into showing how these papers are scientifically wrong and he didn't consider this and he didn't consider that and the model is this and the model is that. From the beginning, the entire thing is just a piece of propaganda. So his job is to be a propagandist. And so anything that he puts out cannot be analyzed or considered as a scientific production. It is not a production of anything that has to do with science. It is a production of propaganda and public relations.” Debbie Lerman Episode 445 NEVER FORGET WHAT THEY DID TO US

Doc Malik

11,609 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Lara Logan explains how Islam commands the “overthrow of the existing government” Muslims migrate to Lara Logan “Islam is not a religion. It's a civilization. This is a very significant difference because people think that under the First Amendment of The United States that the protection, the freedom of religion means that you have the freedom to use religion to enforce and advance a political ideology, even where it means the overthrow of the existing government. And that is not the case. Islam defines itself as a civilization, and religion is really part of that, but it is not the defining thing, and why does it matter so much? Well, because the civilization of Islam is governed by Sharia. And by that, I mean Sharia law. Right. And you cannot have Sharia law coexisting with the constitution and American law. Those two things are diametrically opposed in every single respect. They're not even vaguely tied to each other — This is so what we have allowed in The United States, we have allowed first amendment protection. — Islam is a political organization that uses the religion as a cover and as a front”

Lara Logan explains how Islam commands the “overthrow of the existing government” Muslims migrate to Lara Logan “Islam is not a religion. It's a civilization. This is a very significant difference because people think that under the First Amendment of The United States that the protection, the freedom of religion means that you have the freedom to use religion to enforce and advance a political ideology, even where it means the overthrow of the existing government. And that is not the case. Islam defines itself as a civilization, and religion is really part of that, but it is not the defining thing, and why does it matter so much? Well, because the civilization of Islam is governed by Sharia. And by that, I mean Sharia law. Right. And you cannot have Sharia law coexisting with the constitution and American law. Those two things are diametrically opposed in every single respect. They're not even vaguely tied to each other — This is so what we have allowed in The United States, we have allowed first amendment protection. — Islam is a political organization that uses the religion as a cover and as a front”

Wall Street Apes

400,395 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

It's Good To Be Anti-Islam... but not anti-Muslim. 'Islam is an ideology—a set of ideas. It is not defined by what any individual Muslim wants it to be, but by what it inherently is. No ideology is above critique—particularly one that explicitly seeks political and social dominance over every person on the planet. Additionally, ideologies are not entitled to human rights; these rights apply to individuals. As an ideology, Islam is not necessarily entitled to equal respect and acceptance. Ideas do not carry equal moral weight. The feelings or the number of those who believe do not make an idea true or good. Bad ideas should be challenged before they lead to bad consequences. Islam is not simply a belief about God. The word 'Islam' means submission. It is a set of rules that define a social hierarchy where Muslims submit to Allah, women submit to men, and all non-Muslims submit to Islamic rule. Since we do not live in a Muslim country—where censorship, intimidation, and brute force are used to protect Islam from intellectual analysis—we are still somewhat free to openly exercise our right to debate the merits of the Islamic value system against Western Liberalism. Consider the following questions: Are men really superior to women as the Quran says? Are women intellectually inferior as Muhammad taught? Does propagating material that curses people of other religions amidst random calls to violence create a better social environment? Is it right to keep women as sex slaves merely because the Quran permits this practice in numerous places? Should atheists and homosexuals have to choose between the noose or an outward profession of faith in Allah? Is conformity superior to freedom? Yes, there are Muslims who take issue with these aspects of Islamic theology, but that doesn't change what Islam is. Do not confuse the ideology with the individual. Do not draw conclusions about Islam based on the Muslims that you know, whether they are terrorists or humanitarians. Islam must be understood based on what it is, as presented objectively in the Quran, Hadith, and Sira (biography of Muhammad)." Thank you to the amazing Pat Condell, who released this video ten years ago. #Respect

It's Good To Be Anti-Islam... but not anti-Muslim. 'Islam is an ideology—a set of ideas. It is not defined by what any individual Muslim wants it to be, but by what it inherently is. No ideology is above critique—particularly one that explicitly seeks political and social dominance over every person on the planet. Additionally, ideologies are not entitled to human rights; these rights apply to individuals. As an ideology, Islam is not necessarily entitled to equal respect and acceptance. Ideas do not carry equal moral weight. The feelings or the number of those who believe do not make an idea true or good. Bad ideas should be challenged before they lead to bad consequences. Islam is not simply a belief about God. The word 'Islam' means submission. It is a set of rules that define a social hierarchy where Muslims submit to Allah, women submit to men, and all non-Muslims submit to Islamic rule. Since we do not live in a Muslim country—where censorship, intimidation, and brute force are used to protect Islam from intellectual analysis—we are still somewhat free to openly exercise our right to debate the merits of the Islamic value system against Western Liberalism. Consider the following questions: Are men really superior to women as the Quran says? Are women intellectually inferior as Muhammad taught? Does propagating material that curses people of other religions amidst random calls to violence create a better social environment? Is it right to keep women as sex slaves merely because the Quran permits this practice in numerous places? Should atheists and homosexuals have to choose between the noose or an outward profession of faith in Allah? Is conformity superior to freedom? Yes, there are Muslims who take issue with these aspects of Islamic theology, but that doesn't change what Islam is. Do not confuse the ideology with the individual. Do not draw conclusions about Islam based on the Muslims that you know, whether they are terrorists or humanitarians. Islam must be understood based on what it is, as presented objectively in the Quran, Hadith, and Sira (biography of Muhammad)." Thank you to the amazing Pat Condell, who released this video ten years ago. #Respect

Amy Mek

108,407 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

The fingerprints of an advanced predecessor culture are visible across the ancient world. Randall’s question is not whether they exist - he considers the evidence for that overwhelming - but who left them, and what the nature of their knowledge actually was. The term he reaches for is sacred science - a deliberate fusion of what modern thinking has artificially separated into religion and physics, spirituality and technology. That separation, Randall argues, is a recent invention. It did not exist in the knowledge systems of the cultures that preceded us. The framework Randall builds on is Arthur C. Clarke's observation that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic - and by extension, from the miraculous. A civilization practicing sacred science would have produced phenomena that later cultures could only interpret through a spiritual lens, because the scientific framework needed to recognize it as technology had been lost along with everything else. Randall’s position is that this is precisely what happened - that predecessor cultures were operating within a unified system where science and spirituality were a single discipline, and that the fingerprints they left behind are the residue of that holy science waiting to be correctly read.

The fingerprints of an advanced predecessor culture are visible across the ancient world. Randall’s question is not whether they exist - he considers the evidence for that overwhelming - but who left them, and what the nature of their knowledge actually was. The term he reaches for is sacred science - a deliberate fusion of what modern thinking has artificially separated into religion and physics, spirituality and technology. That separation, Randall argues, is a recent invention. It did not exist in the knowledge systems of the cultures that preceded us. The framework Randall builds on is Arthur C. Clarke's observation that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic - and by extension, from the miraculous. A civilization practicing sacred science would have produced phenomena that later cultures could only interpret through a spiritual lens, because the scientific framework needed to recognize it as technology had been lost along with everything else. Randall’s position is that this is precisely what happened - that predecessor cultures were operating within a unified system where science and spirituality were a single discipline, and that the fingerprints they left behind are the residue of that holy science waiting to be correctly read.

Randall Carlson

11,737 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Thomas Nagel dismantles relativism in one paragraph. In a 1995 talk on reason, the philosopher exposes a fatal flaw at the heart of the relativist position: "Claims to the effect that a type of judgment expresses a local point of view are inherently objective in intent. They suggest a picture of the true sources of those judgments which places them in an unconditional context." In other words, the moment you say "all truth is relative," you've already made an absolute claim. Nagel sharpens this into a precise logical trap: "The judgment of relativity or conditionality cannot be applied to the judgment of relativity itself." The relativist wants to stand outside all perspectives and declare that no perspective is universal. But that declaration is itself a universal perspective. He then drives it home: "To put it schematically, 'everything is subjective' must be nonsense, for it would itself have to be either subjective or objective. But it can't be objective, since in that case it would be false if true. And it can't be subjective, because then it would not rule out any objective claim including the claim that it is objectively false." The argument is elegant in its completeness. If "everything is subjective" is an objective truth, it defeats itself immediately because it would mean at least one thing is objective. But if it's merely a subjective opinion, it has no power to challenge objectivity at all. Either way, relativism collapses under its own weight. What's striking is how often this self-refuting structure goes unnoticed in everyday debates about truth, culture, and morality. The person who says "that's just your perspective" is quietly assuming their own perspective is the correct one. Nagel's point isn't that objectivity is easy to achieve, only that abandoning it entirely is incoherent.

Thomas Nagel dismantles relativism in one paragraph. In a 1995 talk on reason, the philosopher exposes a fatal flaw at the heart of the relativist position: "Claims to the effect that a type of judgment expresses a local point of view are inherently objective in intent. They suggest a picture of the true sources of those judgments which places them in an unconditional context." In other words, the moment you say "all truth is relative," you've already made an absolute claim. Nagel sharpens this into a precise logical trap: "The judgment of relativity or conditionality cannot be applied to the judgment of relativity itself." The relativist wants to stand outside all perspectives and declare that no perspective is universal. But that declaration is itself a universal perspective. He then drives it home: "To put it schematically, 'everything is subjective' must be nonsense, for it would itself have to be either subjective or objective. But it can't be objective, since in that case it would be false if true. And it can't be subjective, because then it would not rule out any objective claim including the claim that it is objectively false." The argument is elegant in its completeness. If "everything is subjective" is an objective truth, it defeats itself immediately because it would mean at least one thing is objective. But if it's merely a subjective opinion, it has no power to challenge objectivity at all. Either way, relativism collapses under its own weight. What's striking is how often this self-refuting structure goes unnoticed in everyday debates about truth, culture, and morality. The person who says "that's just your perspective" is quietly assuming their own perspective is the correct one. Nagel's point isn't that objectivity is easy to achieve, only that abandoning it entirely is incoherent.

Mateus — eu/acc 🇪🇺

27,895 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Matt Walsh says it’s of the utmost importance to call a spade a spade when it comes to the ideology that led to Charlie Kirk’s murder. “We should be very, very clear that this was left-wing LGBT extremism.” Not only was it driven by radical leftist ideology, but Matt Walsh made it clear there’s a direct connection specifically between transgenderism and violence: “Trans ideology is inherently dangerous. It is inherently violent.” “Because it is a violent rejection, first of all, of the self.” “You are rejecting yourself.”

Matt Walsh says it’s of the utmost importance to call a spade a spade when it comes to the ideology that led to Charlie Kirk’s murder. “We should be very, very clear that this was left-wing LGBT extremism.” Not only was it driven by radical leftist ideology, but Matt Walsh made it clear there’s a direct connection specifically between transgenderism and violence: “Trans ideology is inherently dangerous. It is inherently violent.” “Because it is a violent rejection, first of all, of the self.” “You are rejecting yourself.”

Vigilant Fox 🦊

73,433 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

The International Day of Yoga is a reminder that what we call Yoga is not a philosophy, an ideology, a belief system or a religion. This is the science and technology for inner wellbeing. Whatever your religion, race, caste, creed, gender, these technologies render you to optimal existence - to peak performance in body, mind, emotion, intelligence and energies and above all, it will unlock the potential of the genius that is in every human being. -Sg

The International Day of Yoga is a reminder that what we call Yoga is not a philosophy, an ideology, a belief system or a religion. This is the science and technology for inner wellbeing. Whatever your religion, race, caste, creed, gender, these technologies render you to optimal existence - to peak performance in body, mind, emotion, intelligence and energies and above all, it will unlock the potential of the genius that is in every human being. -Sg

Sadhguru

40,347 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Destiny is a sociopath. He is incapable of empathy. He does not act like a human, and he barely wears his disguise convincingly as he twitches and fidgets in his seat like some creature uncomfortable in a skinsuit that does not belong to it. It's telling that Left has allowed Destiny to represent their entire ideology by rewarding him with views, donations, and a pedestal from which he uses to spew his murderous ideology to millions of people. The fact that this demagogue, like Hasan Piker, has as much clout as he does, should tell you everything you need to know about the Left. This is what you're up against.

Destiny is a sociopath. He is incapable of empathy. He does not act like a human, and he barely wears his disguise convincingly as he twitches and fidgets in his seat like some creature uncomfortable in a skinsuit that does not belong to it. It's telling that Left has allowed Destiny to represent their entire ideology by rewarding him with views, donations, and a pedestal from which he uses to spew his murderous ideology to millions of people. The fact that this demagogue, like Hasan Piker, has as much clout as he does, should tell you everything you need to know about the Left. This is what you're up against.

Ian Miles Cheong

121,883 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

It is a pleasure to be with you this evening to celebrate the memory and contribution of our first Prime Minister, Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru. He was the prime architect of the modern Indian nation-state. His was a life anchored firmly in parliamentary democracy. He had a steadfast belief in planned economic growth and a profound commitment to the development of scientific temper alongside the development of scientific and technological capabilities. To him, secularism — in which he firmly believed — meant the celebration of India’s many diversities while strengthening its fundamental unity. His legacy continues to shape our everyday lives. Decades have gone by since his time, but he continues to serve as a beacon of light to millions of our countrymen and women. It is inevitable that such a monumental figure will have his life and work analysed and critiqued — and that is indeed as it should be. Although the temptation to divorce him from his times and the challenges that he had to face and to look at him, devoid of the historical context in which he functioned has become quite widespread. Yet, while we welcome ongoing analysis of his contributions, what is not acceptable is the systematic attempt being made to denigrate, distort, demean and defame him. The sole objective of this is to not only diminish him as a personality but also his universally recognised role in India's independence struggle and his early decades as a leader of an independent nation challenged by unprecedented problems, but it is also to demolish his multifaceted legacy in a crude and self-serving attempt to rewrite history. Analysis is one thing, but deliberate mischief with what he said, what he wrote and what he did is another thing and totally unacceptable. And who are the forces that have launched this project? We all know that they have worked for years and years—for decades—and finally, here they are. They belong to an ideology that had no role whatsoever in our freedom movement, that had no role whatsoever in the making of our Constitution. In fact, they even burnt it and were totally against it. It is an ideology that long ago fanned an atmosphere of hate that ultimately led to the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi ji. His killers today continue to be glorified by its adherents. It is an ideology that has consistently rejected the ideals of our founding fathers. It is an ideology with a bigoted and viciously communal outlook. Its approach to nationhood is based on stoking prejudices of all kinds. Let there be no doubt whatsoever that the project to vilify Jawaharlal Nehru ji is the main objective of the ruling establishment today. Their goal is not just to erase him; it is actually to destroy the social, political, and economic foundations on which our nation has been founded and built. The road ahead is not easy. But there is simply no option but for each one of us, individually and collectively, to stand up and confront this project. We not only owe it to the memory of Jawaharlal Nehru ji and his comrades—we owe it to ourselves, and even more to the coming generations. The unapologetic and fierce defence of the Nehruvian legacy is not an act of nostalgia. It is a commitment to restoring India's constitutional promise, to safeguarding reason in the face of propaganda, and to ensuring that our republic remains modern and forward-looking. If we succeed, it will not only honour Jawaharlal Nehru ji's memory; it will ensure that the India he envisioned remains a reality. At a time when tolerance in public life is shrinking, when dissent is painted as disloyalty, and history is reduced to partisan combat, Nehru ji's example becomes even more vital. He taught us that disagreement is not a threat but a democratic necessity—that unity does not demand uniformity; that a confident nation need not fear the truth about its past. Friends, there is some reason for hope. Last month, the Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund also launched an archive which can be accessed at The archive is an easily searchable and freely downloadable digital archive—also, by the way, accessible on your smartphone. At present, it covers the hundred published volumes of his selected works, covering the period from 1903 till the day before he died. The archive will continue to expand. So, there it will be for you all to access any time you want to know something about what he said, what he wrote, or what he did. Sandeep Dixit's initiative, which has brought all of us here this evening, is another sincere attempt to take on this challenge of rescuing Nehru ji from the web of deception. And we need many, many more such initiatives across the length and breadth of our country. I will end by congratulating Sandeep and his team and wishing him and his colleagues the very best in their endeavours. Jai Hind! : CPP Chairperson Smt. Sonia Gandhi ji at the launch of The Nehru Centre India

It is a pleasure to be with you this evening to celebrate the memory and contribution of our first Prime Minister, Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru. He was the prime architect of the modern Indian nation-state. His was a life anchored firmly in parliamentary democracy. He had a steadfast belief in planned economic growth and a profound commitment to the development of scientific temper alongside the development of scientific and technological capabilities. To him, secularism — in which he firmly believed — meant the celebration of India’s many diversities while strengthening its fundamental unity. His legacy continues to shape our everyday lives. Decades have gone by since his time, but he continues to serve as a beacon of light to millions of our countrymen and women. It is inevitable that such a monumental figure will have his life and work analysed and critiqued — and that is indeed as it should be. Although the temptation to divorce him from his times and the challenges that he had to face and to look at him, devoid of the historical context in which he functioned has become quite widespread. Yet, while we welcome ongoing analysis of his contributions, what is not acceptable is the systematic attempt being made to denigrate, distort, demean and defame him. The sole objective of this is to not only diminish him as a personality but also his universally recognised role in India's independence struggle and his early decades as a leader of an independent nation challenged by unprecedented problems, but it is also to demolish his multifaceted legacy in a crude and self-serving attempt to rewrite history. Analysis is one thing, but deliberate mischief with what he said, what he wrote and what he did is another thing and totally unacceptable. And who are the forces that have launched this project? We all know that they have worked for years and years—for decades—and finally, here they are. They belong to an ideology that had no role whatsoever in our freedom movement, that had no role whatsoever in the making of our Constitution. In fact, they even burnt it and were totally against it. It is an ideology that long ago fanned an atmosphere of hate that ultimately led to the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi ji. His killers today continue to be glorified by its adherents. It is an ideology that has consistently rejected the ideals of our founding fathers. It is an ideology with a bigoted and viciously communal outlook. Its approach to nationhood is based on stoking prejudices of all kinds. Let there be no doubt whatsoever that the project to vilify Jawaharlal Nehru ji is the main objective of the ruling establishment today. Their goal is not just to erase him; it is actually to destroy the social, political, and economic foundations on which our nation has been founded and built. The road ahead is not easy. But there is simply no option but for each one of us, individually and collectively, to stand up and confront this project. We not only owe it to the memory of Jawaharlal Nehru ji and his comrades—we owe it to ourselves, and even more to the coming generations. The unapologetic and fierce defence of the Nehruvian legacy is not an act of nostalgia. It is a commitment to restoring India's constitutional promise, to safeguarding reason in the face of propaganda, and to ensuring that our republic remains modern and forward-looking. If we succeed, it will not only honour Jawaharlal Nehru ji's memory; it will ensure that the India he envisioned remains a reality. At a time when tolerance in public life is shrinking, when dissent is painted as disloyalty, and history is reduced to partisan combat, Nehru ji's example becomes even more vital. He taught us that disagreement is not a threat but a democratic necessity—that unity does not demand uniformity; that a confident nation need not fear the truth about its past. Friends, there is some reason for hope. Last month, the Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund also launched an archive which can be accessed at The archive is an easily searchable and freely downloadable digital archive—also, by the way, accessible on your smartphone. At present, it covers the hundred published volumes of his selected works, covering the period from 1903 till the day before he died. The archive will continue to expand. So, there it will be for you all to access any time you want to know something about what he said, what he wrote, or what he did. Sandeep Dixit's initiative, which has brought all of us here this evening, is another sincere attempt to take on this challenge of rescuing Nehru ji from the web of deception. And we need many, many more such initiatives across the length and breadth of our country. I will end by congratulating Sandeep and his team and wishing him and his colleagues the very best in their endeavours. Jai Hind! : CPP Chairperson Smt. Sonia Gandhi ji at the launch of The Nehru Centre India

Congress

45,430 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten