Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2025 3:38 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2025 3:28 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2025 3:21 am
They don't, and they wouldn't. Their thing is control. "Free" is not anything in which they have any interest.

OK. Well, that's pretty much what every private business owner wants. They want to control their business and they want it to be profitable. So how does that make them different from any other wealthy business person?

Private business owners aren't out to control you. They're just running their businesses, and it's your choice to patronize their establishment or not. The Davos group wants you literally to own nothing, and them to own you. They want complete control of you...some of them, like Yuval Harari are actually transhumanists, and want to mess with you at the biological level, even. They're "social engineers," in their minds. And their ambitions are total reconstruction of what it means to be human. Read their stuff. You'll see.

Yep, they're nuts. No question. But global Socialism is the way they hope to do it.

If no one owns anything, then I assume that would include them, right? It would be some form of oligarchy or aristocracy, if they want their visions to dominate. I doubt they are advocating for anything that could be called democratic socialism. Authoritarian "socialism", maybe, but definitely not democratic socialism.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2025 3:20 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2025 3:14 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2025 3:11 am
"Government intervention"? That's your word for global totalitarian Socialism? Read their manifestos. You'll see what it is they really want.

What do their manifestos say they want? Other than apparently that no one will own anything and everyone will be "happy"?

You want me to summarize all their nonsense? You can check it our yourself, if you're curious. There's too much of it to go over here.

'This kind of response' was commonly GIVEN WHEN one did NOT KNOW what they were talking ABOUT and/nor WHEN they could NOT back up and support their CLAIMS.

The response GIVEN, here, by "immanuel can" is one of the biggest form of DEFLECTION, and DECEPTION, WHEN one is just UTTERLY USELESS in regards to 'their views' and/or WHEN 'their views' have NOTHING TO STAND UP ON.

LOL 'These types of people' ACTUALLY SAID, and MEANT, 'go and read what I have, and then you WILL understand and believe what I do'.

LOL The ONLY ones 'these ones' are FOOLING and DECEIVING, here, are "themselves".

ones like "immanuel can" REALLY could NOT SEE HOW Truly BLIND and STUPID they REALLY ARE BEING, here.

LOL 'This one', for example, WILL 'TRY TO' TELL 'you' that God is 'male gendered', and if you do NOT believe it, then, LOL, it would say to you, 'go check it out for yourself'.

Could one GET MORE BLINDED and/or STUPIDER through ABSOLUTE FOOLISHNESS.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2025 3:38 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2025 3:28 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2025 3:21 am
They don't, and they wouldn't. Their thing is control. "Free" is not anything in which they have any interest.

OK. Well, that's pretty much what every private business owner wants. They want to control their business and they want it to be profitable. So how does that make them different from any other wealthy business person?

Private business owners aren't out to control you.

LOL

Could 'this one' GET MORE BLIND, here.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2025 3:38 am They're just running their businesses, and it's your choice to patronize their establishment or not. The Davos group wants you literally to own nothing, and them to own you. They want complete control of you...some of them, like Yuval Harari are actually transhumanists, and want to mess with you at the biological level, even. They're "social engineers," in their minds. And their ambitions are total reconstruction of what it means to be human. Read their stuff. You'll see.

Yep, they're nuts. No question. But global Socialism is the way they hope to do it.

Yes, EVERY one SHOULD just BELIEVE that God, has 'male sex organs', and CREATED the WHOLE Universe, ALL on its OWN LONE SOME, and OUT OF NOTHING, AT ALL, and IF you do NOT BELIEVE 'this', then you WILL SUFFER, and not just for A WHILE, but FOR ETERNITY.

So, Who ELSE WANT TO OWN and/or CONTROL 'you'? Who ELSE wants to and has been MESSING WITH 'you'?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2025 3:46 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2025 3:38 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2025 3:28 am

OK. Well, that's pretty much what every private business owner wants. They want to control their business and they want it to be profitable. So how does that make them different from any other wealthy business person?

Private business owners aren't out to control you. They're just running their businesses, and it's your choice to patronize their establishment or not. The Davos group wants you literally to own nothing, and them to own you. They want complete control of you...some of them, like Yuval Harari are actually transhumanists, and want to mess with you at the biological level, even. They're "social engineers," in their minds. And their ambitions are total reconstruction of what it means to be human. Read their stuff. You'll see.

Yep, they're nuts. No question. But global Socialism is the way they hope to do it.

If no one owns anything, then I assume that would include them, right? It would be some form of oligarchy or aristocracy, if they want their visions to dominate. I doubt they are advocating for anything that could be called democratic socialism. Authoritarian "socialism", maybe, but definitely not democratic socialism.

Once one starts BELIEVING that they ARE DESTINED FOR ETERNAL PUNISHMENT, then if ANY one ELSE OFFERS some thing, then 'this other one' CAN, and DOES, HAVE FULL and ABSOLUTE CONTROL OVER 'you'.

WHY do you think or BELIEVE that ONLY A very relative amount of a FEW, HAVE CONVINCED ALL OF 'you' ACTUAL WORKERS TO HAND OVER 'the money' that you HAVE EARNED, TO them?

ALL of you WORKERS HAVE BEEN TRICKED, AND DECEIVED.

And, MOST OF you, when this is being written, STILL ARE.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2025 3:46 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2025 3:38 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2025 3:28 am

OK. Well, that's pretty much what every private business owner wants. They want to control their business and they want it to be profitable. So how does that make them different from any other wealthy business person?

Private business owners aren't out to control you. They're just running their businesses, and it's your choice to patronize their establishment or not. The Davos group wants you literally to own nothing, and them to own you. They want complete control of you...some of them, like Yuval Harari are actually transhumanists, and want to mess with you at the biological level, even. They're "social engineers," in their minds. And their ambitions are total reconstruction of what it means to be human. Read their stuff. You'll see.

Yep, they're nuts. No question. But global Socialism is the way they hope to do it.

If no one owns anything, then I assume that would include them, right?

Oh, heavens, no. Of course not!

How naive can you be, Gary? Do you think for a minute that the new soviet elite won't take the biggest slice of the pie for themselves? In ever Socialist regime, there's an elite that lives like kings, while the "peasants" all starve. Don't you know the history?

Look at what they do. Look at them right now. Are they giving away their millions and billions? They jet into Davos in private jets, to talk about "making the world green." These are totalitarian hypocrites. You don't think they're suddenly going to turn into genuine humanitarians, do you?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2025 6:15 am These are totalitarian hypocrites. You don't think they're suddenly going to turn into genuine humanitarians, do you?

In other words, if they do not accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior, how can they actually be "genuine humanitarians"?

And, besides, if you invoke the wrath of dictators, at least they're not going to send you to Hell for all the rest of eternity.

And let's not forget how that is depicted: https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=d ... =616&dpr=1

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2025 10:26 pm

Dr Faustus wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2025 8:00 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2025 7:46 pm
I've quoted it twice, most recently in the above message.

They're not confused about it. They know exactly what they're doing. What they mean by "a better kind of capitalism" is using the gains of what they call "capitalism" to fund Socialism. That's all.

Don't expect these people to speak clearly. They don't want you to know what they really want to do. You wouldn't like it. They made a major blunder like that when they once announced, "You'll own nothing, and be happy." Yes, that's what they actually tried to sell...but not for very long. Nobody's stupid enough to believe that.

Didn't find it.

Then you really didn't try.

Here's Wiki:

"You'll own nothing and you'll be happy" (alternatively "You'll own nothing and be happy") is a phrase from 2018 predictions for 2030 published by the World Economic Forum (WEF),[1] cited as being based on input from members of the World Economic Forum Global Futures Councils, likely in turn based on a 2016 article in which Danish Social Democrat Ida Auken outlines her vision of the future.[2] The phrase has been used by critics who accuse the WEF of desiring restrictions on ownership of private property."

So when they say capitalism, they say socialism.

No, they call it "stakeholder capitalism" or "compassionate capitalism," by which all they mean is taking the surplus value out of enterprise and free markets, and redistributing it...which is Socialism in drag. But they have no plan for making more money...they just want yours. And they get it by putting you on dependency on them -- on the largesse of the State...Socialism again.

I was talking about Marx's definition of socialism, I didn't find it.

Stakeholder capitalism is not socialism by your definition. This is not state property but private property. They were opposed to shareholder capitalism. They observe the disorder caused by capitalism over the past 40 years with the increasing concentration of market power, which is inevitable with global imperialism led overwhelmingly by American corporations. The market is captive in every dimension. The myth of the free worker collapses and the limits of growth become evident. They therefore propose stakeholder capitalism, which is only a washing of the reputation of capitalism. But I agree that this cannot have the desired effect.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2025 7:08 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2025 6:15 am These are totalitarian hypocrites. You don't think they're suddenly going to turn into genuine humanitarians, do you?

In other words, if they do not accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior, how can they actually be "genuine humanitarians"?

That's an interesting script you're writing for yourself. Have fun resolving the issues you're creating for yourself.

Dr Faustus wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2025 8:02 am I was talking about Marx's definition of socialism, I didn't find it.

"State ownership of the means of production."

Stakeholder capitalism is not socialism by your definition.

Yeah, it is. Think of what they mean by "stakeholder," and you'll see it. This is nothing more than a tuxedo for the same redistributive polices that Socialism has always had.

Meanwhile, don't be so credulous: look at what the WEF does, not just what they say in their propaganda. How many of those uber-wealthy half-wits have given up their riches in order to provide a living wage for the global poor? Have they sold off their private jets, their multiple mansions, emptied their overstuffed bank accounts, mortgaged their yachts and cottages so as to equalize their wealth with the needy? Or do they continue to enjoy all their perks and privileges, while inventing clever ways to say to you, "Give up what you own; give it to us... we promise you, we'll create a better world for you. You'll own nothing, and we'll make you happier..."

Don't buy the "stakeholder" nonsense.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2025 7:08 am In other words, if they do not accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior, how can they actually be "genuine humanitarians"?

At my present point I would say that the largely Evangelical notion that the individual must submit and surrender to the figure or concept of Jesus Christ must be revised — if what is actually referred is to be understood.

The concept in the statement, bolstered by theological doctrine, that you (the individual) must diminish yourself, or become a slave of, what is truthfully a metaphysical (and supernatural) idea (and also a reality) is an abuse of the idea.

This is a very tough idea to work through. And it would be (it is) impossible for Immanuel and all conventional Christians to accept or to understand it.

The will must voluntarily choose to recognize a higher, and also a non-physical, a metaphysical and a supernatural reality that can ONLY be known intellectually (when intellect is understood). That is what conversion is.

Real intellectualism (for example following Guénon) is in truth non-humanitarian. Because it defines and recognizes principles located in the intellectual realm, not in human feelings or desires.

The notion of transcendence of the human (the merely human) is said to be required, but this would not suggest cruelty is a good. More that every man can, and should, recognize higher ideals on a superior plane, and give assent to that. That involves, on certain levels, a diminishment of the “merely human” for things on another plane.

The whole sentimental “get on your knees before God and beg” is — this is obvious, no? — evidence of intellectual sickness. But to define “health”, now that is another issue.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2025 2:50 pm

Dr Faustus wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2025 8:02 am I was talking about Marx's definition of socialism, I didn't find it.

"State ownership of the means of production."

Stakeholder capitalism is not socialism by your definition.

Yeah, it is. Think of what they mean by "stakeholder," and you'll see it. This is nothing more than a tuxedo for the same redistributive polices that Socialism has always had.

Meanwhile, don't be so credulous: look at what the WEF does, not just what they say in their propaganda. How many of those uber-wealthy half-wits have given up their riches in order to provide a living wage for the global poor? Have they sold off their private jets, their multiple mansions, emptied their overstuffed bank accounts, mortgaged their yachts and cottages so as to equalize their wealth with the needy? Or do they continue to enjoy all their perks and privileges, while inventing clever ways to say to you, "Give up what you own; give it to us... we promise you, we'll create a better world for you. You'll own nothing, and we'll make you happier..."

Don't buy the "stakeholder" nonsense.

Where did you find this definition in Marx's book? What is the book, page, chapter?

What kind of redistribution is there in their manifesto? It's not very clear. They only emphasize corporate social responsibility and ESG criteria. I don't see anything concrete, no obligation for redistribution, just wishful thinking.

So if you follow what they actually do and say, it's just capitalism like any other.

No socialism. It would be credulous to consider them socialists when in reality that is not the case.

Dr Faustus wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2025 3:52 pm Where did you find this definition in Marx's book? What is the book, page, chapter?

You'll find it frequently and thoughout both Marx and Engels.

Just Google "production" plus Marx/Engels quotations.

What kind of redistribution is there in their manifesto? It's not very clear.

Nothing the WEF says is clear. That's intentional. They don't want you to know what they're doing. Expect non-clarity. Expect to have to read carefully, and "between the lines." They're a pack of deceivers.

And you can tell, because they always say one thing, but do the opposite. Look at their mansions, jets, and bank accounts.

"Stakeholder capitalism" is ALREADY a sneaky form of redistribution. It "redistributes" the right to capital to people who have no actual entitlement to any of it. It's already a theft of private property, and the transferring of it to the general public. As Investopedia puts it:

"Stakeholder capitalism proposes that corporations should serve the interests of all their stakeholders, and not just shareholders. Stakeholders can include investors, owners, employees, vendors, customers, and the general public at large."

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2025 2:34 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2025 7:08 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2025 6:15 am These are totalitarian hypocrites. You don't think they're suddenly going to turn into genuine humanitarians, do you?

In other words, if they do not accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior, how can they actually be "genuine humanitarians"?

And, besides, if you invoke the wrath of dictators, at least they're not going to send you to Hell for all the rest of eternity.

And let's not forget how that is depicted: https://www.google.com/search?q=images+ ... URT-reRWmz

That's an interesting script you're writing for yourself. Have fun resolving the issues you're creating for yourself.

No, the Christian Bible is a script. If only one of hundreds. Instead, my own frame of mind here is no less drawn and quartered, fractured fragmented, tugged ambivalently in conflicting directions.

Then back to where a part of me wants to be born again. But a "leap of faith" or "it says so in the Bible" just isn't enough for me. I need more substantive evidence. You claim it's there in those videos, but you won't explore them with me.

I can't even get you to note the evidence that, in fact, convinced you the Christian God resides in Heaven.

On the other hand, what are you suggesting...that accepting Jesus Christ as your own personal savior "or else" isn't always going to be your own bottom line?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2025 2:57 pm This is a very tough idea to work through. And it would be (it is) impossible for Immanuel and all conventional Christians to accept or to understand it.

The will must voluntarily choose to recognize a higher, and also a non-physical, a metaphysical and a supernatural reality that can ONLY be known intellectually (when intellect is understood). That is what conversion is.

Really, this might just as well have been written by Satyr. Or, perhaps, it was?

But it's less his ideas about all of this that interest me, and more the extent to which his theoretical constructs can be taken down out of the intellectual clouds and tested given actual sets of circumstances.

As I noted over at ILP regarding Satyr:

“My main interest in those like him revolves around the extent to which they are willing to note how, if they were ever in a position of power, Jews and Blacks and women and homosexuals etc., would be…dealt with?”

In fact, it will be curious to note just how far Donald Musk and their ilk will go in dealing with them.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2025 7:08 am I need more substantive evidence.

Tell me exactly what you would accept.