Linkey

You don't deny the Freudianism? It would be correct to say that the Russians know this at some hidden levels of unconsciousness, but not on the conscious level. I have read the book "Diagnosis and Treatment of Multiple Personality Disorder" by F. Putnam, and the author claimes that there is a great difference between the intellectual insight and the emotional one.

In a situation of constant nuclear threats, people still don't know how they work. The people in Russia are brainwashed, but it will be not true to say that they support the Putin's war and his nuclear threats. Most Russians are completely apolitical, they consider talks about politics as something slightly indecent, and they even don't understand that they risk of being annihilated in a nuclear war. The Putin's nuclear threats have a manipulative nature; if the Russians know about them, this would lead to a decrease of Putin's rating in Russia, and soon after that, a new Prigozhin in army will arize who will end the Putin's ruling. It would be a good decision, if Biden creates a public message to Russian on youtube with the information about the possilibities of nuclear war, the amount of nuclear weapon's in the US arsenals and the possibility to destroy the entire Russia. Another good decision will be the declaration that if Putin performs a nuclear armaggedon (massive nuclear strike), the USA will retalite and destroy not only Russia but also China , maybe even nuke one Indian city to kill the Modi's government, because China and India are maintaining Russia. A better way will be to initiate a UN Assembly voting relating this issue. Such a threat will probably make Xi afraid of a big nuclear war, so China and India will stop buying the oil from Russia.

There have been performed some studies which reveal that the Dem supporters rate the freedom of speech as very important less than the Rep supporters: https://www.thefire.org/news/poll-free-speech-top-concern-americans-2024-more-important-crime-immigration-and-health-care The Dem supporters now can even say "we have so many problems because of the Fox News channel, is spreads lies and propaganda, let's close it". And this forum illustrates this trend too:

I feel very frustrated with the victory of Trump. The European politics did all they could to get rid of the armies in their countries (only in Switzerland the population was able to influence something). I hope the Europe will still be able to resist Russia. I could get very depressed if I didn't believe in the mystical factor in history (Time Patrol). Anyway, good news are that the bitcoin will probably grow, and I hope you will start getting interested in it. The bitcoin can help the people overthrow the rule of the financial aristocracy.

There is a well-known prophecy made by medieval monk Ragno Nero: Trump is formally the 45th president, but in fact rather 44th, because Cleveland was counted twice. https://voodoobooks.ru/en/prorochestva-i-proklyatiya-nastignut-baraka-obamu-chto-znachit/ I can show the links to two posts at Russian forums, made at 2009 and 2004, where this prophecy was announced: https://otvet.mail.ru/question/22135018 https://forum.lirik.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?p=19664

I think that you are wrong, though I can't explain this using your terms like government bonds (I don't understand exactly what they mean). But I have knowledge in other fields which confirm my point of view. I showed your post at a bitcoiners forum, where people know more about economics than me. They replied that of course your statement is wrong, but I can't forward their answer since it contains economic terms which I don't know yet. They said that there is no big difference between the money printing and quantitative easing. As far as I understand, the quantitative easing is a term like "negative growth" - the people who do the easing can't say directly "we emit money". Can you look at these two music videos, please?

I am a fan of ethology, and I know that the ethology (a combination of the game theory with the theory of evolution) gives the answers to the questions about the nature of Good and Evil. Here are these answers in brief: 1) The altruism and the selfishness appear in situations with the games with non-zero sums; 2) The Good is altruism, the Evil is selfishness. More exactly, the Evil is a behavior that is beneficial for the one who commits it, and disadvantageous for others; 3) For each person it is beneficial to behave selfishly, but when everybody in the population behaves selfishly, this population suffers from that; 4) The altruism is unstable; this means, that if some people in the population behave selfishly, they live better than others and correspondingly they spread their genes or memes more efficiently, and their number increases; 5) The altruism can be supported by group selection together with the Simpson's paradox, but this requires certain conditions; 6) A more common way of suppressing the selfishness is the social contract ("Leviathan"); however this way has its own faults, in particular a new type of Evil can occur with it - authoritarian state. This is explained by the fact that the people who are chosen be in power for supressing the egoists, are egoists themselves. How these principles should be reconsidered for the world where quantum effects play a big role?

I suppose, these effects are currently considered as pseudo-scientific now. Maybe the "usual" telepathy is that very quantum pseudo-telepathy?

The evolution is a "blind constructor", this means that the evolution is unable to "invent" many simple things because these inventions require series of subsequent steps, and these steps decrese the chances of survival of a specie. For example, the evolution was unable to invent a wheel because of this reason (not all but some animals could benefit of having something like a propeller). But at the same time, this constructor "knows" absolutely all laws of nature, including the laws the humanity haven't yet discovered, and I see quite probable that these unknown laws permit making a stable quantum entanglement.

All physical effects are quantum, but some are more quantum (c). I think I can say more precisely: it is very probable that the evolution has "invented" some methonds to supress the decoherence for keeping the quantum entanglement constant.

I have some knowledge of quantum mechanics, game theory and ethology, and I think that these sciences can be united into one. The ethology and game theory are nice new sciences which answer many philosophycal questions now: what is the Good and Evil, how did they appear in the evolution, and how do they interact. I can write this later. Roger Penrose has suggested that quantum effects are working in the nervous system of living organisms. Currently there is some experimental evidence in favour of this hypothesis: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2399-6528/ac94be https://www.mdpi.com/2624-960X/3/1/6 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2018.0640 https://opg.optica.org/opn/abstract.cfm?uri=opn-30-4-42 If this is true, then we can assume that there is quantum entanglement between the brains of related individuals in nature; and then it is easy to assume that the evolution has "invented" quantum pseudo-telepathy which helps animals to survive and reproduce. Then a new science is needed to study this - quantum ethology. Has anyone proposed it?

As far as I can see, US is moving towards a collapse of the presidential power: smart and rational people are not allowed to become candidates for presidency, because a smart president can become a competitor for the financial aristocracy; moreover, a man must be corrupted to become a politician, because you can find dirt (kompromat) on a corrupt person, and dirt is the best way to ensure a politician's loyalty to his group. If I was an American, I would better vote NOTC (spoil the ballot). And if the collapse becomes, the power can transfer from the central power to governors. However I am afraid that the US governors are controlled by the financial aristocracy too, and mayors would be better. If I lived in America, I would try to become a mayor of my city; I would declare that my aim is to become a politician of whole America. And because the role of a mayor requires knowledge of things like housing service, I would find another man with this knowledge, maybe a former mayor, and ask him the questions on all subjects relating the mayor's main work. And I would give this experienced man my mayor's salary, but my status of the mayor would give me, possibly, the opportunity to initiate a referendum in my state. What do you think?

You use economic terms that I know little about, and it is difficult for me to argue with you at your level. But this does not mean that I know little in general: I believe that my horizons are very broad, and I have arguments in favor of my point of view from other areas, that are not within the scope of your professional interests. It would take me a very long time to use these arguments. It is written here, that during the past 100 years, prices in dollars have increased 30 times: https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ If you want to argue using economic terms, I suggest discussing this article: https://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/working-papers/unique-implementation-of-permanent-primary-deficits I have not read it carefully yet, but as I was told, the author complains here that bitcoins prevent the Fed from expropriating money from people like you, and to solve the problem, the author suggests taxing bitcoins.

Sorry, my English is not perfect, maybe not a meme but a widely-used statement. Do you deny that the quantitative easing is a form of a hidden taxation?

I suppose, this meme was created by the people who control the Federal Reserve now (US financial aristocracy). And I don't agree with this meme. The technology always grows, and smartphones become cheaper and cheaper, but this do not mean that people indeed become richer. If a person can afford a new iPhone, but can't purchase a house to live in, then this person is poor. By the way, some authors write that the middle class disappears in the western world now, in particular it is extreme hard for a usual worker now to buy a flat. An apparent reason is that the inflation does not allow a person to simply accumulate money for buying a house.

If I understand correctly, the quantitative easing is an analogue of money printing, while the quantitative tightening is an analogue of burning the money? Can you tell more what do these terms mean?

As far as I understand, Trump blames the Dems for causing high inflation in the US, but does not explain why this is happening; according to Trump, dollar inflation is some kind of evil spirit that he will exorcise. My question is, do any US media outlets (maybe CNN or Fox News) say that inflation is caused by printing money, and the only way to overcome inflation is to raise the taxes?

I don't fully understand you. What is the caucus? At that forum they responded "this caucus demonstrated that the people of Nevada were for Trump", how can I refute this statement? Maybe still there were some polls performed in Nevada which found the rating of Trump and Haley?

I am talking at different forums, in particular a US political forum where the Trumpists are dominating (thepoliticsforums.com). It is funny that when I told them that Trump and Harris are two sides of the same coin – they reacted almost like you, maybe even in similar words. So I asked them the same question as here: had been any polls performed in Nevada prior to the Republican primary elections? When I said that the NOTA option won there, they replied that the NOTA in Nevada was a vote for Trump, since Trump didn’t participate in that elections. I suppose that this is wrong, and if Trump participated there, the NOTA option would still win. Can you give me some information that I will show them it as an argument?

I suppose, if the NOTA option wins, the ruling elites will understand that they have to do something; and Biden will support Michelle Obama and make her his candidate, while the Reps will alter some laws and let Arnold Schwarzenegger be their candidates. So the Americans will choose between M. Obama and A. Schwarzenegger; for you they are fascists?

I visit this forum quite seldom; so I see this is a forum of Dem supporters (anti-Trumpists)?

In Feb 2024 Republican primary elections in Nevada, the NOTA option won. I was unable to google, how many votes did this option gather exactly? And also I have a question: had there in Nevada been performed any polls prior to these elections? In some states (Washington), Haley got more than Trump, maybe Nevada was one of them? Some people say that the NOTA votes were for Trump since he didn’t participate in these Nevada elections, but I think this is not true. For me, Trump and Harris are two sides of the same coin, and for the Americans it would be better to vote NOTE in nearest elections (more exactly, spoil the ballot).

Probably I think the same, and I want to formulate this again. If the voters have e.g. three candidates and the voting with the scale, it is possible that they will tend to vote "10 for one, 0 for two others". This vote seems selfish, and the state must try to fight the egoism of voters. If the ranking system is used. each voter will have to vote "10 for one, 5 for second, 0 for third"; and this distribution seems more fair for most cases, it represents a more common distribution of opinions. If there are not 3 candidates but e.g. 100, but most of them are spoilers, the ranking vote wil not help. At the same time, for referendums, the ranking vote can't be used. I think that the voting with scale will be not bad for the referendums anyway, but the state must try to solve the problem of unfair voting (vote 10 instead of 6).

This is a good idea, but maybe I don't fully understand the principle from your link. For me, the best system can be as follows: if we have e.g. 3 candidates, each voter ranks each candidate with 1-3 numbers, and rank 1 means score 10, 2 means 5, 3 means 0. So this will be similar to the vote with scale I proposed, but the voter will be unable to choose 10 for one candidate and 0 for each of two others. In my example in the op with A, B, C candidates, with this system, each of them will finally get 33%.

I think that a good decision would be to fine people for not taking participation in a voting. But these fines can be used only together with an option "I don't know" in the voting: this option means that the voter considers himself not sufficiently informed for a decision, but he has honestly logined to the app for voting and read the basic information about the voted suggestion.