tvaeli

For example, you might not believe in theory of synchronicity and you might "debunk" it, but the fact that people, who believe in it, still behave human, is enough scientific evidence to claim that you should let them survive and do their things.

No, I don't mean this. I mean two scientific or non-scientific paradigms, which let people to live; the other paradigm can be spiritual, not scientific, and the person must just somehow manage to live. Ethics is that you do not bring your argument in a way, which would destroy the well-being of this person; you do not get any evidence - they get evidence themselves, by their deep understanding and proper senses for their own theory. You just let it live. "Debunking", for example, is thought of as if it was a scientific debate, absolutely high ethics in terms of people not attacking each others with violence, listening carefully and bringing precise arguments. So nobody is harmed and the world becomes more enlightened after every debate. But in reality, when people have their personal ideas and they are debunked, they social circles and financial well-being is harmed, and this brings them closer to death, they are less alive in the result, it's not a full life any more, but partially a death. People can think really bad of them. Just because there is a contradiction. Ethics is that you let those different theories, which contradict, to live in the common world without harming them. As long as a spiritual person with their weird terms and understandings manages to be human, they just are - they are just humans with limited understanding. You can help them clarify their lives, but you cannot destroy them in terms of doing ethical science. A girl talking with ghosts somehow, they do not have to have any evidence - the case that they do some work, do not attack others and speak more or less nicely makes them nice persons and you really do not know what comes out from their talking with ghosts.

I was born in Soviet Union - in Estonia, which was part of it 6 years of my life. It is really painful for me that in communism, you cannot become rich and get the money in case you really work much; but you can manage to be an average middle class or part of a government. Otherwise, people are really safe, they help each other by means of food, etc., and there are none of many financial danger feelings you get in capitalism. Anybody would have cookies and tea to offer to visitors, and in Soviet Union, the science was respected and average intelligence in many areas was higher for common people. Today it starts to annoy me how stupid some worker might be, as they really can make bugs like programmers - they turn out to be bugs in longer time; in soft sciences, you also need to be something. In Soviet Union, many areas of human development was respected a lot and popular science was very advanced. The food was more natural and the machines worked longer. You cannot be rich in communism, but you cannot be poor neither. In capitalist countries, you would live on the street or work hard for your apartment - in communism, having a place to live is very normal and your pension fonds do not disappear magically. There is also some money and if you save, you can be quite well with this. Sometimes I think it's higher pleasure than having some few people being rich; but it's also very useful if some people learn to live higher classes, richness somehow spreads and the experience they get, and when people, who manage the money better, can manage larger amounts of it. I think many people are not neutral when speaking about communism, they talk only about a bunch of people killed in the beginning, some wars, and the lack of some freedoms; but in capitalism, people do not have the freedom to have some money and apartment without doubt. They always do doubt, something can happen and nobody is going to rescue them - it's the normal statistics of financial accidents. It the yin and yang - capitalism is yin, building the model from bottom-up, small to big, and communism is yang, building from top-down, big to small. In reality, you need to unify the yin and yang, not choose, and the experience of two systems is something really valuable in the world; the experience of yin and the experience of yang - until we learn to combine them perfectly, we need people to experience this all. You cannot become rich, but you can be hard working, and guarantee for sure all the "luxuries" of the middle class, and have friends and good ambient. With all this guaranteed to many, you have a fair competition with the case where a lot is guaranteed to a few - maybe you are even richer in total. I like the good feeling when people feel safe. They get a different feeling out of the life, not such hurry, fear and struggle, and hate of the poor. You need to be really neutral when talking about these experiences, because what communists talked about capitalist is as true as what capitalist talked about communist; you need to leave aside the crimes and death punishments and work with the life of common people - maybe you can do this without all that punishment. The system itself is deeper than this karma, and it's worth the study; we could also speak of America only in terms that it used to have slavery - but modern people know nothing of it. People of my time also did not know much about those punishments, those were a century ago, and where I fear the case when being religious is somewhat illegal, it happens here, to - it's financially illegal sometimes, or your psychology is not considered correct. If I see all this "freedom of word" and other things in capitalism, they are comparable, so there is something deeper to develop. You are also somehow spied, government might not like all the things you do and they have their means to pressure you. In communism, also, a normal rebel just had some pressure - and when you pressure the country, usually it pressures you back, a rebel must work hard with reasons of those pressures and complain less; when I have a great idea here, in capitalism, I feel a lot of pressure and this is normal. When you work with food, you also feel pressured to not cut off your hands. So, do a neutral research of these yin and yang, and find out, how in capitalism you can connect all ends to safeguard common people, who want to work and live

To win a battle, you must also lose it. You need to learn about Konfucianism, Taoism and Buddhism, and how you break the rules Chinese probably trust more or less. You need to come our from the state, where you are criminal in their sense, so that they cannot attack you with the valid part of their philosophy. Thus, by giving up, you create yourself some chances to win - either to win your probability of survival when they invade you, or to produce higher philosophy, which releases the tension so much that they cannot attack you by their known law of nature. Also the communism is not so much more evil - giving a visitor a cup of tea and the cookies, having more natural and better-tasting food very often, with people helping each others and being poor resulting only from major sin, these are things hard to learn by a capitalist. If you manage to have more of those values, you are less in danger that they suddenly really hit you to some point, where you have bad karma. I think the mistake of positive capitalist is being so sure in their complete victory forever - in the Law of Karma of War, as long as we do not transcend our battles, so that we are beaten psychologically long before being beaten in war, the war would go on forever and each side reaches a point, where the truth they perceive is weak in the world and thus they achieve power and victory in war; if you give up all those battles, or rather wars, even with enemies you truly dislike, and you reach better understanding in their powers, things they accuse you, this circle of war becomes weaker, and it becomes a circle of spiritual or psychological war, which really defeats and not enslaves - by being defeated, getting rid of this positivity and greed, you avoid being in slavery of the fact you did not understand. As long as capitalist does not give up to communist, and a communist to the capitalist; a jew does not surrender a muslim God and a muslim to the jewish God - the bad karma of war exists, the tensions are balanced by war, and wars happen constantly, all sides winning for a period, as each side wins a war when the truth they represent is weak in the world and the other countries. As you listen to their critics, you give up, you give up to those shadows, you rise again and you integrate, what you have learnt - by this giving up, in your mind, the wars go on in their infinite cycle, but there are no real wars. Rather, the enemies, learning from the lessons, reach trust and love with each others and celebrate that they are keeping the different truths and living the different aspects of God.

This materialist view that they can debunk spiritual theories by facts like the world is round and the planets rotate around the sun; this really does not hold in this century. The scientific view introduced many new concepts about more neutral and efficient observation, and for many spiritual people, who cannot be cutting edge in every field, it's still to be learned - I somewhat pain about the girls, who really talk in ways, which do not fit into all the facts, based solely on their intuition, but the same time, I learn new things from them, ignoring the mess with material evidence and exact scientific terms - but the materialist girls, the make same kind of mistakes, following their feelings more than rational thought, and many materialists hardly understand anything after Newton, telling me that Theory of Relativity has three, not four, dimensions, and things like that, which really do not fit my spiritual views. For spiritual people, they knew before materialists, that there must be parallel dimensions etc., and we have people to who we need to attribute the original theories we use. Materialist does not believe easily that the theory of Schröedinger Cat and quantum shift does extend to the case where, in our perceived world, the history unfolds in ways similar to the future, and what we have not measured, has some space for probability - in our senses, we see that we tune into some kind of world and then, it appears. The quantum physics hardly goes that far with the fact; anyway, the perception and it's connections with the facts are still a hard science and these effects so subtle that they are hard to measure. Also, we give different meanings to the facts based on the future and there are more effects doing similar things, which we could really explain with the newton science. A whole model is so large that we cannot see, how the thing goes together with material sciences - spiritual people measure many things as we perceive them, and give higher meaning to perception and lower meaning to material processes involved; because our brain alchemy, it shows a different picture based on meaning and relevance of the fact, and we see it in different colors when the underlying reality is different - it's another model of the world, which looks at the consitution of psychological facts, and the relevance in the life, so we use some dream symbolics to explain our reality, and pay attention to perceived effects we see, like sudden feeling that somebody is watching from the place, where there are nobody - it is psychologically important fact when realized properly, but in materialistic sense, it's so subtle that it's not even a hallucination, it's just a noise in perception. We need not to mess the models together, and it's more healthy to understand the material reality and it's causes and effects and use different words for such perception, but in the spiritual model, it's a process of brain decoding the reality, and when it's not messed with material models, it shows it very well - dreams definitely come from our unconsciousness and meaningful connections, not from some unnatural, disproven source, and definitely, when we have psychological problems, we cannot trust our dreams so much, but when our psychology is healthy, they bring us some clarified conclusions about our lives, and we cannot reach conclusions so good with other processes of our brains. It's better to be complete and give meaning and significance to all our natural processes, and think also in terms of evolution and instincts - if you can explain feeling of danger with evolutionary instinct, you can also explain fear of God with the same thing, and in both cases, you can also be sick and disoriented, with weaker perception of reality, and in all cases, when you solve your experiences properly and talk with such people in meaningful manner, understanding that they simply cannot understand the solution, and they are still humans, you have chances to bring them back to their minds. I think having philosophy about the will of God, doubting and looking for personal understanding, instead of following it blindly, it's the modern solution for the believers, as they have to grow more mature. Blind following of God is lack of philosophy, and it should not insult God if his word is clarified with deep doubt and philosophy - rather, we grow up, and God is spiritually equal to us, as higher and lower entities are equal, in true sense of equality. So He is also to be doubted, and the philosophy, skepticism and scientific means are to be applied, so that we get a clarified message and grow with our own speed, not blindly believing in something higher than us. Everybody has this space for following the models they can somehow understand, and not the ones, which are far more complex and superior - this does not bring you closer to truth, but it brings you closer to the personal truth, and away from madness, which is following the more complex model than you are able to. We give only some respect for authority, like scientist saying something in their own area is probably more trustworthy than the one saying something about different area, even if you cannot understand every nuance. Pope probably knows more about God than an atheist, so an atheist could deceive you more in this area, when you listen to their perverse image of stone-age God looking for inequality and power; barbarians, in their way to follow the God, probably created such force in their lives so that they could not escape.

Actually, I think the end of the world is coming soon: One possibility is the war, which ends the world as we know it, leaving us to world depleted of resources, which possibly cannot give rise to new civilization with equivalent strength and outlook. This is the negative scenario - end of the humankind and it's ego as we know it. Other possibility is a grand sociopsychological shift, a rise of new consciousness, which is able to avoid this war. This is also end of the world, because our social superego as we know it would not exist any more, and so this personality would die and then, rise as Phoenix or the legendary Viking god, who died on the battlefield, but did not give up. This is, we transcend our philosophy and give rise to a new society - an old society would be dead; this is the positive end of the world as we know it. Without something being brought to the end, I cannot see the future any more. It's either the hell of a paradise, where we then end up, but it's not "the earth" any more, as we know the earth. It would be also the fire coming from the sky etc., as bombers really do this. Materialist thinking tends to perceive that there will be dramatic change in the material sciences, when the spiritual sciences are true and the visions really hold; I am spiritual person and I really live every day in the world, where my spiritual views really hold, but the measurements about the materials are about the same. I speak within the spiritual metaphors, I see the spiritual higher truth holding in all the politics and life, but it's another model of the same laws materialists are talking about, I do not see a dramatic change in material measurements of the matter, where spiritual or religious theories hold - it's still the same, old, world and continues it's habitual, boring patterns; I have seen many miracles, but if I really want, I could explain them in terms of psychology, material laws, evolution etc. This materialist theory that spiritual and religious people are talking about completely different world, which would change their material laws - this should be debunked. A spiritual girl, where being spiritual and being girl makes one follow more emotions than rational truth - they might really talk about dramatic things, which happen, and they might lose track with material events. In reality, if there is the end of the world, most probably it has to do with either tanks or natural disasters; the only end of the world Bible talks about, the story of Noah - it has nothing unnatural, it's simply a natural disaster and one man with good intuition. I always follow different theories and I like the material theories, and I often fix my spiritual sciences with these material observations and facts, because I do not see any reason, why a spiritual, higher principle would break any material law; this is a grand illusion coming somehow from history, where the Pope really could not connect the existence of God and roundness of Earth, but from existence of God it's hard to really prove that an Earth must be flat. If we see something with our senses, rather it's there and it does not go away if it really turns out that yang in extreme breaks and becomes yin - this happens in entirely different plane. Even the principles of Karma, when you follow the theories of business or energies to the end, you must see it's simply the same with the material laws. So my case of being spiritual, it's simply spiritual and I do not expect I would do a major breakthrough in material sciences with some spiritual fact - rather, spiritual fact exists in our world perfectly synchronized with it's material counterpart, like activity of brain is really synchronized with activity of thought, making the thoughts not false and not claiming that by proving the validity of some of your thoughts, you would disprove your brain. I think spiritual principles hold and by following these, you can be much more efficient in some aspects of the world, because for you it's simple what other people see as complex, composed of many different principles. You feel energy because you see the positive outlook of your spiritual activities - materialist also feels energy, when they have been eaten, are not sick, and are not depressed and have positive outlook in their life; with all their materialist theories, they feel energy and they say energy. When you make all this with your spiritual theory, you also feel energy. I'm not surprised if a man, following the game theory, materialist mathematical theory of life, into the end, would simply reach good karma and create some kind of heaven around him, thus also reaching this loka. This being said, I do not understand, why this would not be the same end of the world the spiritual people are talking about, when our world ends in the material laws. The material scientists telling that spiritual principles break their laws and must talk about different world, they must be debunked - it's the same world with the same laws, and scientific criterias are quite enough to believe that a miracle does not break material laws. Birth is a miracle, life is a miracle, rising sun and spring are miracles - none of them breaks a material law. Sometimes, really deep and grand miracles happen to me, but I cannot find any specific material law being broken; rather, it's my spiritual view, which makes it a miracle - it's some great positive outcome of my life, which follows from my advancement in following the spiritual laws. If they manage to create climate on another planet, an ecosystem, materialist would also feel the miracle and draw heavenly pictures. The spiritual theories came from careful observation of the material world, it's real facts and hidden meanings, and when one observes, they see just the same world; if you observe it scientifically, it's just the same world. Spiritual theories did not come from somehow breaking the natural life cycle and then observing this result. Somewhat it's true that you transcend the world and then, your spiritual theories are slightly more beautiful than materialist would see - but when materialist gets rich or brings better laws and rules, they also transcend the material world and cannot speak of completely the same laws they spoke about before. I think this is nonsense that many of the described miracles somehow break the natural laws of materials and brain alchemy - if the miracle is, you see the world in different light, as in enlightenment, and you start living a different life, or you manage to provide this to someone else; very materially, it's not very different. Materialist, also, when they generalize their lives and get new experiences, they become enlightened - times of Renaissance and enlightenment in Europe, those happened in rational terms, with politics and ecosystems, but they were enlightenments, and also changed the material courses of events in lives of people; the change was great, but no material laws were broken. I also experience some miracles, which I cannot explain with materialist laws, so the principles of spiritualism hold to the end; materialists also speak of events they cannot connect to all the known general laws; all the time they see something they have to explain. This does not break the method of science that it has not measured this yet, it's rather normal for science that in every area, there are open problems. In area of spirituality, there are open problems as well, but most of the things completely fit with theories of psychology, physics and chemistry. From spirituality, no way that it comes out that your senses about the material world and it's principles are completely wrong - we invent better models to live, and we see more general underlying principles, but this also applies to all sciences. Why we like spiritual views is that they give special value to life and that they are more natural to our personal psychology, but they do not disprove our five senses. Sixth sense does not disprove the five senses, it only transcends the experience; and very advanced logic and life vision is also a sixth sense and does the same, so this also happens to materialist that they transcend. And, in the end, spiritual sciences definitely are the cutting edge in their own area of research, and they make conclusions materialist cannot make merely with their theories alone - but the same way, you cannot explain every process of chemistry in terms of physics of particles, every branch of research takes it's principles to the cutting edge. So, despite the material law holds, it's really hard to explain the realm of perception and the sharp ends of the spiritual theories and principles; but it's also quite impossible they totally debunk a case carefully observed by the other. This materialistic view, it should be debunked So the end of the world is the end of the world, no bells and whistles - a normal war or a catastrophe. And, there are the spiritual causes and effects spiritual people have seen in their visions, and cannot explain in their material terms; more probably, somebody would later explain them with game theory.

The original poster wanted to point out this is what we mean by an end of the world. It's not much worse. When nuclear war depletes the resources of humankind so that we cannot get up any more, it's an end of the world as we know it, what we used to think when we said "humankind" and "the world", it is dead, and has another, lesser life in the hell. This is the material evidence ..spiritual people, indeed the closest archetype, they see they are endangered with the end of the world.

To be strong: Truly ethical people are not attacked so much by any side of the war, as they bring diplomatic process. If war is coming, the loss of such people can be big, but it's completely random. Make sure you are on a side, which generally wins in case the war is coming or in case it's not. In the karmic end of reincarnation series, and in the dna and cultural victory, the "good side" is going to win anyway, even with big losses. More integrated people do less things, which are seen criminal by any side of the war. The war is coming mainly if the very positive people are sure that their world won't end, and not listening to all sides, and not considering that they have outcast all the people, who think differently, as they are so positive about their own theory. The part of us, who is not so positive and lives through all the war right now, and finds higher unified theories of the humankind, they somewhat keeps the war away and this is better karma. I see that positive people do not want to be responsible about how much they have messed up the relations, and I have nothing to do with this - usually, I'm quite contra-wars, but with all the crimes done by different sides, I have no strong arguments this time, something has to change to avoid the war, but it's cold fact that russians, muslims, jews and christians are all somewhat hurt and there are a lot of things to protect the positions with militar force, unless the revolution in thinking and friendship of cultures is very big - so, considering this cold fact, I cannot say something very deep to show for example to russians, that they have not been attacked at all, but I can do some work with these unified theories of humankind. The diplomatic side, which for example weakens the positions of people, who have mistreated the russians or the muslims completely against the truth of being neutral and managing the attackers directly, not creating some "general image" of blood, religion or other factors illegal to be used as war arguments ..diplomatic process is very hard, when the violence has got so far, and for example the communist positions are considered illegal, not certain concrete activities of concrete communists, which you can doubt. I have integrated the main facts of communist and capitalist. Russians always consider honour and help the poor, they are more materially social and helpful - psychologically, they get beaten in capitalist environment, which is incapable to do such exceptions to them. Thus, as I see the russian situation in ukraine, I am very silent about the war of ukraine, and rather seeking the solution for this conflict between the capitalist and the socialist, or the communist, which is deeper root - but with closed economics etc., I can see that it's more and more hard to solve it completely. I see that positive people did not see any problem at all, avoiding such things like fear and anger, and going blindly in direction of war being sure they can convince others in their philosophy - I would like to tell russians that such people can manage themselves, and let the others be, but I don't find such reality, where the russians are respected with their culture in other countries. This culture is different and even when they are capitalist, considers the good and bad lessons learnt in times of communism. Best parts of all sides of the war need to create good karmic connections and somehow manage that some part of us survives the war. After the war, it's possible that there are no resources to build up the civilization again so soon. The feeling of "safety" achieved by those means, it would get us further in achieving the good psychology of the war - there is not much more left, just some hope. But with this hope, we must work a lot

What I want to say, there is whole science of multiple paradigmas - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm. This states that in case two persons have multiple paradigms, they can have equally valid models of the world, with their easily correct parts, confusions and biases, but their arguments are contradicting. For example, spiritual views reason ethical arguments, which are practically very similar to the arguments of ethics in science of psychology, but when they argue about those, they would need impossibly and impractically complex arguments to see, where their sciences would not contradict. Those arguments are unreachable for common people. So, when your model is working in real world, thus quite scientific and sane, it does not result that it would not contradict with equally strong model of another person. Contradictions are perfectly normal between two sciences, like science of spiritual people and science of the materialists. Those are strong, almost provable contradictions, and inside other model, following an argument of the other person is leading to insanity. When materialist is following the God in a way they could understand, it would really lead to social and personal incapability, they would be like slaves; where a spiritual person has enough argument to read the channeligns of God with critical mind and find the true arguments, which fit their picture of godliness of a mission; so they do not simply take a gun and start shooting a non-christian people, or do something other insane (by Bible as well, or by Koran). I am very philosophical and critical about what Pope says about God - and if I would be a Christian, by some turn in my life, I would be equally critical. Simply because I am philosophical. If I would see a vision of God talking, and I don't know, why this should not happen to me - all kinds of things always happen - I would be equally philosophical and not act before I have this somehow integrated to my philosophical view, what God said, otherwise he really has to say this to another person. I am constantly critical, constantly skeptical and constantly philosophical, despite that I theoretically believe in God of some sort, and most of spiritual arguments I have heard. Atheist, having some medievial imagery of God, when there really was the inquisition, would possibly go mad with similar vision from God or some channeled message. For me, those people channeling messages from aliens, I don't know about their physical validity, but they bring me strong cultural arguments and that's all - I can see, such kind of complex cultures must exist, they are very developed at least in psychology of such people, who channel, and I read them with same awareness and thoughtfulness, as I would read a good science fiction or fantasy book - it does not matter much, what is the physical evidence. I am interested in more practical topics, whether they introduce better, not yet achieved cultural traits and higher social psychology to me, which is the practical value, and the scientific or spiritual evidence of such aliens - this is merely a philosophy for me. I am sure, in quantum field, those aliens could be simply a possibility, it could be left completely open whether they are there in the end; but this is very practical for me, that imagery of advanced civilizations and possibilities to evolve have appeared, in this sense of creativity - I don't care much, about how the psychology of channelers works, but good work about possible advancements of civilization, and arguments that many people naturally are able to do such advancementss, these are really practical. Someone says God favors them - I read, they are highly synchronous people, that's the argument, and the arguments about existence of God are a philosophy. Someone says in past life they lived in society, where greed does not exist - I do not care about their past life, this is a complex philosophy and never completely true, but I do care if I see they do not have greed, and I have my practical consequence of this. Because of being multiparadigmatic; I do not think that by creating a highly material model of the world I could have a different argument, which even sees reincarnation as something else, like similar person being born by some DNA and other consequences, having some genetic memory of past events or cultural, subconscious understanding. This model could possibly completely connect all the ends, including memories from past life; I think this kind of materialist model is very complex and hard to argue with a person of low IQ. God could be explained by genetic tendency to bring highly synchronous events, and this could explain almost every application of religious theory - except the case that it's a separate paradigm, explaining the facts with simpler model and thus being very scientific; as simpler the model, as more scientific. But considering all this - how different paradigms are equally valid, still contradictionary -, we reach extremely complex scientific picture, because with average IQ, you cannot reach a single case of two, equally valid and still contradictionary, facts. You cannot find a single case, where two models equally hold, still implying direct contradictions. But, with low IQ, you can reach ethics. So the theory of multiparadigm, it's not really a theory for a simple man, and thus it has very abstract, hard to reach consequences, it's kind of aristocrat theory, not a democratic small talk for people; it would not become mainstream or make huge amount of money What, then, applies, is that theory of ethics, ethical views between those several models, views that people could believe many things, but when they do not fail socially and materially so much, if this is not the necessary implication of their views, then they have ethical rights as all the other people, and right to think in their own ways. Ethically, in todays world, we do not punish people for mere thoughts, and this follows also from theory of multiparadigm, where this carries no scientific value at all if we find a contradiction - we would have to go impossibly deep with it. So, ethics over science in this case. We would know that we are speaking of scientific theory of multiparadigmatic views and really, truly mad people, who cannot have objective image about whether other people are attacking them or some model, which turns them to violence, those people should be restricted, analyzed, and guided to less violent lives. You cannot listen to some religious or scientific leader without giving it a thought, and you cannot follow much more advanced model than the one, which allows you to draw fast and simple conclusions; we need to support the personal thought. God can be completely right, but if His model is much more complex than yours, you do not have anything to do with this, and you would appear mad if you follow the model merely as you understood it. So even about words of God, whether God exists or not, you have to philosophize and not follow them until you understand the point. So what is concluded from the multiparadigm views is theory of ethics, which is quite simple, not a theory of science, which is very complex. For people with different gods, different views, different cultures, we only need to show some respect and understanding that in their cultures they can live and survive; we need to point out where they are apparently weaker and less developed than us, but also respect that maybe it's normal and they have other values there. For example, maybe you don't make very big muscle, but you use this time to read books. Maybe you don't make a lots of money, but you have so many friends that they help out in case of financial troubles. Maybe you did not read many books, but you are so social that intelligent people would bring you the most important points. In all those cases, someone sees you very negatively, but others can perfectly live with you; for example, you are too weak to beat your enemies, but you can call the police and use your contacts with grandmother of mafia boss, who simply shares recipes of food with your grandmother. Then, mafia is doing their things somewhat outside your social circle, where equally bad people really have to use their muscles and guns. Or you cannot fight with a gangster, but you studies their honor and do not hurt them where some people would. Your life model can be based on different values, and then you do not even understand a person who says that you lack their specific quality. In all these matters, you can have a "scientific argument" about psychology, physics, chemistry etc. Somebody can debunk your social theory, and you really run into contradiction with their ways to protect themselves - but you cannot say that your risks are then considerably bigger than theirs. In all this, theories run into contradiction, not only hypothesis or hypothesis with theories - those contradictions are interesting thing to study, but they do not prove that one side must win and other must lose. Good scientific argument between scientific and spiritual person brings us closer to truth, but this truth is not so much about who wins and who loses, it's about how these areas of life would benefit from each other's powers. When they are arguments of violent kind, where one person, debunked, would run out of all social honor and be taken as insane or a a liar, not considering that any spiritual process would almost certainly have some physical process happening synchronously, and the physical measurements would indeed still result in more or less the same laws, but this does not disprove that they achieved their effects with their own theories, which can be much simpler and thus more scientific to achieve such practical outcomes. Law of Karma almost certainly has it's measurable connections in physics and social sciences, and all it's separate effects can be somehow described by these - I almost know all those "explanations" -, but it does not disprove that it's a very simple law related to all those, and it's logic holds on it's own, not needing all those sciences and complex explanations to be true. Models, which do involve law or karma, with ones which do not, those models can contradict. So, by multiparadigmatic view, between different sciences you need more ethics than science, and this ethics is something you can explain to girls. Sometimes, this ethics turns out the magic ingredient bringing out the truth that somehow, these different models indeed fit, and won from power of each others; but this is something not to be expected, because it's a very complex process. Ethics is not very complex process and thus, where we see violence in scientific argument, we should directly respond to violence. For example, when a physical doctor is telling you that by your theoretical argument, people would listen to Pope, who tells them to do inquisition, this doctor is basically accusing you in death crime, but it might be the case that in your model, any death crime does not follow. When you accuse someone that in how they cook potatoes, the deadly poison would appear, you would be taken very seriously as peace-breaker; when you accuse a religious argument, for example to listen to God, with dangers like this - you are accusing in crime, and finally, you cooperate with police and doctors with physical violence against this argument, reaching the inquisition yourself. When you present this argument against God, you must also present the arguments that some people listen God, but they are still philosophical and want to see the evidence for the claims. Or, they have such God, which does not tell them to kill people at all - somewhat, your image of God is created by yourself, you can see that God of Muslims gives them different arguments than God of Jews gives to Jews; in some sense, it's the same God, but in some sense, those are two different Gods - so, some person might have a very non-violent God, whereas other person has a violent God. Some person might have a God, which they can trust entirely, while some person must be cautious about their God. In our genes, after all our evolution, we see some archetype or certain truths as signs of God, and some aspects of the World or the Universe, or the Universal law, as God speaking to us. Maybe, your image of God is such that you see all the natural disasters, political struggles and life hardships, and you finally depict a higher entity behind those, but your unconscious notices of all those evidences are so strong that you basically state a physical paradigm, a solid truth in terms and language of God speaking to you. Another person sees the same signs, but the impression is so vague that when they get a vision of God, their God is as stupid as their process of reasoning about those events, and they are dishonest or aggressive against some people, who are not doing a big crime. Philosophically, the actual reasons behind what you see and sense, they are too complex for you, getting deeper and deeper, but they leave so much open that you can have different models, which fit to your personality. With those different models, you can be either quite realistic about the world, or you can be paranoid and accusing people, who are just living their lives somehow. An atheist might be very paranoid and accuse all the conspiracy theorists, believers in God, believers of Karma or any other kind of "reward and punishment", or certain cultures, like Muslims, in overall, and thus they would respond, finally, quite violently - which shows that they are in effect, as mad and paranoid as they see others being. I know many muslims, who do not give a d*mn about me being a white person, and I think I know enough of their culture and I have taken their books somewhat seriously, that maybe I subconsciously avoid some death crimes; an atheist would have hardships to explain their ethics, of torturing animals, wasting the land resources, creating slave labors, accusing people in their beliefs etc. etc. etc., that they feel that they are more accused based on their genetic makeup or beliefs; my scientific theories are also quite safe to tell to muslims, or to spiritual people, and my political theories do not insult conspiracy theorists. I somehow manage in most of this. I can be angry in those spheres and accuse them in things, but this is somehow resolved as a normal conflict. Lately, I cannot speak with atheists any more, for example I cannot say we have had spiritual wars, because the materialistic view of those symbols is not so safe - when spiritual war ends with law and bless, in my transcended ways of battle, then the scientific war ends with such aggression and violence that an atheist would think I am dangerous, when I'm being very honest with them. They translate my symbols to material equivalences and those are telling them something bad happens in my subconscious mind. So I'm kind of having a battle with them - I try hard to listen and to follow their reasons, but I do not believe in the world, where war does not exist; I believe in the world, where the transcended war does not leave dead and injuried people behind. In this, I start to see that scientific argument is becoming really violent - when they accuse all the different people in death crimes and sins, then despite that they say that reward and punishment are not natural and do not follow from scientific laws, they still do something instinctive like punishing for these death crimes, and they look dangerous with their hints to doctors and police. I can understand this has been happened to many ..what I can say, we have to be like with any other enemy, listening to their argument, understanding where we are breaking a material evidence and where our mind powers have been catched doing material attacks, and where they have been neutralized with observing the scientific evidence and doing all the responses, and where they have been connected with our personality - there, the materialist accusing spiritual people in not considering some of their endangered values, it might be correct. They might want to live exactly that way and then, your spiritual battles are dangerous, and battled in degree of how much material evidence they provide - this means, more or less in their completeness. I think this kind of evidences, these days they make scientific people alert of spiritual people. In this, a normal war thinking must be achieved, studying where they have been hurt by any kind of fact, abandoning them where they thought they are doing good, ignorance or thinking that you are higher; they also want to have some say in our things, otherwise they feel they are kind of "dead", or outcast. This is the war I see between paradigms, rather unconscious implication of some spiritual thinking, which vaguely fits their paradigms of why they have some spiritual world-views, like blind listening to God or Pope. Somehow, we must balance our views so that they lose only what they lose anyway, so that they won't feel the vibrations of better futures, and that even from the success of their enemy, they win something from the raise of quality of living; this is the forgiveness, and you cannot enjoy a complete victory before it has raised to the level of forgiveness - this is the spiritual truth about the spiritual war, you can have battles inside you, but you must have peace outside. They do not deserve any karmic punishment, which does not come anyway, and they won't see the one, which comes. Here, you must transmute the dark and light into something, which gives everybody some degree of raise in life quality where you win the battle, and you must not get the hate from the battles. This transmutation done, what is left, is the innocent spiritual dialogue, and you must make sure that it does not give rise to material nonsense - but ones of us, who have more limited views of the world, they can be incapable to sound very true to atheists, like an atheist homekeeper woman still talks about guardian angels and horoscopes, despite simply working in kitchen with materials - non-philosophical spiritual talk must also be protected as those are the weaker thinkers of us, who do not consider every philosophical argument. Where you have considered every philosophical argument, you have strong karma to protect from something, but now the scientist is easily debunked by being a low-IQ person of their society, and not understanding your high philosophy; for spiritual people, they look like debunked by attacking some of the most obvious truth, but usually not very dangerous. But now, some people are left, who are fighting atheists and very dangerous. For this, I have seen that we need ethical arguments, synchronous to Science or all sciences, but hard to follow where it leads to scientific argument; with women, we need to speak more of this ethical argument, than about scientific truth. This ethical argument has an evidence of it's own, and it resonates with what we know of the world - joining, ethically, more cultures and world-views or political paradigms, it's doing the same thing what the Christ was doing to the pagans, it's definitely seeking a happy end for this world-wide crisis, a fairy tale, where police does not yet exist, but this family of cultures and paradigms is living in their little pagan village, where everybody does not even know the law, and this fairy tale takes quite long in the struggle before it reaches it's happy end. The solution is seeing ethics in this and how all the sides are somehow true, but win from cooperation, and all the ethical rules apply, and you cannot change people so much or help them by what you learnt, would help another. It's a long way to civilization in this - in the world, many bad things happen, where cultures cross in the ways that the police would do nothing, or is very slow like american two billions spent on terrorism - you cannot know, whether it had any big effect, but it's so big amount of money that they have started to doubt in similar underdoings, and think that if they do the same with war in Ukraine they would start losing money. So in this village, we live in deep pagan period and we do not talk about ethics. Multiparadigm view, it would create patterns of ethics out from patterns of scientific theory, where two models are equally fit, but different and contradictionary, like two persons might be equally fit, but different in personality and not like each others.

My argument is that as the scientific arguments against other sciences (as many of us have quite much confirmed their facts) should be seen, in cases where people are fired and outcast of social circles, until the police kills them as poor, simply and directly as violence, and we should not support scientific arguments, which do not care about the well-being of the participants. Science, it's argumentations and debates, are wrongly being seen as safe and necessarily very ethical, almost an ethalon of ethics. In case of violent scientific activities, like "debunking", which definitely leads someone to life, business, scientific, political and social hardships, until they seem so dead that even the constitution (constitutional laws protecting them, like being a honorable person) is endangered, but the scientific side has been only carrying out the high ethics of introducing the Truth. The arguments pro and contra religions, pro and contra spiritualism etc., they are very complex and I have seen that you do not have anything to do with your Quantum Physics arguments in case a person is scientific mind somewhere in the Newtonian physics and 18th century - they are still not debunked, they are perfectly valid scientists as laws of gravity and inertia do hold and ghosts do not exist, but they do not go very far with quantum physics arguments and possibilities arising. We can see that these are complex arguments and often, used by spiritual people who do not know quantum physics neither - they know only those few arguments. These complexities go on and on, so instead of only looking the scientific arguments of scientific debate, we should be aware of whether these are fair battles, whether people are injured or traumatized etc., and consider those arguments on their own. After all, we also have freedom of faith, which does not give a d*mn about whether it's a very scientific argument, which is used.

To be in society, spiritual people need the sciences of interest to be academic and supported by government, their spiritual business initiatives to be financed, and they need the doctors, who can work with chakras or enlightenment, to be hired in official clinics. Otherwise, their tax money is simply stolen - they have to pay it again. If you do not cure madness by atheist theory, but you cure your weak root and sacral chakras (it's a material disorder if they are closed) by Buddhist or other more or less spiritual methods, you have to do it on your own or hire a personal doctor. At the same time, from your tax money, an atheist is going to psychologist with the same problem - to cure the psychical situation producing material or emotional hardship. If you have dark night of the soul, you cannot get help in your own terms based on your own model; if you have depression, everything is very official. Your scientists and doctors are fired, your businessmen cast out of business circles, because materialists rule the material things. In computer games you can see humans and other races. When other races master the magic, humans do mostly with materials, theories of chemistry and physics and rational psychology. Still - humans have quite equal chances to win the war in the end. They also have chances for enlightenment, when they build a perfect civilization, medicine etc., they would live in a paradise equal to other paradises, built from materials. The rational thought of western man, it has beaten or taken into higher developmental stage the countries, where many enlightened people live, with less rational minds. Rational mind can prove by falsification and this is a superpower not to be taken easily - the future religion definitely trains this one also, because civilization can win less advanced magic, whichcraft etc., and it's challenge to build civilization so advanced, or paradise, by enlightened people of less rational religions. Christianity has many ties with this rational thought, and a scientist can easily handle more primitive magician, which or sorcerer, who has very intuitive and careful practice to vaguely handle some of the elements, which the science can handle on systematic basis, not prone to error. I think of this as I think of superpowers. For very spiritual soul able for astral travel, global intuition etc., a scientist or a materialist group can still remain unbeatable, managing to have an order in their material condition, and the spiritual people can depend on this. For this I always suggest the spiritual people to be more philosophical, skeptical, and think of the logical ends, where the good will alone cannot do much - you have to find the logical boundaries and solve them logically to be mentally complete, and very stong mental power would not do much for people, who master such skills alone, living in the material world only. For this, civilization is hard to handle goal for spiritual people, and they are not so able to create whole process of protecting their tax money and growing the business, investment climate etc. Also, the spiritual doctors and scientists, they can rely on intuition and make mistakes in their exact material proofs, thus appearing like clowns when they introduce their science. They must be very precise in the material world, what is hypothetic about their theories, and where they want to reach and why. If you see only the material perspective, there are a lots of places, where you can catch them directly on error or mistake, and they are not even shamed. Still, we must be able to work with our hypothesis as well, which initially are in very undeveloped phases, and we have only very vague theories to test, when we talk about how the spiritual science exactly works on material plane. Still, the basic claims are spiritually very strong, and those scientists, even if they have a vague hypothesis, which later fails, have done an important work by testifiing this. Somewhere, the spiritual concepts must be visible in material world, and this is very important in integrating the sciences. Equally, the spiritual doctors speak of principles, which are very strong in reality, but where the material correspondence is not easy to find and might not be measurable in tests. To have the "degrees", like "academic" or "doctor", and other things, which must come with consitutional power, we have to be very careful. Also a business selling a spiritual thing can be nonsense sometimes. But we all need things, which are built from materials being sensed for having a good vibration, a good feeling; with less garbage and more natural processes - this is a desire and dream by a spiritual person. For example, we do not have computers, which would not have some bad radiation; but we need computers, which radiate good feelings and positive energy.

We need a constant progress to stay in time, in completeness of history something very high has to be achieved and we are far from it. But really, growing smaller is also a good thing - doing with your mind and hands where you need a machine today; applying some simple idea or theory by one person where you now need a whole company or country; using less resources, workers, conceptions and thoughts to achieve the same practical thing, where we now need many. I am a person who definitely seeks to not need all the conforts and helpful tools civilization has to offer; people, who need separate clothes and full bag of things just to go to forest seem to have "grown too big", or rather they look like children. Scouts, for example, just need a knife and then they can somehow manage in forest. Achieving the same with simpler things is where you can grow; you can do many things without helpful tools. It's possible you figure out a simple theory doing everything what a big collective of scientists is doing, or a simple tool and method replacing a whole factory, or self-organization system, which replaces the work of one whole government. Then, those institutions, in turn, have a chance to grow into something much bigger. But this is inevitable that in life, we somehow grow. But if it's growth in number of workers, garbage and resources wasted, it's not a good thing - here you need an opposite, positive word, where a single human gets advanced so much, that he does not need a very big system any more to achieve much; then, you have many such humans to form a big system again - you always organize all the humankind for organized effort, however big is a single person.

Thank you. I want to remind that in Buddhist system of elements - Mahābhūta - (here probably the western one is used, but there are connections) fire is the element of will, or the heat and energy; water is the element of flow through temporary situations, or of having the round corners. So "through fire and water" might mean flowing with round corners, with personal will or the energy and heat. In the western system of four elements (Aristotle later added fifth, the Aether, corresponding to Space in Buddhism, making the elements worldwide equal more or less - but in some systems we have wood or metal in place of another element) fire is also associated with energy or passion, thus a personal will, and water is associated with emotion and intuition - thus also making us to flow through changing situations. In the Jewish War, by my own intuition, Josephus in the Roma is determined mostly by the fire element, feeling his unique personal mission, which would change the history. The free will or personal will can never work properly if it's not related to Godly mission, or higher idea - the Solar Plexus would be blocked and non-functional -, so the existence of the fire element itself would somehow prove his mission; this feeling is associated with some "Godly guidance" or being in favour of the real-world facts. The word "mission" itself is associated with fire element; it can be personal and unique in the beginning, and then grow big. In modern whichcraft, which also uses the five elements (and is more ethics-based than the old whichcraft, which was prone to excess of personal will), pentagram is associated with each element through it's corners. Sometimes I like whichcraft, but I rather compare it dangerous when related to Buddhism, Christianism or other major religion, as those are models based on modern ethics, whereas whichcraft was originally based on ancient ethics - but this is very important, as ancient ethics gives us archetypes simpler and more easy to see or compare with symbolized physical events and objects; if you go to the end with the ancient symbolics, they are as high as modern religion. It's very good song about the shadows of mind - https://spireason.neocities.org/Yin and Yang in Meditation.pdf in this text I wrote about those shadows, how they appear in our mind, and how they are natural part of life's processes through Dukkha; we cannot avoid them. In the beginning, they get more unhealthy, but as we get more used with working with them, they get more healthy - if you avoid the shadow completely, keeping it out of mind, as some positive thinkers can do, they become underdeveloped and perverted concepts of the real thing and you do not learn to solve conflicts ethically; thus we cannot critizise too much when people are going through shadows; in jewish mythology, they say the it's the day and night of soul, and that you inevitably go through days and nights. This way, jewish is quite developed about shadows. Buddha says that you must watch, in meditation, things coming and going, neutrally - whatever happens; this is sometimes more developed concept than concentrating on bliss and love, which is rather the end result of every process, and the beginning in id phase (before eating from the tree of good and bad, you have the childish version of truth, after going through shadows - or spiritual battles - you develop mature and independent version of the same; religions go through atheism - in the end, they have some conception of higher truth or god again, but they are much more personally responsible; id phase is like living with parents, and superego phase is like living alone, but being friends with parents - the kind of atheism, which later becomes enlightened, is like the ego phase, where you have conflict with your parents and pain of being alone; I'm not saying that atheists, in the end, become believers, but I only say that they develop a high standard of moral and ethics, which is equal to having God or creating it in your life; I am saying that when you are kicked out of your Godly home, the lack of God in all the infinity you see, of theorems and of space, is so strong and the theorem of God is so empty, that your model is atheism even if you have some inner belief in God; so there is an aspect of God being psychological - when you enter the ego phase, start to develop your personality, the initial instincive presence of God will go away and you start to create Godly aspects, like presence of Truth, Love and Civilization in your life, and when these are very strong, you are in free flow as if God exists - but this is equal to creating God subjectively, as the flow of favourable events is equal and it's achieved through the aspects, which are told to be Godly; this way I have transcended the buddhist idea of being beyond existence and non-existence of God - what really exists, is much more complex and involves all God, atheism and things in between, and you haven't really philosophized about God before those start to seem to be one thing; if your karma about God is so bad that you receive nothing, the God would indeed disappear from your whole reality, and the reality you have created does not contain God - and philosophically, this reality without God is as real as any other). In reality without God, the Fire element of free will still only works when the situation is favourable and when it's the real thing, so then you can speak of Will of God. This way, the Jewish War, when you look at the will of Josephus, proves that "God has given Israel to Jews", and this fact is completely unrelated to the conceptions of God existing or not - God is far too complex to exist or not, is the totality of reality, and the atheist laws of nature are also a totality of reality, whereas God's attributes are there positive ends to follow, and in enlightening of culture - the kind of enlightenment which happened with scientific revolution or democratization - the Godly attributes become a part of totality of our reality, thus our subjective state becomes closer to some kind of existence of God, but we remain independent and co-creators. So the appearance of atheism is in the religion, which should see it as well, the case where one stops directly obeying the God and starts looking for a mature, independent, equal relationship with God, and this is where the relationship of child and the father leads as well. This conception of God also explains, why "Gods" of different cultures are different and why they fight about them - this is the process of independence, of subjectivity of God, as it's indeed equal or the same thing we create ourselves with out lives and our Karma. This is very hard to be an atheist and believe in the God at the same time, and this might appear in the end of enlightenment.

I think blood is a very complex thing and mixing to some degree is very important - the blood of Arabs has been long time ago somewhat mixed with the blood of Jews, and there might be important genes one of the family is carrying and evolving for the others. Completely pure blood is always bound to die - aristocrat families, which did not mix their blood, got a specific genetic disorder more or less every time this happened. Somehow, the genes are working for evolution, and families of jews and arabs, which have made love thousands of years ago, are bound to marry sometimes again, to keep their genetic information up to date. I know about aristocrat blood - my father has aristocrat blood, and my mother is more or less pure viking, but also quite a good family of them. She has good relations to America, so I sometimes imagine she is american; maybe the blood was carried to america long time ago. Just because she always makes friends there Aristocrats of Russia as my grand-grand-father, they used to live a certain tradition and this tradition was dead one day; most of them was killed, but my family had not breaken the democratic lifestyle very much and was more of a modern family, so the people did not want to kill them. Now, in another condition, where more freedom and legal laws were introduced - and USSR was definitely a step up to a civilization in Russia, not down, even if it got broke later -, they had kind of depression; my grand-grand-father was definitely broken and with some inner hate as I can relate on the photos. The cultural shift meant that the family identity was broken and they were not so able to relate the family symbols and beliefs with democracy, as I am - somewhat they had to cope with the new thinking and this is absolutely yin, to surrender. Here, to fit into the new culture, you can not follow your ideals much - my grandfather could, as his ideal was science and he was quite fit there. So your own personality is very much shadowed as it does not fit into the new society. Probably similar thing happened to peasants as well as they could not live only by the tradition, I hear that there was a lot of pain there in some places at least, but I can speak of my own experience. I personally believe that this is a normal phase of human development that sometimes you have a shadow, you are very much concerned about not being perfect. In this phase, I can see my family was proud that they do like the new civilization, and want to build it more or less. They were very rich before and they had to learn that money is not everything, also the social relations and other things matter (well they were lucky to have built some - who could not be upgraded to new level of civilization, was definitely killed at these times, and something like this has been happened in every country in the world, as catholics ran through similar process of "genetic breeding", you could not avoid). Here the second generation, my father, was very much into the new society and identifying as such, but his past ideals were still very broken and the way to criticize the society by talking about old lost values he knew, was not healthy. So I had to work a lot with the wounds of my father as I was a child (and my mother) and I resolved into completely modern psychology and solutions, and adapted a lot. I found out that the family culture of mine had resolved into being part of the democratic process, and following strictly a mission of "doing their own thing", the music and a lots of things have resolved around this resolution. Now it's a society of free and equal people, but when you carry a high purpose, you can introduce it to society, and the aristocrat symbolism of the old had been resolved around this. Many are just free and happy members of the new culture, with power of, say, singing of engineering - as the "governance" is defined as building infrastructure, things like bridges, and other elements of civilization, they could simply do that. So I defined lately that the first generation is completely overshadowed, not so happy as they have broken heart and thinking, and is not coping very much - even if they are idealistic, they cannot very naturally be themselves, but they have certain depression to solve. The second generation is more or less adapted, but the way they express their personal ideals is more or less broken. The third generation, if the family is healing, has integrated their own purpose with the new culture, and transcended their symbols in such way that the experience of the family would not be lost. For example, a King archetype would apply to famous singer like Eminem, the war and battle archetype to hip hop battles, and the victory into convincing the listener into the meaning of the music; so the successful leadership is if they get their message heard. About the positive and negative outcomes, the fairy tales of the past could be studied another time, given that the archetypes are not direct and physical meanings of the words, but similar powers in the new society, where the people are free. Well many families tried to keep them free in the past as well, so this is not a new conception for the christian fighters or the fairy tales, which were somewhat symbolic even in the past. Now if this goes into integrating an arab into a jewish culture, you can think it's quite good when: the first generation is painful about the integration, but still carries the ideal of becoming a member and being fully functional, and they can look a little bit tortured even if they proudly avoid telling that and try to cope with their new reality. The second generation would be integrating, but they are hard to deal if they express their own ideals, which are not fully developed. The third generation is able to learn from their experience and more or less fully integrate. To grow appropriate roots into the society, this takes longer. Now, as they have some genetic powers, they have developed them again and successfully integrated into the jewish society - in this, they can be creative and not suspressed, and the jewish family generally gets something new, a new blood. Integrating with the arab families, which have a history of being successful friends with jews, can ensure that the jewish blood is decent and new "inventions" of the arab gene are not lost. Also their religion is more or less borrowed from jewish religion and you would like to ensure that you have all the new developments also in your genetics. From the jewish side, they have some specific jewish genes and characteristics, and in all the mixing, they want to ensure that these continue to exists, they have to rebalance. I think we have some kind of masterplan for the genetic mutations we plan for our families, and this means keeping some central genetic information alive, but constantly getting the genes from others all around the world to stay up-do-date with all the "inventions" the genes are able to do; and to create stronger bonds with those families. In some times, aristocrats have tried to keep their bloodlines pure - this is not modern, and also this is bound to fail by introducing genetic disorders. For a nation, they would come later, but surely the genes would not be up to date. So it's very important to know some characteristics you need from others; for example in democracy, you need some genes to serve, some yin aspects some family might be weaker in, or to socialize more and adapt with the culture instead of creating one; but also other families can introduce new genetic combinations, which are aristocratic in nature or introduce something new to this - this means, having more honour, being more civilized, more advanced in building the infrastructures etc. It's healthy to want those combinations and mix with new families, which have developed aristocrat characteristics or have developed something new you cannot compete with. This takes generations to get those genes properly, but I think there is something deeper and more substantial about a family or a nation than the genes; you have some model of ideal genetics and characteristics and the genes, they are also mixed to achieve that - over the generations, you get your face back and you are more yourself than before. The combinations you got from other nations long time again, they are evolved in their purity, and you want something more from these families over time, and the connections you got with other families, you want to grow them stronger. With arabs, you have a very good starting point that they have direct lines from king David, Abraham etc., and they must somehow represent those values. They are large nation introducing many new genes and you have to "harvest" this. Actually, a genuine love has to do something here. When the ideals of arab families, their archetypes and lessons, are properly integrated, when they go through the shadow until they find the common truth behind truth of their new nationality and old one, the larger jewish archetype would carry on until the family structure with new genes once again has all the jewish ideal characteristics. I personally think that jews and the aristocrats are the yin and yang of one polarity of "god-chosen" nations or families, aristocrats being yang, are chosen one-by-one, and jews as a collective. So the jews represent the material element and aristocrats the ideal element; the first ones achive a lot in the collective, material state, whereas the other gives rise to single personalities, who transcend some flat and wide aspect, like laws, into a new stage. There exists a relationship of hate and love in this yin and yang, but I think it has historically usually resolved. In this, when I put aside the religious reasons to live along with your journey to heaven, I have to think about king Arthur, who is marked as a special person in aristocrat history, and who went several times to fight for Israel. His deep meanings - well, of war - are of utmost importance to me; aristocrats also carried through the christian wars, which has jewish roots - somehow, this conception of heaven seemed to fit with the idealistic world-view, and beat the others, so it had to be introduced as a law. Jews have lived along with aristocrat activities sometimes supporting with the money, as aristocrats tend to be poor very often and not have money for the whole country, jews somehow manage this. And then, there are heavy incidents of war, but with so strong alchemy between two nations, this is normal that you see both extremes repeating, it resolves something greater - for a nation, if some people are becoming poor or die, it's not so big matter, but what matters a lot, whether the surviving part can build something higher than before. I don't have many feelings about many families killed in revolutions, they were usually too proud or something Usually these are local incidents, the big wars and peace processes somehow go on. Here I have some deep love for the jews, which is sometimes shadowed - in love, you always get angry when you see some imperfection; for some other nations, when they show imperfections, I don't care at all. But I think the genes of those two nations are not too easily mixed - well, we have kings of jews and jewish families, who have carried it to leadership characteristics.

About Arabs given the jewish identity, I think this is what you expect if you join another nation - you get some part of their identity, you read the textbooks etc. One side is liberty and right of being yourself, but the other side is that jewish nation really is something and they have some theory about what they are doing. You cannot just ignore that if you are going to live there. There is the other side of the inevitability that they cannot do that if they don't expect those things from the people joining them. The world is not only a place where you just go somewhere and live your own life, you always see something people are doing around you and with your house, your personality and plans, you are somehow a part of their culture and identity there. You have your own karma to solve, but this is not separate from karma, which is shared between people - the collective karma. So sometimes you have to have your own identity and culture long time deep in the shadow of another culture, or a need of the world and people around you, and you have to integrate and purify a lot to get your own idea and personality back, fresh and lighting, fitting into the challenges of the new culture around you. For example, better part of aristocrats were fighting for the democratic revolution (and communist revolution is one type of democratic revolution, capitalist revolution is another - they both started some kind of civilizing process; I have somehow integrated them in me, like I have done with religions, having only some inner conflicts to solve, not many). Still, when the revolution came, they lost a lot and they become darkened, shadowed by the new culture - which, indeed, was in the state of the higher law and therefore not to be attacked by an aristocrat. What is the role and purpose in the aristocrat ideal of carrying and executing higher ideals in society and technology etc., this was initially shadowed and seeing how their long-learnt archetypes make sense in the new culture, enrichening the environment, where people are more independent, this take some good 2 generations. So this was normal for 2 generations to have a shadow, and then start to bring some culture about how their archetypes are carried out in the new society - for example, what are the characteristics and activities of people, who identify themselves with the archetype of "king" in the new society; like there are "rock kings" and "pop queens". The battles for the holy grail, the knights and the ladys, they exist on some metaphysical sense and not in the "real world"; and even there it seems it needs to be calmed down somehow. The old peasants, they need not to be commanded, but genuinely inspired ..I think the culture of war and leadership, honor and laws - they are inseparable part of royal blood and culture, but what these words means, this has to go through long and deep night in the process of democratization, before it can be goldened into something, what makes sense in the democratic process and it's ideals. Despite that the democracy itself, it's a higher form than kingdoms, carrying out every single ideal of a kingdom usually in somewhat better way. Similarly, it's natural that a Muslim has to become a jew first, and their ideals and cultures are shadowed. Once they do this, they have to integrate their own motive, which also respects David and Salomon and integrates with a lots of jewish wisdom, and they can finally bring out their good motives and show that in culture of Israel, it is enrichening to have a new contact with another culture. Your own wisdom is not gone, when you become a part of the collective, with it's problems and opportunities, but it's having a depression with long time, maybe several generations - usually two -, and only them, after becoming a part of them, you can slowly start seeing, where they fail your own ideals and where you can really profoundly change and enrichen them. You can have an arab ideal in jewish words and this can inspire them as a new light to some matters, and so you have also served your mother nation as well.

You want to "beat zionists", but you should consider that there is a yin and yang law - the zionists might be wrong, if you look at all the implications they want to bring, but to really beat them, you have to consider that they have some core of truth and even if this is underdeveloped, they win you unless you acquire the better part of this core of truth, like the yin and yang expect - if you do not contain this healthy amount of yin, it's core mission, and if you don't integrate this, they might be polar to you, but they always win. Probably they have quite narrowly their own truth right now, but you must assume you nohow "win" or "beat" this truth unless you learn this truth, make it be part of you, and then enlighten it so much that you have to kill, or mistreat others much less. Then, you can say you are legally stronger. If the minority is aggressive and violent with their truth, there are chances that it's the only thing they can do - in case you learn their basis, and do not fail their pure and true motives, you can start criticizing their means or the need to somehow ignore you in the process. You have to consider that the "enemy" is doing the work however good they can. There is a song of Bob Marley, "Iron Lion Zion", this is even muslim-respected by the way, african muslims definitely respect him; in this song the Zion is simply a genuine word for some heaven or some level or aspect or plane of heaven. Definitely something, which well-vibrates with my spirit. I can guess this is what they originally meant, the Zionists - if you occasionally fought them down, you became an enemy of someones ideal (and not of someones shadow), and the ideals always win - if they started to fight or ignore you in the process, their heaven might not seem much to you; you have not invested there and thus you are probably left out. Things you are left out of, they are, indeed, bad For any myth, you have to see it has all the colors. If Zion is equal to Jerusalem and Jerusalem is connected to becoming Heaven, then for example it vibrates with my Buddhist truth what Christ said, that Heaven must materialize on Earth You have to invest in this thing and then find out, what is the shadow of this heaven and how to transcend or fight this. I think you are stupid and mad, if you want to fight against jewish heaven - that jews have some part in materializing heaven on earth is something written in all your myths, and if you leave them doing this alone, you are not probably part of it. This might be a material fact about you and them, which vibrates in such way with a religion, that it seems like a religious fact - religion is quite open about the relations, beween you and the zionist or the jew and the arab, which seem like religious arguments, the argument of religion has simply reached that point for today, and has to see some light to transcend these conflicts and find some real progress. In nature, you and the zionist, or muslim and a jew, have no conflict at all, and if you are very static about your sides in the conflict, neither side might be thankful in the end, you might be unable to explain in the process of solution, what you did and who you are and why you hate some sides so much. As a Buddhist I have to say that I definitely like the projects about heavens, and I see how they sometimes become so shadowed and start to leave people out or fight - but when they work through all those shadows, they are very shining things; even the Arab heavens.

But you forgot to say that non-citizens are taken into account ..from this, you can protect yourself Made me to relax ..I'm quite neutral in this, I watch the Arab rights as well, but I don't like if the Israel is not jewish

Then there is a lot of work to do to integrate others and find out they are "legal jews" in some sense, in being the legal cityzens of their country? Are they friendly people for the jews, and are they willing to mix their blood, understandings and family contacts in a way that jews would simply evolve and get some new blood; or are they somehow inviders? These are my questions, I don't understand it from the news I think that in the end, when the blood and cultures are mixed, Israel should somehow belong to jews and this should be the case that Israeli culture is mixed afterwards and the blood is more jewish, getting some jewish characteristics even from non-jews - I think it's really possible you get more jewish by having marriage with non-jew, if they have a characteristic jews have been wanting to have and do not have so much. Genes also have the ideals and not only the material, and there is some mental genetics about what the jews want to be. For example, aristocrats, when they had children only with their own family, finally got a genetic disorder - so the nations should be mixed with other nations, but in this process, they should receive and give away the genes in combinations that they finally got what they desired, by being their own nation, and give out what others desired; in addition to genes, nations have dreams, and genes are mere tools for those dreams, not the identifiers of the nations. So as Americans looked for great people of the others, or like Russians are happy to mix their genetics with their respected and grand people of other nations, I hope jews find the immigrants genuinely jewish in some sense, bringing a fresh blood and culture traits, which the jews "secretly" dream of. This is the kind of positive attitude to this, which I can give - but the other cultures coming, they must then be already kind of patriots of jews, whatever are their own nations. I think in the fractal, every nation has every trait of every other nation, the balance is repeating - for example, there is a family of kings, and the one of jews, but jews also have kings and some jewish families have started behaving like royal families, acquiring and proving the traits, which would make them genuinely royal in generations and finally make the royal genes richer in their diversity and in their own characteristics. Royal genes also need to grow all the good traits of the "servants", especially as they are enlightened to democracy, however contradictory it would seem - in democracy, somehow, you can carry the ideals to the end, and this is what the royal characteristics should do, to go further with the ideals than the laws require them, and to inspire people with the newer laws. So the jews as well, they should ask about what is genuinely jewish about these immigrants.

In the Soviet Union they used to say - there are lies, and there is statistics. These numbers, even if they are true, do not make sense without facts - for example, why to build a terrorist underground base under hospital? This can protect you for a while, but when things get serious, it adds up into exactly this kind of statistics. I don't know, why Iran is moving, but let's say it is because of such statistics - they cannot very reasonably say that don't attack Gaza terrorists, this is not so easy to say. But I want to point out, this is a common war paradox. People are connected by area and similar look, even similar thinking, and when you definitely want to attack certain people in group, you usually cannot do this without attacking some others, whichever the means of attack. For this, you would have to see it very directly, but even then it seems that neighbors are helping them. In old times, when one person of a group - in ship or military unit - commited a crime, or other prohibited thing, they used to punish everybody or punish every 10th man, in case they did not know, who is guilty. Then, it was expected, the group will do the punishment among themselves, by themselves, to avoid further collective punishment. As we got better psychology and better strategies to identify the guilty or protect your property and ethics, this was made illegal. Over time, we expect smaller and smaller numbers of women and children killed, or civilians attacked - spy technologies, preciseness of weapons and other advanced war strategies get better, and thus it's reasonable to think that attacks go more and more directly against enemy. But this cannot be perfect and the ethics is neither perfect, because contra these murders on one side, we balance the number with killed innocent people on the other side. This is very possible that Gazans managed to fear or kill some people, who really want to be terrorists in Gaza, whatever their reasons - if they attacks are not very precise and if they cannot protect them in later court process, say, winning the process by the laws of different countries in 10 years, or pointing out how the laws are against constitution, they very probably create enemies, who are not criminals. If we are very precise about the fact that the war must not touch civilians, we might be idealistic - in case of no dead civilians on one side, there are dead civilians on the other side, and thus the numbers cannot be "ideal". So when we count every injured civilian and murder, and reply with a murder, this might be unrealistic communication strategy and do what the Christ warned us about - a negative cycle impossible to solve. In history, there are cases of two families completely killing all of each other, because of some initial murders, as they reply every act of violence with another act of violence. As Christ taught - I'm a Buddhist, but I sometimes have to cite Christ for clarity -, this life paradox leads to need to forgive, however hard the case. So the Muslims and indeed, Israel, must balance between punishment and forgiveness somehow, as both sides have definitely killed some innocents and they cannot avoid this any more as the serious war is in process and there, in case you want to live, you must protect yourself and also continue the crime (of probabilistically killing civilians or innocent people). And indeed, the civilians could do, instead of simply following the law and being innocent, an active work with the laws and understanding each other, following the laws more than needed by the laws - with active, positive strategy, some civilians would indeed become so important on both sides, that the attacks would try to carefully avoid killing them. Neutral people are, well, neutral - it's quite neutral thing whether you see them as helpful brothers and sisters of the criminal, or you see them as innocent. To be truly innocent in terrorist area, and expect yourself be seen as human by the people, who punish the terrorist, you must do active work on human rights, peace and future friendship of the nations, or enlightened parts of them (which also helps everybody). I think in Gaza sector the human rights activists have not even managed to fight out the basic human rights, which can be deadly, but avoids the war - which is as deadly, but much more random process. Even for the terrorists, what I figured out right now - I don't really listen much to their words, but I want to say that even from terrorist, to take this peace thing around them any seriously, I want to hear that they attack these jews with respect of the jewish people in general, and I want to see terrorists putting flowers on the graves of innocent people they have killed, because they have no more precise weapons. Israel, as well, should apologize honest muslims for innocent people, who were killed, and explain, that they could not avoid this. Whether the enemy has or has not any enlightened part right now, this enlightened part should be honored somehow, and encouraged to have the process inside to, for example, give Israel the true lists and arguments about who is a terrorist, who is "neutral", and who is actively fighting for better world and mutual understanding and friendship. I think being completely neutral is not possible and you are in terms of probability, if you are living in Gaza sector and not fighting for human rights, for example for terrorists making public apologizes about their weapons, preciseness and jewish civilians killed. I would like to see that terrorists are considering that they are attacking jewish terrorist of some kind, and making huge mistakes by attacking absolutely random positions with their weapons. When Soviet Union and Communist Chinese Party were fighting against capitalists in other countries - I was living my 6 first years in Soviet Union and I consider it's philosophy kind of legal, I think the capitalist and communist are like yin and yang to unite someday, capitalist cannot be free and communist cannot get rich, but both things should be legal -, they found in countries they attacked some honest people to find information about locals, to find out, who is robbing the poor and who is not, and to make the lists of people and weapon targets such that the communist would minimize the number of innocent - for them - people attacked in the area. I would say terrorists are far from the law of war, but they should not give up - they should look at their own numbers of innocents killed, try to create the communication and other processes to identify the real enemy, they should try to do some legal court cases, where they don't simply accuse jews in being jews - and in Muslim history, some jews have been very much respected -; so they should follow the laws of war at least so much to have a minimal rightful activity. They should explain the innocent jews or their government, who they are accusing and in what, and give the numbers and facts about how they have developed in attacking their rightful targets and not the random people in last 10 years. I don't watch the terrorist tapes, but by what I have seen in the news and articles about these things, there is not a single sign of the terrorist taking the human right documents any seriously - if you are in the war, maybe you are really an undeveloped savage and you cannot do much, but in the modern world, you should have at least some processes and reports about how you follow the human right and the law of war, to be taken any seriously; and those "innocent" civilians - they cannot be simply neutral about civil rights and laws, because that attitude really does not involve being a citizen of some country; they should be somewhat active to develop the human rights and war laws in their very underdeveloped military. They can raport about their progress, also how they made the civilian areas separated from the military areas and communicated their lawfulness to Israel in clear and verifiable terms. If all this is done, by Iran as well in this case, their arguments would be much stronger and not the ones animal is using to protect against human. The good start is the symbolic case - the terrorists or the Israel, they should apologize about killed civilians and put the flowers on their graves, and explain the unavoidable major force doing this. The Iran, in it's explanation for a war, should also explain their successful history in introducing the humans rights and war laws to terrorists and their areas, how they guaranteed that a legal citizen is undangered and can fight for these things in these areas, etc. What is the succesful record of Iran in managing that Israel would not need to attack innocent people - for example, if those people are killed for talking in Gaza, then there have to be numbers about how many Iran identified and saved from those conditions, inviting them to Iran, where they can be fighting for human right. In case they are against human rights and war laws, I think there should be explanations about this and the court cases against human rights and consitution, and in case the human rights and war laws do not exist, it should be explained, by which terms they consider that their people should not be killed - is there any law, or is this just a natural instinct of both sides to fight for their survival, be it "legal" or not. I would read a terrorist paper, where they explain the human rights and the case about whether the human rights apply only to some sides, or whether the known war laws are somehow very biased. But I see the terrorists have been fighting for so many years that it's now already expected that they give some raport about their success in developing a modern war in terms of protecting humans rights and war laws, respecting their enemy and the rights of it's innocent civilians, and becoming more and more precise about attacking exactly their war target and not the random people, even with their limited means. Otherwise, just too much more modern war is expected from Israel having no success themselves, when they talk about numbers of innocent people killed - if jews have no human rights at all, then muslims should also explain this complex law by which they expect not to be killed, and the universal and equal basis of such law, or the universal and equal case about why the universality and equality of the law would not be applied. The civilians, also, would explain, why they are neutral about this, and why they should not be saved and accidentially killed in some percentage, in case they are really unallowed to talk.

The modern conceptions, which are in question: Overcoming the Good and Bad - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_Good_and_Evil ..this work was attacked by Catholic church, or at least this party of thinking, and the Muslims represents the same traditional perspective to any resulting thoughts. "Beyond God and Satan", "Beyond God and non-God" - God is so essential that this kind of liberation is really hard to conceptualize. This is a really deep process and it's rather about the Natural Laws being non-changing (concept, which exists even in belief of God - he is absolutely fair, treating everyone equally, so that natural laws would appear). God is kind of psychological - when you live in this archetype of doing it yourself, which is becoming adult in sense of religion, your model must be without God as father-in-home. Working with the dark energy, understanding the evil. Evil is inevitable part of creation, but as a religion or young person starts to comprehend this, the elder cannot understand. It's also a very deep philosophy, which sees that Satan must be somehow a creation of God and we cannot survive without giving this creation some freedom. Buddhism, as very old religion, has overcome this - in a sense, like God and no-God does not exist, also Good and Evil does not exist. To know what this really means - before these things become adult and healthy, it looks like plain Satanism. Raise of freedoms of such kind were hard. Individuation. An individual somehow creates their destiny and is not a part of their family and tribe, following the same business like a slave. This is a thing hard to understand for traditional person. Philosophical thought. Guessing all values and truths, developing philosophies, which are neutral to things we cannot know ..ideally, in the end, we know everything again, but in the beginning, we eat this apple of good and bad. Some more conceptions. Tradition is in id phase, and follows the parents without questioning. In certain age, people fall into sin and do not follow the parents - this is the liberal revolution. They experiment and they also have their fights and battles for truth, they do sin. As they grow old, they learn again something the children knew, they become enlightened. When the religions enter the battles around this, they become somewhat shadowed - they were told to love each other, but in the battles they forget this and they are far from truth and enlightened states. So they are very serious that their religions tell them not to love each others, they cannot see it from outside perspective of their current problems and troubles. In time, they learn to see this thing from higher perspective and know that they always become friends again, so that the battles would be less serious.

Your gandfather not giving you the money, because you are punk or rock-n-roll. You earning your own money. Finally the family forgives. Can you see the difference?

I must empathize my point about Jewish modernism and american music coming from Satan. Muslims and Russians are connected by this understanding (my father is Russian and I really don't want to go into argument with him about this). In younger religion, old men always say that the additional good-evil paradox of youth comes from satan, and so do their modernized views. Here, the American music coming from Satan - but the fathers of those American people also told them, the hippies and others, who left their homes, that their more liberal views come from Satan. It's generally known that more liberal views come from Satan and the God was originally very traditional, and the old men die if they don't follow their traditions like animals do. Young start with philosophy and thinking and from Jesus to Socrates, this is very dangerous. Here, by the old of our own - they were really younger in terms of their history, and Arabs are very young in these terms, so they naturally think like our old men and find some agreement as well. For example, small families of modern era come from Satan, as God said we must become many. But we also have the overpopulation and need to stay in family budget and in our given lands. I can see where these opposites, the liberal and traditional, the yin and yang in both orders, come from. But this archetype of big, strong family listening traditional music and classics is so strong that it has to be understood by Jews - they are one of the most modern societies as they proudly say, and this makes them one of the most "Satanistic" for the older men and younger traditions of theirs; they leave their homes and fight for freedom, today the religious freedom as well. This all is not tolerated very much and they must somehow handle this archetype as this is very typical ..young muslims, they are "from Satan" as well, already for their families. Very old religions don't care any more, they simply state that "youth is from Satan as usual" and that they did the same thing when they were young, they were "from Satan". This conception maybe helps in seeing the whole paradox of war beween England, America, Europe and Israel on one side; and more traditional Russia, China, and Muslims on the other side. It's the typical family paradox seen as young becoming rebels, leaving homes and fighting their countries more free in philosophical thinking. Those youth and old really cannot understand each others.

Additionally, I have to say I like what's going on here around the topics of being delusional, having one-sided viewpoint, or not having it; I think all sides of this argument develop something for this complex. You can meditate on these "contradictionary" arguments - in war, the two sides are "contradictionary" in a sense, but the logic must somehow follow for both sides. So there is a point in seeing this contradiction, thus in taking both sides, and the logic in overcoming this or seeing the inevitability of some battles. So there are actually four different viepoints - both sides can be True or False in your logic: True, False: One side is correct. False, True: Other side is correct. True, True: They should somehow cooperate. False, False: They inevitably attack each other and both have deep reasons for this. All these four "archetypes" have a certain sense of meaning and the truth in two sides fighting is not completely positive in this sense that you reach reasoned arguments, which seem to contradict something said about the other side. So in addition to those four values, the battle between them should be seen a value itself - a game of archetypes in mind, which can become somewhat enlightened, more intelligent, and overcome it's wounds. I can understand that for some arabs in Gaza, who have lived a good life, Israel simply attacked innocent people, if they don't look around, and for Israel, the murder is too much to start considering the ethical guidelines in this, for example an arab might think the American music played in the party is from Satan. It's the same archetype by which the older generations often say that the music, sayings and style of the youth is really from Satan this time, but then the youth does not listen this very much and finally develops something to stay. The older generations of Muslims have not seen such change very much and they are very painful about the music and styles of younger generations, or of Israel, which has been modernized very much and thus seem absolutely evil for some younger tradition or for the older people of their tradition. You always need to continue the evil archetype as well, as you develop higher with goodness - the paradox of peace and war, or the paradox of police (fighting with weapon), it never goes away; even in Paradise the God suddenly starts story of Noah and then, many people would say Christian morales must be a bad thing to have if they protect such thing

I think you are right in this - there are no poor jews, but only jews, who don't have money at the moment. As they represent the material element. If muslims are going to "take back" the Israel, there will be probably another thousand years of silent war and they get back this; from my viewpoint it's somewhat hard to see, why muslims so surely want this little piece of land, whose ownership is at best questionable and which will be fought back anyway, so they cannot grow strong roots there. It's absolutely questionable if you want to take "back" the sacred piece of land of another, if they are so sure in this and for you it's rather one of the many lands in your area. I think in material world the urge for "completeness" is completely unhealthy. For example you have a company of building and you want *every* market, which is related to building - the material thing you have is always a little bit incomplete or broken. For Muslims in Arabia, the Israel is a little yin in yang, the "false", which is part of the true - when they take it all, the muslims, they would have complete yang and complete yang will always break ..they will have israely spys for rest of their life and they cannot kill all of them because of human rights; by achieving completeness they cannot have it really. It's the monopoly game, where you have 90% of something of your ideal, and then you try harder and harder to have 100% ..but this 100% is killing you. Rather you should stay with some "flaws" and accept that the material world will like this a lot more ..because this "endgame" is just collecting meaningless score. Looking the history of this land, jews are coming and going, and they always have annoying aliens there like romans or englandia (king Arthur); they never have it complete, but they never give up; and they might be quite a small nation themselves, but christians never forget that Jesus was a jew, and that their old testament is basically Torah, or some restricted edition of it. So they always find it very important part of their own mythology that jews live in Israel - and Christianity, in all countries there will be always many Christians. Also the muslims can not make their claims about Israel never quite complete from the viewpoint of any nation or religion; the jews always have a word to say. Everybody has to agree that Arabia is the land of muslims, and ancient and important home land, but it has this little exception forever in the holy books of the world. It's very stupid to try to take this piece of "useless land" (from the reasoned viewpoint of arabs, for who it's only a land) from jews, as useless it is to keep another nation constantly angry and depressed. You have to make a sacrifice to win a war, and for arabs, Israel is The Sacrifice. Jews and Arabs have very long relationship thoughout different times and empires, and there has been a constant struggle in Israel, so this is a debate with very long and angry history, I think it's a matter of land ownership the world knows the best of all. Muslim religion is kind of outgrown from jewish religion - their more ancient prophets and kings are jewish, and Muhammad was thus quite inspired by jewish religion. Positive relationships between Jews, Christians and Muslims have occured times to times, so really there have to be religious roots to talk about. Moreover, it's logical that if Muhammad honoured past jewish prophets, the new work of jews in science and religion has to be to muslims of similar interest, as it's not logical that jewish lineage would somehow end because of prophet muhammad, rather it got some additional credit The reasons, why Israel is sacred place for Muslims, are related to Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, and Jesus, and none of those can be respected without respecting jews living in this area - this would just make up some nonsense. So it's not logical, if muslims themselves are not protecting jewish rights and some superiority in this area, despite that then they cannot say they have complete control over Arabia. I think they have much bigger chances of cooperation, which is rather good from viewpoints of both religions, if they think that this particular matter is really already solved by jews and their history - I agree that it's a matter of constant conflict, how the jews handle money in the world, as they are born for the money, and thus it's a normal interaction between poor and the rich that the poor really cannot understand, why they do not have this money, and the rich inevitably mess it up, as every nation tends to have some families messing up their holy thing. So I don't want to stop muslims fighting with jews about the money in the world, and about the bankrupcies the jews are creating here and there - if you blow up the finances of one country, you must be really stupid if you think the legal process would not follow. This "war" is completely agreeable, as if you don't have it going on, finally there will be the great war, when jews really overlooked something; and jewish history tells that with this talent for the money or the material world, the weakness is equivalent "worship of the golden calf". It's natural that every now and then, some jews start to "wordship the golden galf" and others become angry - even the story of Hitler started with such claims; it's unhealthy to go as far as Hitler, but obviously in the Jewish religion, this activity is somewhat illegal. It has to do with too agressive business, so if the business is central to jewish blood, this tendency of extreme is bound to follow; it's similar to aristocrat blood sometimes starting to worship the power, like Louis XIV, and this is illegal to aristocrats (today they should be democrats) and relevant to other nations. I really believe that jews are the God's selected nation of money or material, and Aristocrats are the God's selected bloodlines of law or the ideal world; I tend to believe anything But now, when you have this "family fight" with jews about the money, constantly, which is similar to the thing any rich member of a village or a family must tolerate, this is fine, but when you start to fight for the Israel, this is not very fine. I vaguely remember it was probably Russia, who gave one land to jews in some part of history ..I could not google this fact so I'm not very certain But otherwise it's hard to believe the jews would care about any other land. For muslims and jews, I think they should also consider, what's their *ideal* state after the war, which follows both the religions - I think it really is, by both those religions and christianism as well, that the Jews control the Israel. I think the opposing views are rather part of the current-state-of-the-things, a shadow thinking coming from the long war and the fact that Arabs somehow lived in Israel for quite a while, so some of them must feel some connection. But their families, in longer time, lived in different places. If they want to be so "historic", maybe the jews would fight for freedom in some part of egipt, where they used to be slaves This is not more easy or nice solution for arabs, if jews would go to their historic land in egipt and fight some part of it free. It's somewhat discussable, what it God and his promise of the land of Israel to jews. I think both science and religion matter and in science, the God is not such a prerequisite, but the qualities of God, like goodness, truth or unity of nations and civilizations, still follow - scientifically, God is born if people follow God, if they follow these high principles, God exists in their lives anyway, and the principles themselves can be proven by game theory or something. They are enlightened principles of unity and synchronicity, which must appear somehow in human life. Even in religion, you would accept that people, who must take responsibility for themselves, are not so directly helped by God and they are not far wrong if they state that God does not exist; I think in any way, the existence of God or the existence of rather all the good qualities of God as the direction of our evolution and wisdom, those are debatable. So we can ask what means, that God gave this land to Jews - I think it's rather enough if they simply want it so much, and convince others so much that it's somehow ethically important, that Israel belongs to jews. If I would be an atheist, I would simply accept that; if somebody wants a little piece of my complete thing or ideal so much, like one coin of my complete coin collection, I would rather give it away. It's not so important ideal that you have complete coin collection - rather this is the greed, and this is not good by religious or an atheist God of well-developed ethical values in action. So if I would be an atheist, I would still rather believe that God gave this land to Jews, if I have to believe in this. I believe that strong will for something somehow reasons itself, especially if it's a small thing for others - you cannot have a very strong will, and you cannot make it so powerful, if there isn't something very deep in it. If jews manage to constantly select themselves by God, then if God is Truth and the Law of Nature, then even by science, they must be selected nation of God In this diversity, to be "equal", others have to find out what they are and why this is important.. For example with some aristocrat blood, I can be happy that kings are often selected by God, or in modern era of enlightened governance, they must have some journeys of fighting countries into higher states of the law or ideal; in this, when they keep their ideals, they are bound to success, and if they are bound to success, they can be said to be selected by God, because God is Truth and Wisdom and by being Wise, or having this tendency in your blood, you can thus "make" yourself being selected by "God". As a Buddhist it's lately very important for me that I'm not believing in God or non-believing in God, because I really start to understand, what Buddha meant if he said that the belief of existence or non-existence of God is too much for a beginner, and makes them sometimes fight blindly for a conception. So for aristocrat philosophy it's very easy for me to see, why God selects one aristocrat or a "king" (in modern era it's only a symbol or archetype, not a "real thing") and when I go with this logic a long, long way further, it's somewhat easy to see, why God would select the jews as a nation and give them Israel, and this is not very relevant in this, whether God exists or not.

It's very hard to reason why Israel should not attack Iran and Gaza right now, and it's very hard to reason, why Gaza and Iran should not attack Israel right now. Saying this to any side of the war would be simply stupid. But deeply, it's very easy to reason, why we don't want another world war today. I think Muslims are a younger brother of the Jews, and their "war for God" is typical for a young monotheistic religion; Christians had similar urge for a war, when they were young, and probably the Jews were also fighting for their God somewhere - from times I know they had more intelligent war for their God with Roman empire, and that was not so agressive. I think when they look for it in their history, they find some complex like this. When you are a young religion, your God has very narrow definition. Anything we could connect with the word "God" must be as diverse and big as the World and the Universe itself; the ethical principles might also be seen as "God" and they also have this diverse nature. God must have existed in all places and times, and played very different roles, which fit the development stage and culture of the society. When this narrow dimension is compared with the world and other religions, they seem to be false, or evil; and Islam definitely has some archetypes well-developed to protect, for example their family structures are possibly more healthy. I think for Jews it's important that they see Islam as young religion, which has limited understanding about protecting their deity and cannot find the Name of God in other religions; Jews themselves are more calmed down and some old eastern religions are even much more calmed down, accepting "other Gods" as their own. It's inevitable to protect their own country at the same time, but having a strong structure to create connections with "enlightened Islam", or to inspire such thing to be born, and to compare the values of different religions to show they are deeply the same, to find how the same symbolic narrative comes out in different physical environments and cultural contexts, and to bring a kind of "scientific revolution", where religions are deeply philosophized to find their deep roots - enlightenment in Muslim countries should be one of the main considerations of Israel and the Jews world-wide, and also others. We cannot obviously kill all the Muslims, and thus we cannot protect anything indefinitely with military power - there needs to be a lots of growth of intermutual ethical values, and the bottom limits of where they can fall; if God gave two nations the religions, it's important to see the same God shining through. For me the attack to Israel by Gaza changed this part ..before I was quite angry about Israel, despite this was from the past, but now I cannot see anyhow, how I could completely be on the Muslim side - but I was somewhat excited with the Israel and Jewish conception of Paradise, and to grow this, I think they should learn to integrate with other religions. I think the world can never have one world religion.