Posts from Forum Auto-translated

The oldest history of mankind is an area where there is no place for dogmatism. For example, not so long ago, the hypothesis about the "mitochondrial Eve" [1] was considered an indisputable fact, but now it is being questioned. The author writes these lines just a few days after the newspaper reports about the re-evaluation of the age of the Homo erectus skull fragment from the island of Java: it turned out that this fossil is 1.8 million years old! This suggests that Homo erectus already inhabited Asia long before its supposed migration from Africa. Evidence of this kind could have become public knowledge because, contrary to the expectations of some anthropologists, it delights others, and, most importantly, it does not call into question the fundamental postulates of the generally accepted picture of human evolution. But what if fossil remains of modern humans were found in deposits estimated to be two million years old? Would such a stunning discovery be considered credible? Most likely, its author would simply be unable to withstand the demands to revise the age of the find, attempts to cast doubt on his competence, and ultimately, to consign everything to oblivion. According to Michael Cremo and Richard Thompson, something similar has already happened in the past, and more than once. This is due to the dual approach to evaluating the available data. Evidence of ancient hominids and objects of their material culture is readily accepted as long as it fits into the traditional scheme of human evolution. However, no less reliable evidence that contradicts this concept is not only ignored but also deliberately suppressed. Publications about them cease surprisingly quickly, and the next generations practically know nothing about such discoveries, as if they never existed. As a result, alternative views on the early history of mankind are hardly recognized only because the data supporting them are unavailable. In their fundamental work, entitled "Forbidden Archeology," Cremo and Thompson present astonishing data that the scientific community was once aware of, but subsequently disappeared from the scientists' field of vision due to the so-called "filtering of knowledge" that does not fit into the dominant scientific dogmas. To bring this data to light, the authors, like detectives, had to perform a colossal amount of research and analytical work, the results of which are so impressive, presented so meticulously and in detail, that for this reason alone they deserve the closest attention. It is regrettable to note that relatively few professional scientists are willing to take seriously the evidence that contradicts the prevailing point of view, and even more so if it comes from sources outside official academic circles. This work, being a shortened version of the fundamental work, is intended for a wide range of readers, but I sincerely hope that it will also attract the attention of unbiased specialists, awaken their interest in a deeper study of the same evidence, but already in a much more detailed presentation of the full edition of this book. The authors frankly admit that they were driven by a desire to substantiate the idea, rooted in Indian Vedic literature, about the deep antiquity of mankind. Without sharing either the religious beliefs or the aforementioned goal of the authors, I nevertheless see nothing reprehensible in such an open statement of their religious worldview. Like all people, scientists have the right to have their own motives. They may also have their own biases that affect their conclusions, but the dogmatic materialism that guides many figures in academic science is capable of causing even greater harm to the truth, if only because it is somehow not considered a bias. Ultimately, what matters is not the reasons that prompted the researchers to search for evidence of a certain kind, but the results of these searches, which deserve to be made available to the general public and seriously considered by the scientific community. As far as I can tell, the data presented by Cremo and Thompson are highly worthy of serious consideration. The author of this preface did not set himself the task of supporting the evidence presented in this book, but was guided by the desire to recommend it to researchers engaged in a serious study of this issue. This is a very interesting, truly fascinating book. I would very much like to see whether the evidence presented in it will withstand an unbiased check by well-informed readers, who will probably be happy to have the opportunity to familiarize themselves with information that is not found in review articles and textbooks for students and high school graduates. Philip Johnson

Added 11 minutes ago

But why should we protect them? If our karma is destined for us to live well, then we will live well. Are some insignificant little people stronger than karmic will?

We should protect, not be protected. We must protect our children, women, and the elderly because it is our duty!

If a person does not fulfill his duty to those to whom he must fulfill it in accordance with the laws of nature, the universe, then in the future, his duty will not be fulfilled towards him.

4 natural needs of the body:
1) sleep
2) sex
3) food
4) and defense
Artificial ignoring of any of these natural needs of the body will not lead to a positive result.
But excessive satisfaction of these natural needs of the body will also not lead to anything good.

4 shortcomings inherent in an ordinary person (all of us):
1) our senses are imperfect
2) a tendency to deceive
3) a tendency to fall into illusion
4) a tendency to make mistakes.

karma - (literal translation from Sanskrit - action) - is the law of cause and effect, the law of justice.

The laws and mechanisms of karma are very complex; if you, me, us are destined to live well according to karma, this does not mean that nothing needs to be done! We must always fulfill our duty - only in this case will everything work out in the best way for us, only in this case will we receive the best karmic reactions (fruits of our activity) for us at the moment, only in this case will the situation work out in the best way for us.

Artificially ignoring any of these natural needs of the body will not lead to a positive result.

Tell that to the monks who don't satisfy one of these needs at all, are very limited in another, and the third depends on how lucky they are with their monastery (and the defense seems to be fine). And yet, people feel great and are full of energy to work! So, it's all nonsense; needs are just one of the means, but not the goal.

Monks, if they act in accordance with the knowledge and precepts of the sacred scriptures, do not artificially ignore these natural needs of the body, but rather cleanse themselves naturally and reduce their desires, channeling their lust into serving God and society. However, many monks and priests falter because they artificially restrain their senses from sensory objects (and this is where the great danger lies). Moderately satisfying one's senses, as well as artificially suppressing one's desires, restraining the senses from contact with sensory objects, does not lead to anything good. If a person satisfies their desires through the contact of the senses and sensory objects, they become greedy and attached. If a person artificially restrains their senses from sensory objects, they become irritable and angry. But if I still have a desire for sex, but I artificially suppress this desire, sooner or later, the lust will break me and burst out. Lust must be channeled into work, into serving God and society; otherwise, it cannot be overcome. Lust is the main, all-consuming enemy of a living being. And monks feel great and work very energetically because they eat and sleep in moderation (not too much and not too little), they do not waste their strength and energy on satisfying lust; they cleanse themselves of this desire naturally, channeling their lust into serving God, their mentor, their brothers, and society. Everything is correct; there are no contradictions here. Satisfying one's senses, as well as not satisfying one's senses, artificially suppressing the senses, ultimately does not lead to anything good. The secret lies in satisfying, but not one's own, but another person's feelings, serving another person (wife, husband, children, parents, society, God).

And which faction do you belong to?

And what sect are you from?

I am from the sect of logic and common sense.
And you, which one? :) And what do you understand by the word "sect"?

In my view, a sect is a closed organization that distorts the ideas of an authoritative representative of God, for example, Christ, Muhammad, Buddha, etc.

In your view, is the modern "Orthodox"-Judo-Christian church, which in many ways distorts the ideas of Christ, a sect?

Orthodoxy and Christianity are two different cultures, brought at different times by different representatives of God, for different people.
From the Bible of the Essenes, from the Bible of Origen, from the Bible of Christ (all of which are not widely distributed; on the contrary, the very fact of their existence is hidden and silenced) — from these bibles, one can learn that Christ told his followers not to go north, not to go to the Slavs, and not to bring this culture to them.
Everything written above in no way cancels the fact that Christ is an authoritative representative of God and a teacher of the whole world, of every person. He who teaches love for God and for one's neighbor is a teacher of every living being.

The fathers and commanders of the modern ROC are active agents, employees of the FSB:
The former patriarch of the Russian "Orthodox" church, Alexei II (Ridiger, a German Jew), was a KGB agent with 50 years of experience. The current patriarch of all Russia, Kirill, is also an FSB employee.

Question: how can an FSB employee — from an organization that throughout its entire history destroyed churches, culture, and religion as such, how can an employee of an organization that hanged priests unwilling to submit to the godless Soviet communist regime, raped their mothers, wives and daughters, and killed their families — be the head of the "Orthodox-Christian church"???

______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________

http://www.materinstvo.ru/art/756
Vaccines have existed for just over two centuries, and throughout this time, disputes over the effectiveness and harmlessness of their use have not subsided. At the same time, a criminal tradition has developed in our country to vaccinate "everyone across the board, for the sake of organizational convenience," which leads to deplorable results, where 80-85% of children who contract diphtheria turn out to be "correctly and timely" vaccinated.

Tuberculosis also does not want to be "liquidated," despite the unlawful medical assistance provided to our infants in maternity hospitals via the BCG vaccine in the first days of their lives.

Particular concern is caused by facts indicating "large-scale safety tests" of new vaccines being conducted on our children under the plausible pretext of "calendar vaccinations."

Liquidation is an thankless job, practically impossible due to its unpredictability, and unsafe: "To destroy and not wait for a counterstrike... without thinking whether other, far more aggressive microbes will occupy the vacant place in the sun?" warned Gaston Ramon, the author of the diphtheria anatoxin. They "occupy" it, and how! Aggressive streptococci, new strains of tuberculosis mycobacteria causing tuberculosis of the bones, joints, skin, intestines, and genitourinary system — among those "correctly" vaccinated against tuberculosis with the BCG vaccine; manifold hepatitis and herpes viruses, etc. In Russia, the immunoprophylaxis of infectious diseases continues to be managed "from above" by epidemiologist officials and sanitary doctors who have absolutely no understanding of immunology. Yet, completely different duties are entrusted to them...

"From below," the coverage with "economic incentives" is handled by district pediatricians who, as practice in communicating with them over the last 15 years shows, are completely unfamiliar with the immunological aspects of infectious diseases and do not link infectious diseases, nor vaccinology, with the immune system. Their conception of vaccinations is very primitive and absolutely concrete: fulfill the order for coverage — and that, they believe, is all that is required of them.

_____________________________________________________________

IT SEEMED POINTLESS AND IMMORAL TO PROVE THE DANGER OF MERCURY SALTS FOR INFANTS WHEN THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR IMPACT ON THE ADULT HUMAN BODY ARE WIDELY KNOWN. Let us remind you that mercury salts are more dangerous than mercury itself. However, the domestic DTP vaccine, containing 100 mcg/ml of merthiolate-mercury organic salt and 500 mcg/ml of formalin (a powerful mutagen and allergen), has been used for about 40 years. The allergenic properties of formalin include: Quincke's edema, urticaria, rhinopathy (chronic runny nose), asthmatic bronchitis, bronchial asthma, allergic gastritis, cholecystitis, colitis, erythema, skin cracks, etc. All this has been noted by pediatricians for over 40 years, but the statistics are hidden behind iron doors from the general public.
Thousands of children suffer for decades, but medical officials do not care.

There is no data on the action of merthiolate and formalin; NO ONE HAS EVER STUDIED THIS CONGLOMERATE on animal offspring in terms of immediate reactions and long-term consequences, say, for teenagers. Companies WARN, and therefore bear no responsibility for the actions of our vaccinators and controllers in the country! In this case, multi-year, "large-scale tests" continue in our country on our children with the development of various pathological syndromes. Every day, more and more innocent infants (those who escaped abortion) are thrown into this hellish meat grinder, replenishing the ranks of disabled children and their unhappy parents, who are unaware of the true cause of their children's suffering.

A carefully prepared and conducted "campaign to intimidate the population" with epidemics of diphtheria, tuberculosis, and influenza on one hand, and restrictive measures regarding kindergartens and schools on the other, leave parents with no chance.

I belong to the sect of logic and common sense.

You wouldn't be too lazy to print out at least the last 5 pages and show them to the local psychiatrist.

Ariputra is right about one thing – unlike his opponents, he questioned the truthfulness of the information presented to us by the system – I completely agree with him on this. Doubt is where thinking begins, not just the mechanical memorization of "facts." But in everything else, his posts contain excessively exaggerated statements – I really dislike when everything is lumped together: 100% vaccination is harmful and dangerous for everyone, all Jews are enemies of humanity, etc. On top of that, he provides blatantly inadequate "facts" of his own (like elephants somehow surviving in the dense layers of the atmosphere – even if we assume the existence of some kind of Hulk-like Indian creature). It's either immature youthful maximalism or some kind of encrypted special type of trolling (all these kilometer-long texts with a stupid mistake in almost every word) – there is no third option.

Ariputra is right about one thing - unlike his opponents, he doubted the truthfulness of the information.

In other words, are you accusing everyone else of lacking common sense?
Just to remind you - this is a sect that Ariputra belongs to.

Ariputra is right about one thing - unlike his opponents, he doubted the truthfulness of the information presented to us by the system. I am in complete solidarity with him on this. Thinking begins with doubt, not with mechanical memorization of "facts."

But otherwise, his posts contain excessively extreme exaggerations - I really dislike it when everything is lumped together under one umbrella:

100% of vaccinations are harmful and dangerous for everyone

Mass epidemics of those diseases that vaccines are trying to protect us from began precisely with the appearance of vaccinations, mass vaccinations.

How, interestingly, did people live before without vaccinations, without mass vaccinations, and were much healthier than we are?

all Jews (kikes) are enemies of humanity, etc.

I did not say all, only those cannibals who are now destroying Russia and its indigenous population (as it happens, they are all Jews) - with drug addiction, alcohol, debauchery, mass vaccinations, only those - who committed genocide against the Serbs and broke up Yugoslavia, only those who stage coups and physically eliminate rulers they don't like, only those who cause global "economic crises" (during which the number of dollar billionaires only increases while the people become impoverished), only those who have prepared the fate of Indians in reservations for Russians, Belarusians, Ukrainians, and other Slavs.

Plus, blatantly inadequate "facts" of his own are presented

And on what basis do you characterize this or that event or statement as inadequate?

Based on your previous experience, which you consider absolutely correct?

The whole problem lies in the rigidity of our thinking.
We think that everything that does not fit into our understanding, that goes beyond its limits, is pure nonsense.

Everything that contradicts the experience I have gained in the past (with which I now identify myself) can have no right to exist.

And anyone can call something nonsense, without proof, that does not fit into our understanding of reality.

(like some miraculously unburned elephants in the dense layers of the atmosphere - even if we allow the existence of some kind of Indian Hulk :) on orbit).

First of all, there are testimonies of astronauts (from whom, naturally, a non-disclosure agreement was obtained under pain of death). But you can't hide an awl in a sack.

And since certain facts do not fit into the general official dominant picture of the universe, into the general picture of humanity's past, no one will ever officially tell about them. Moreover, they will try to hide them.

Any of us, and I undoubtedly - can naturally be mistaken.
We make mistakes 1000 times a day.
_____________________

But the Maha-Bharata is part of Vedic literature - which does not make mistakes in its analysis, in its conclusions. We simply do not have an understanding of what the Vedas are (This is the science of sciences and the religion of religions). There is not a single fiction or exaggeration in it. A huge number of facts described there have found archaeological confirmation. Others simply have not been checked. But some statements, naturally, cannot be verified empirically.

For example, no one has ever seen an atom with their own eyes; it was determined by secondary characteristics.
but we accepted this information as truth, having no proof whatsoever.

99% of information we take on faith! We are told that Australia exists, they show pictures on TV, they show people who supposedly have been there - and we believe. But what guarantee is there that we are not being deceived, where is the proof? Maybe Australia doesn't exist at all, and everyone who supposedly leaves for there ends up in another part of Eurasia or South America and becomes slaves in underground mines.

But no! We don't even question this information about the existence of Australia (I, for example, have never been there)! And what does not fit into our matrix of understanding, into our patterns of reality - we determine as 100% nonsense.

No one has yet managed to scientifically refute a single statement from any section of the Vedas.
__________________________

Secondly, objects burn up when entering the dense layers of the atmosphere, not when exiting it.

But if you still consider this to be pure nonsense - fly there, check it, refute it.

It is obviously either immature youthful maximalism, or some kind of encoded special type of trolling (all these kilometer-long wall-of-texts with a stupid mistake in almost every word) - there is no third option.

All the local trolls have already managed to call me a troll; the hounds are onto the hare :) Whoever is guilty of something, they accused me of that.

I apologize for the mistakes I made; I try to write correctly, but what is the point of clinging to the form, to the wrapper, while paying no attention to the content?

But on the other hand, those who do this can be understood; other than shoving your nose into the wall-of-text and the mistakes, there is nothing left to do.

Ancient Eastern wisdom:
"Everyone thinks of others what they themselves are". This entire world is perceived by us through the prism of our mind; whatever our mind is like, that is how we will see the surrounding world and people.

But where is the guarantee that we won't be deceived, where is the evidence? Maybe Australia doesn't exist at all, and everyone who supposedly moves there ends up in another part of Eurasia or South America and becomes a slave in underground mines.

Ihtiandr
Are you reading his posts!?
and I'm putting the same big smiley with Jackie.

no kneecap, will Marya Ivanovna color it for you again? Go sit down and finish drawing it. :)

Ihtiandr
Are you even reading his posts?!
and I'm putting the same big smiley with Jackie

Heh-heh! With one small remark, I managed to provoke both sides, and you can't do it?;)

But seriously. I'm not accusing you of lacking common sense, but of being unwilling to strain your brain and doubt. Regarding the "sect" – it's doubtful; he seems more like a lone wolf. And what do you mean by "sect"? Actually, it's primarily a religious organization, not something like a political organization with a twisted ideology, as you seem to think...:confused:

The issue regarding Jews has been clarified – I generally agree; it seems more like the true state of affairs than the official picture of the world, although I'm not sure about the authenticity of the Protocols, nor have I found a convincing refutation of their existence. But even our own "elite," like Yanukovych (who, as far as I know, has Belarusian roots and no Jewish blood:confused:), doesn't hesitate to use the same insults, calling them "goyim," which in his case means "rabble," which is essentially the same.

What common sense does artificial population reduction contradict? The fact that it's happening one way or another should be obvious, unless you're completely brainwashed. There could be many reasons: the Nazis also artificially reduced the population in the occupied territories, clearing "living space" (a large population under oppression could rebel, and it's not certain that it would only be spontaneous and unsuccessful) – they were just more open about it, while now they're more discreet, those scoundrels. Furthermore, in the modern world, the service sector dominates (serving mostly the so-called middle class; the elite certainly doesn't need that much), and unemployment is constantly growing because progress doesn't stand still, and human involvement in production processes is reduced to a minimum. This picture of the world probably doesn't suit the "puppet masters" – millions and millions of people who are essentially useless to them, while they consume natural resources and could potentially be dangerous to their system – or do you naively believe in their humanity?

By the way, there's no guarantee that South America exists, and everyone who supposedly goes there to work as slaves in underground mines is actually being secretly redirected to vacation in Australia.:cool: (just a joke, not trolling;)

ariputra
"Oh my god! A talking sheep, a talking sheep!!!" With this cry, you should jump out the window and rush to the doctor.

PS
You guys are having a lot of fun here. First, Waffle, then Vigo, now Ariputra. I've been wondering and wanted to ask this for a long time: "Who's next?". Kostyan, and it seems like you're answering this question =)"

But seriously. I am not accusing you of a lack of common sense, but of unwillingness to strain your brain and doubt.

What am I not doubting? Please provide an example and explain your point of view.

But even the homegrown "elite" like our Yanukovych (he seems to have Belarusian roots, without Jewish blood:confused:) - is not lagging behind in calling people the same "goyim", i.e., in his case - "cattle", which is not fundamentally different.

Well, it's still a big question whether he is Jewish or not, but even if he isn't, it's not so important. In any case, he is acting on their instructions.

Who would have thought that Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev is David Aronovich Mendel, Luzhkov is Katz, Maxim Galkin is Tsukerman, etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIzxjQGR-4g - "this means that war is coming soon" - a clip, a song on the topic.

By the way, there is no guarantee that South America exists, and everyone who supposedly goes there to work as slaves in underground mines is treacherously redirected to rest in Australia.

This is exactly what I mean! Why do we blindly accept one information as truth without requiring any (historical, logical, or archaeological) evidence - and reject another, only because it contradicts our matrix of understanding, our past experience??? The whole problem is in the rigidity of our thinking.

Petrosyan, by the way, is a normal guy, and his humor, like Zadornov's, is not below the belt - unlike Comedy Club and company.



Added after 1 hour 4 minutes
Interesting information: in Japan, a decision has been made not to give children any vaccinations for up to two years - the number of cases of tuberculosis and hepatitis B has not increased at all.

In Russia, a child is given a whole set of vaccinations in the first 12 hours, including vaccinations against hepatitis B and tuberculosis.

Only people at risk can get tuberculosis: prostitutes, homosexuals, drug addicts, or people who are genetically predisposed to it - 1%.

Question: Why vaccinate all children against tuberculosis and even in the first 12 hours after birth?

____________________________________________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK7d2bZn_wk - "BIRTH IS A WEAPON. Yaroslavl. GMO and VACCINATION...", 1h.36m

A woman, a doctor by education, talks about her personal experience:
She has 3 children.

The first and second children were given the entire standard set of vaccinations from birth: the first began to get sick, namely with the diseases from which he was vaccinated, the second had an even more difficult situation, the diseases were accompanied by severe allergic reactions, after the vaccinations and revaccinations were stopped, the allergic reactions weakened. The third child did not receive any vaccinations at all - he did not have a single disease or allergic reaction that the first two children had.