The Back Of My Thighs And Calves Ache

- 1 to December 31, 2010

Allow a little detour and a brief reflection: ultmo tomorrow will be the days of 2010, for many years full of uncertainties.

for our family every December 31 coincides with the birthday of our second daughter, Erika .

This year's celebration is even more special: it celebrates the eighteenth .

Allow me then to send the best wishes from here too intense that a mother can give to a daughter.

Happy Birthday my love and life you smile !!!!!

Blackjack Rules Silver Dollar Bothell

At the moment I have reached these conclusions:

the profit comes from human labor.

capital when there is no monopoly, focuses on the competitiveness and meritocracy.

When there is competition, all companies exploit human labor (not redistributing the percentage on the increase in profit), but won the war that lowers production costs, even using the weapon of meritocracy. To lower production costs are large capital to invest in finding new ways of automation, this means that only multinationals can afford to acquire a dominant position in free market conditions. The result is that the free market is actually an oligopolistic system, not at all fair. Warning: the factory inside is merit in conditions of free competition, while the market understood as an economic system is not fair. Upon reaching the dominant position, then the factory can also sometimes go low merit (although not agree).

Justice has to do with the exploitation and dominance (which uses the same concept as when Marx said that capitalism can only afford to buy the means of production), while meritocracy can exist even in an unjust economic system.

Dear FDD, say I have an activity that gives me a bit of money because the state requires a regulated market, not totally free. Assume that the market will become free. The multinational, having more capital to invest, manage to destroy the small businesses this way ... there will never be a just redistribution of wealth, because profit is not as devoted to work, but one that has a larger capital behind them and can afford to invest more. The state then sets the market when it prevents the big capitalists to become dominant, expropriating the property of small businesses under the guise of free market .... In practice, the state ensures that the capitalists have an advantage over others based on their starting capital. The state starts all at the same level, and it prevents a totally free market. In Marx's Capital is told of how the capitalist they stole the common land to the peasants and farmers, and established the great capitalist property. Today the commons are the state's ability to regulate the market. A requirement that the liberal attempt to wipe out. The peasants dispossessed of land, ended up being exploited as wage earners, in houses without any guarantee of hygiene, where disease and death were the order of the day (this is told in the capital). Globalization is a systematic process of enrichment of oligarchies capitalist exploiting cheap labor (both manual and intellectual dear engineer!). No need to be Marxists to support this assertion, in my opinion ...

The concept of meritocracy in the factory is a concept very positive ... it is absolutely right. But I think the merit it can be measured by the achievement of any goal, even different from increased profits.

Automating toyota should be considered as an example to follow, but we must also look at the context in which it was necessary to automate. It should be noted the economic system which was part of the factory at that time, to understand the reasons for the meritocracy.

On the other hand, the state should regulate, but does not itself become investor (such as Keynesianism), because in this case, it would be wrong, but would give orders and contracts friendly company, causing the monster of inefficiency that has been the welfare state (welfare state rather than inclusive).

democracy can be summarized in two words: meritocracy (freedom) and solidarity (community). The middle class is the barometer of democracy, as Aristotle already understood. However, read the book, thank you, I apologize for the papyrus ...

How Much Flaxseed Oil Should You Give A Dog

Reflections on the post "as I see paganism

I wrote this post "as I see paganism http://piergiorgioblog.blogspot.com/2010/12/come-vedo-il-paganesimo.html because long ago I read the book De Benoist "as can be pagans, "
http://www.calameo.com/boo ks/0001271725a6ec2fb3612
and no n was satisfied with his definition of modern paganism, since the author is too influenced by Nietzsche and does not take quite as well as modern philosophers of history (apollinei!) they have learned and conciliabilissimi overlap with the old paganism.

So I decided to write the post, to prove that a historical perspective immanentist (Vico, Hegel etc..) should not be necessarily interpreted as a secularization of the Judeo Christian god transcendent, but rather can be interpreted as an authentic spirituality and secular neo-pagan completely separate from the destiny of Christianity.

This has an impact also on the political point of view. In fact, you can then through the pagan culture and neo-pagan conceive a government truly democratic, that has so far failed because the concept of sovereignty that we have inherited comes from the secularization of the theological concept of Christian sovereignty of Almighty God (K. Schmitt). Since the Christian God is a God almighty, the concept of sovereignty Almighty is the origin of totalitarianism, because the monarchy, the sovereignty of the king, a mirror of God's sovereignty, it becomes absolute (see Bodin), but then, during the era of bourgeois -Member, become absolute the sovereignty of law, and then, during the dictatorships of the twentieth century, the sovereignty of the party (which becomes identical to the state). The statolatria dictatorships of the twentieth century is not so due to Hegel, but rather to the fact that the statolatria is actually partitolatria, ie the absolute sovereignty of the party.

identifying the state with the community, however, we can deduce logically a concept truly democratic politics (direct democracy) redesigning so the very notion of sovereignty away from the theological concepts.

Topless Costa 2010 -rica Cruise

How do I see my position paganism

The need is what distinguishes the secular thought and the greek relation to Christian thought. For Christians, the world is the result of free choice of God, and the same man in Catholicism is free and subject to sin.

For greek Instead, the gods and men are not free, but are subject to fate, symbolized by the fates. The mission of the greek is not to change the future, but deal with what is already written in the most heroic and honorable. There is a gap unbridgeable between man and god, there is one supreme God who judges, that rewards and punishes. The same actions of God are subject to fate, and are inseparable from the whole. The god is thus conceived as a monad Almighty who decides to create something ... The greek knows no prospect of salvation, a paradise afterlife. His logic is a logic in which the divine is in everything, is immanent, and immanent is the ultimate meaning of Greek life.

Religion Greek religion is not a cold and impersonal, the characters have the human and divine characters gil men, and men compete with the gods, and are allied with some of the distrust of others. There is no division, but inseparable from the human and the divine center, conceived as immanent in the sense enclosed together by fate and history preserved.

What role can have a Providence, if there's destiny?

From my point of view it is perfectly possible to harmonize the design of Providence provided by Vico, God Hegelian historical, and the fate greek.

gods intervene in human affairs, then providence is not incompatible with destiny. This statement can be explained in more mundane but more understandable way:

"are leading an army, my legions were decimated: at some point I get from my hill a military ally, who comes to help me out. "Definitely the limited subjective point of view this is the work of divine providence, which came to my rescue. The difference between a Christian and a secular providence is therefore in need: "God has not chosen in a completely free, it was fate that I asked for help and he was generous with me, sending a military ally. "

What exists is not only the only the subjectivity or objectivity, but there is only the absolute union of the two.

There is indeed a good and an evil from the objective point of view, it exists only in relation to subjectivity. For me it was good to receive reinforcements, for my enemy was an evil, and we have both right (in the sense that our subjective assessment is real, and therefore it is rational in the Hegelian sense) ... the god (and man) as historical subjects, they may think that something is good or bad, but from the standpoint of fate, there is no good or bad.

The Destiny is the reign of the objective, but as such this realm does not exist by itself can not exist ... the objective of the kingdom without the need for subjective realm of freedom: the only reality then is the Hegelian historical totality conceived, designed as synthesis between freedom and necessity.

The man and the gods are the representatives of Subjectivity particular, the subjective spirit (free, Thesis).

The destiny (symbolized the activity weaver of fates) is the objective spirit (need, antithesis).

The truth, the reality is that there exist separately, but all that There is the summary (the full historical Hegelian synthesis, I call absolute spirit, because the reality in which coexist both the object and the subjective. They are united because the reality, the whole is Reason, and the intellect instead splits the whole creating a formal separation against).

Reason, the totality, there can be no history, that is not the time. Here in Spinoza, who conceives the whole as a substance, is a claim to total needs at the expense of freedom, so that the philosopher comes to affirm the freedom only as an awareness reached of the need, that is to be part of all of the substance (knowledge of God). Spinoza absolutizes the substance (which is characterized necessarily), and may do so because in his monistic philosophy excludes the time, becoming. He realizes that the temporal reality is a synthesis of freedom and necessity, but because of the use of the "geometrical method", has reached a correct view of what is the totality. The intuition that gives rise to the knowledge of geometry is in fact a tool to grab the space but not time (symbolized, already by Kant as a key element of mathematics, since both in algebra and in the measurement of time There is the idea of \u200b\u200bsuccession). Spinoza also struck by the Galilean science, but know through repeatable experiments, that is, stopping the time: the historical time but can not be stopped, is the element of implementing all of the Company.

conclude with an answer to the question: what is providence? Providence is the work of a god in the context of the totality, of a god who is not free but is part of the whole that includes, in addition to him, fate, the man and the other gods. The god is not absolutely free (as the Christian God), because it is not omnipotent, because it is beyond the the history and destiny. Not being absolutely transcendent, can not be absolutely free in his actions. At the same time, God is not absolutely needed in its actions, because otherwise there would be action and there is nothing but an empty target, without subjects, without and without the men, a senseless fate.

In this pagan universe, space would undoubtedly help from a god, but the prayers of atonement would be foolish to mitigate the anger of a Christian God is transcendent and omnipotent. The Christian God is contradictory because it claims that there is time for men only and not for God, not prove it. That's So God because, unlike man, a person not bound by time, becomes in the minds of the faithful something absolute. By denying the historicity of God absolutizes a part of the thesis, you can lose yourself in logical terms the argument with the synthesis.

Mario Salieri Freewatch

planet is too small.

In his essays, Montaigne writes of himself, the health of its pleasures and amusements, the individual Montaigne occupies all the space, there is no other.

few decades before, in "Gargantua and Pantagruel", the human body is the protagonist. This body claims, shake, it expands, even the border and the world body thins and becomes transparent.

But

now I wonder: maybe it went beyond what Montaigne meant at the time? Perhaps the environmental and ecological problems of today stem from this source also. If man makes himself the center will feel empowered to meet their material needs without imposing limits?

But I do not think we have always been materialistic. Just that sometimes we tell ourselves something to convince us that we are not. Or that we are special and therefore entitled to be.

The issue is complex. It expects other post for discussion.

Best Bra Small Breasts 2010

Since today is the day the invitations to read, I invite readers to read Edward Carr of the post-Bolshevik revolution.
I believe that despite the great work done by Lenin, it is possible to draw some conclusions:
a) the working class is not revolutionary, because there are situations in which he loses the desire to participate in power
b) the working class is revolutionary, because even if you conquered the factories, the bourgeois have a technical background that makes them indispensable
c) The centralization of Lenin (dictated by the historical conditions) was the prelude to the party burocraticizzazione
d) The folly of rapid industrialization has led to an unjustified use of force higher labor exploitation carried out under conditions of bourgeois liberalism (I refer especially to investment in heavy industry)

I am for federalism (as opposed to centralism and State), for direct democracy (as opposed to parties but to the community ) and for harmony between the classes. They are for the measure, so do not welcome the idea of \u200b\u200bthe enormous profit, which, as explained Weber, was ultimately a religious character. Are communitarian, neither right nor left.

Rid Of Internal Hemorrhoids Forum

Cit.

Prometheus chained to the rock in the Caucasus is condemned, materially, to inaction, but that his indomitable pride of Titan, which declared war and throws miacce against the lord of the universe, is, in effect greek, activities at the highest level. The act belongs to Greek tragedy and suffering. "Who does suffer" here is the fundamental idea that it instills. His soul is not the suffering itself, but the intimate connection between the suffering and acting

(Pohlenz)

Perhaps it was written that the freedom of Europe would not be born after the liberation, but by the plague. Perhaps it was written that, as the release was born from the sufferings of slavery and war, freedom would be born suffering from new and terrible plague brought by liberation. Freedom is expensive. Much more expensive than slavery. And you do not pay or the gold, nor blood, nor with most noble sacrifice, but with cowardice, prostitution, treason, with all the rot of the human soul.

(C. Malaparte)

"Chorus: and the fates who the helm ever stand up?

Prometheus: The Furies avenging, and TriForma Parche

Chorus: What? Of them is less powerful Jupiter?

Prometheus: Not even Jupiter to its fate can escape

(Aeschylus)

The man, growing to gigantic height, is conquered by its own civilization, forcing the gods to ally themselves with him, because in his own wisdom holds the existence and the limits it

(Nietzsche)

Genital Herpes Slogan

We know who we are?

About we are always there, in almost all websites. But it said about us before publishing is not so simple. I am a webwriter, I just started to do so. And now I ask myself many questions. Open a blog is a great challenge. I always thought that I would only if I had something to write. Let 's see: I am interested in agriculture, ecology and issues related to animals. I like photography and horseback riding and will host welcomes those who want to write about these topics.

Good. Now I feel.

Wedding Short Messages

genesis and evolution of totalitarianism: Reflections on Nietzsche's philosophical and political

'm beginning to think that politics is not a matter of right or left, but the axis-monarchist bourgeois clericlale (= totalitarian) against aristocratic -People (= federalist, democratic). I have my reasons to think so: the absolutism of the monarchy is the reaction to the desire independence of the feudal aristocracy. Absolutism also promoted by the bourgeoisie, which, as well explains De Benoist, could not bear the restrictions imposed by the powers of the local lords, and then in France supports the king. Clergy and monarchy (with the support silent but critical of the growing middle class) develop a concept of rule of a religious nature, absolute, in contrast with the processes federalist Althusius. At one point, the middle classes became so powerful that after removal of the nobles, also eliminate the monarchy and the clergy, and, behold, therefore, the French Revolution, followed by a totalitarian liberal form of parliament. The French Revolution is not the beginning of freedom, but the continuation of the design bourgeois absolute power, power that can now handle themselves in parliament. The parliament, totalitarian element of the new bourgeois power, it is freedom in it, but it is a fictitious liberty, for participants at the "banquet" are also parliamentary form of totalitarianism (the right of parliament professes to return to the old absolutism, a totalitarianism no longer in step with the needs of the bourgeoisie, while the left will be the one responsible for the Jacobin terror that I assimilate to totalitarianism).

The bourgeoisie does not like politics, does not control the parliament directly but indirectly, by requiring the institutional form. The bourgeoisie has imposed the idea of \u200b\u200bright and left, ideas that were brought forward in history, and could not overcome the set-up because born of bourgeois bourgeois revolution of 1789. And now we come to the dictatorships of the twentieth century. These dictatorships are proposed as an alternative to bourgeois parliamentarism, but it can be said to have failed. Why? Let us first fascism. Fascism is a movement that restores the power of the absolutist state, expressed in the form of law. Fascism is a totalitarian, because it has a conception of the state in my opinion close to the monarchical-clerical (and in fact is not by chance that in the manifesto of intellectual fascists mentions the king and the Tradition, "from which an arrogant and threatening the opposition individuals with State is deprived of its authority, a decline in the prestige of the King and the Army, symbols of the nation the above individuals and particular groups of citizens "). It also has a religious state that closely resembles the absolutist conception of the state monarchy, and that it is the opposite of the concept federalist Althusius: "The policy of felt and advocated as a training ground of self-denial and sacrifice of the individual to an idea in which the individual can find his purpose in life, his freedom and all his rights; idea that homeland [...] tradition so and mission.

Hence the religious character of Fascism "(manifesto of the intellectuals Fascists). Italian fascism has, however, in common with liberalism, the idea that the law is above individuals. In the manifesto of the anti-fascist intellectuals, drawn from the Cross, we read: "or where, with easy rhetorical heat, we celebrate the dutiful submission to all the individuals, as if what is in question, and not the ability of authoritarian forms ensure the most effective moral elevation. " It 'obvious that for both the State, whether in parliament or in the form of dictatorship, is an absolute state, because the law is absolute, and must be insidacabile abnegation of the individual towards the whole.

Fascism also has one thing in common with Soviet Communism: Blanquism-Jacobinism, but totally foreign to Marx.

"man of action rather than computer theories, Blanqui was convinced that the proletariat would create a society of free and equal only through armed insurrection GUIDED BY A SMALL MINORITY well organized and determined to impose its dictatorship. Blanqui He devoted his entire life to this cause, without being discouraged or exile or from jail sentences when he was repeatedly condemned.

should be noted that Blanqui was always respected and also picked up by areas of Fascism revolutionary, and Mussolini himself "(from wikipedia).

The revolution of Lenin is a revolution Blanquist / Jacobean completely contrary to the ideas of Marx (who may already have noticed in terror Jacobin a manifestation of modern totalitarianism):

"Already Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels are both of these readings. Basically averse Jacobinism, akin to Blanquism are the exponents of the Second International, and reformist than revolutionary. But Jacobinism is claimed in 1904 by Lenin, which defines the Social revolutionary as the "Jacobin indissolubly linked to the organization of the proletariat, conscious of their class interests" (from wikipedia).

Karl Popper is not critical simply dictatorships, but criticizes Marx and Hegel, in his opinion the origin of totalitarianism. In reality Marx was the mistake of thinking that could be a totalitarian dictatorship, that is a dictatorship of the majority (and here Bakunin was right). As for Hegel, totalitarianism is completely out of place, but it does apply well to the Cross and the liberal fascist Gentile, albeit in different ways and with different nuances. Because it is completely out of place? For in Hegel the family and civil society are dialectical elements necessary for the Community state, a state of morals, as in liberalism and fascism are, if they are too independent, an obstacle to the uncontested domain of the law (in the case of liberal parliamentary and dictatorial in If the fascist-communist). In Hegel the state is a summary of family and civil society, while the other two philosophers family and civil society must submit to the will of the state, which is therefore a state that stands above the people.

Finally we speak of the aristocracy, federalism and democracy. Nietzsche: aristocratic spirit. Berdyaev: aristocrat. Bakunin: aristocrat. What they have in common these philosophers? Nietzsche is ambiguous, because while it is proved beyond moralism Jacobin and fascist (as a destroyer of morals) and positivism (= belief in progress) liberal lies finally in a horizon individualistic bourgeois press. But Nietzsche is the first to realize that modernity has a disease, and, paradoxically, all his action is ultimately in an attempt, unsuccessful, to object to modernity (which is what is called the Dionysian spirit of the Greeks). How Nietzsche is opposed to totalitarianism? In his very poetic and abstract language, Nietzsche called totalitarianism "dell'apollineo supremacy" and came to share the reason for the state overall. Approaches partly true, for what we said at the beginning of the test, but fails to realize that not all philosophers of Reason (Apollonian) are opposed to the Dionysian (first of all Hegel, which I think is not an anti- Dionysian, as it has a thought that can be traced back to the right or left).

Berdyaev and Bakunin: the first is a democratic philosophy, the second is an anarchist philosopher. Both are aristocrats, and both are opposed to totalitarianism (see "State and Anarchy" Bakunin and "slavery and human freedom" of Berdyaev).