I watched this slick operator reinvent everything except Romania .On that I more than absorbed Richard Wurmbrand 's books .
I found Darry Cooper a subsumptive .
I also think the fact that he works as a defense contractor in EU ( undisclosed details) is cogent .
I admire his tells .
If I were to use any of them I would say he (DC) is a plant .
Please convince me otherwise ,although I think's Mo's idea of sending -Gabriels- a fifth of strong alcohol ,BEFORE (G) labyrinthically waylays meta details is a start .
I saw his (DC's ) take on serbia as so truncated ,as to be insulting ,for anyone who lives there,and loves serbs .
I relish CF 's laying bare of sources ,but I want his blood type .
In that it is all so easy to be 99% contextural ,with a 1% of spin that truly re paragimates .
Ie discombobulates .
My aim is to see how much of that 1% is 'the yeast of the pharisees' .
From the little I have listened to, I am sceptical of these takes. Five hours is too short for such grandiose, ambitious, speculations. Remember, in any life, whether your own or that of others, you can always dig deeper. If you want. Some people never know when to stop. One assumption here, which is only revealed in a limited way, would be the widespread, indeed universal, ideal of marriage, and monogamous marriage at that. An absurdity imposed by others, not always, perhaps seldom, chosen. The core principle of marriage is exclusion, i.e. rejection, and not love. This sets people up as rivals. See http://www.thinking-for-clarity.de/family.html and http://www.thinking-for-clarity.de/love.html.
To read and understand Nietzsche you need many years, it cannot be done by twenty, especially if you wish to learn German in order to appreciate his full brilliance. Dostievsky may need longer, Russian certainly does.
The speaker is engaging in psychoanalysis of people long dead. Then jumps to contemporary figures and anecdotes. There is an air of superiority, of arrogance, in the fluent talk. The talk is indeed fluent, which in itself is quite an achievement. Obvious a clever man, but has he done the due diligence? Given each their due? I doubt it.
I watched this slick operator reinvent everything except Romania .On that I more than absorbed Richard Wurmbrand 's books .
I found Darry Cooper a subsumptive .
I also think the fact that he works as a defense contractor in EU ( undisclosed details) is cogent .
I admire his tells .
If I were to use any of them I would say he (DC) is a plant .
Please convince me otherwise ,although I think's Mo's idea of sending -Gabriels- a fifth of strong alcohol ,BEFORE (G) labyrinthically waylays meta details is a start .
I saw his (DC's ) take on serbia as so truncated ,as to be insulting ,for anyone who lives there,and loves serbs .
I relish CF 's laying bare of sources ,but I want his blood type .
In that it is all so easy to be 99% contextural ,with a 1% of spin that truly re paragimates .
Ie discombobulates .
My aim is to see how much of that 1% is 'the yeast of the pharisees' .
So help me out ,please .
From the little I have listened to, I am sceptical of these takes. Five hours is too short for such grandiose, ambitious, speculations. Remember, in any life, whether your own or that of others, you can always dig deeper. If you want. Some people never know when to stop. One assumption here, which is only revealed in a limited way, would be the widespread, indeed universal, ideal of marriage, and monogamous marriage at that. An absurdity imposed by others, not always, perhaps seldom, chosen. The core principle of marriage is exclusion, i.e. rejection, and not love. This sets people up as rivals. See http://www.thinking-for-clarity.de/family.html and http://www.thinking-for-clarity.de/love.html.
To read and understand Nietzsche you need many years, it cannot be done by twenty, especially if you wish to learn German in order to appreciate his full brilliance. Dostievsky may need longer, Russian certainly does.
The speaker is engaging in psychoanalysis of people long dead. Then jumps to contemporary figures and anecdotes. There is an air of superiority, of arrogance, in the fluent talk. The talk is indeed fluent, which in itself is quite an achievement. Obvious a clever man, but has he done the due diligence? Given each their due? I doubt it.