–“Reasons? Catholicism, mostly: The Church forbade smoking back when it ruled Mexico, and the stigma resonates to the present day.”–
Source date (UTC): 2023-04-03 15:29:06 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1642912115626221568
Reply addressees: @enigma3078 @TabbyTeamster @Steve_Sailer @nsjersey
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1642898639642062849
Christianity, and the village worked.
Anything with hypersocialization will work.
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-27 16:32:04 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640391246710538241
Reply addressees: @DaruneAlbane @polemicdrop
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640389853375332352
“Q: IS THERE GOOD (OR BAD) CONTENT IN RELIGIONS?”
(easier question to answer than you’d think)
Generally speaking, ALL religions teach non-aggression, and means of non-aggression, within the possible trust-order (low to high) of the population. The means of teaching non-aggression in different trust-orders varies. And so the mythologies vary.
As such the universal morality that all religions share is something worth observing because it’s simply a means of non-aggression (peaceful cooperation). Religions in the time of religious formation (the age of transformation) all evolved for the same reason: the restoration of civilization, trade, and population after the bronze age collapse.
When religions differ, if they differ by trust order, then some religions are better and some worse.
If they differ in the ritual means of getting there – rituals etc -, that’s usually a derivation of their trust order.
And if they teach differences in responsibility for the commons (evasion of reality, to responsibility within reality) that’s a significant difference as well that we can judge as good or bad.
So, we can judge the good and bad of every religion (and philosophy for that matter). The fact that they provide mindfulness by means of ritual that sedates neuroticism and alienation, by rituals of non-aggression, and rules to preserve non-aggression, doesn’t mean much. People justify what they know.
However, we can rather easily compare good and bad religions. And it looks very similar to good and bad government, good and bad laws, and good and bad economies, and good and bad science and technology.
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-27 15:49:12 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640380458889355264
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640377512373940224
“Q: IS THERE GOOD (OR BAD) CONTENT IN RELIGIONS?”
(easier question to answer than you’d think)
Generally speaking, ALL religions teach non-aggression, and means of non-aggression, within the possible trust-order (low to high) of the population. The means of teaching non-aggression in different trust-orders varies. And so the mythologies vary.
As such the universal morality that all religions share is something worth observing because it’s simply a means of non-aggression (peaceful cooperation). Religions in the time of religious formation (the age of transformation) all evolved for the same reason: the restoration of civilization, trade, and population after the bronze age collapse.
When religions differ, if they differ by trust order, then some religions are better and some worse.
If they differ in the ritual means of getting there – rituals etc -, that’s usually a derivation of their trust order.
And if they teach differences in responsibility for the commons (evasion of reality, to responsibility within reality) that’s a significant difference as well that we can judge as good or bad.
So, we can judge the good and bad of every religion (and philosophy for that matter). The fact that they provide mindfulness by means of ritual that sedates neuroticism and alienation, by rituals of non-aggression, and rules to preserve non-aggression, doesn’t mean much. People justify what they know.
However, we can rather easily compare good and bad religions. And it looks very similar to good and bad government, good and bad laws, and good and bad economies, and good and bad science and technology.
Reply addressees: @polemicdrop @ViriatusII
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-27 15:49:12 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640380458700623872
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640377512373940224
Since 09.
And yes, of course, I know you are probably a lost cause. But moral obligation and the Christian doctrine compel me to try to save you from yourselves. lol
(sorry. couldn’t resist.)
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-27 01:03:09 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640157476380188673
Reply addressees: @iowancap
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640150664348160000
EUROPEAN MASCULINE VS ABRAHAMIC FEMININE
Europeanism: Prohibition on authority results in Trifunctionalism (duty of each sex and class and elites (state/force, legal/reciprocal, religious/caretaking in cooperation with one another)). All are due respect for doing their duty-to-the-commons regardless of rank.
-vs-
1. Marxism: Monopoly of underclass means and ends
2. NeoMarxism: Monopoly of Cosmopolitanisms means and ends.
3. Feminism: monopoly of female means and ends.
4. Libertarianism: Monopoly of middle-class means and ends.
5. NeoConservatism: Monopoly of upper class means and ends.
6. Woke: Monopoly of Cosmopolitanism as systemic warfare against european trifunctionalism – (and as a consequence a war against evolution itself.)
-vs-
European law of rule of law (applicable to all equally), commonality(dispute resolution), and concurrency(in voting) by the evidence (competition) vs Jewish and French law of authority (monopoly) by elites (positive law).
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-27 00:22:53 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640147342463578112
EUROPEAN MASCULINE VS ABRAHAMIC FEMININE
Europeanism: Prohibition on authority results in Trifunctionalism (duty of each sex and class and elites (state/force, legal/reciprocal, religious/caretaking in cooperation with one another)). All are due respect for doing their duty-to-the-commons regardless of rank.
-vs-
1. Marxism: Monopoly of underclass means and ends
2. NeoMarxism: Monopoly of Cosmopolitanisms means and ends.
3. Feminism: monopoly of female means and ends.
4. Libertarianism: Monopoly of middle-class means and ends.
5. NeoConservatism: Monopoly of upper class means and ends.
6. Woke: Monopoly of Cosmopolitanism as systemic warfare against european trifunctionalism – (and as a consequence a war against evolution itself.)
-vs-
European law of rule of law (applicable to all equally), commonality(dispute resolution), and concurrency(in voting) by the evidence (competition) vs Jewish and French law of authority (monopoly) by elites (positive law).
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-27 00:22:53 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640147342358634496
You say that without comprehending where the vedic came from – as if it was anything other than an evolution of prior superstition. And like all superstition has an orgin in the psychology of humans. Which like all psychology is simply a product of the hierarchy of structures of the human brain as it tries to disambiguate it’s sense into a prediction of reality that it can act on with increasing foresight.
You do not comprehend what you just stated, and if not, how can you claim to testify that there is such a thing as god, and that the entire list you provide is anything other than a hierarch of fictions by ignorant creatures only barely evovled from great apes.
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-26 21:46:40 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640108027608018947
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640105178203561984
You say that without comprehending where the vedic came from – as if it was anything other than an evolution of prior superstition. And like all superstition has an orgin in the psychology of humans. Which like all psychology is simply a product of the hierarchy of structures of the human brain as it tries to disambiguate it’s sense into a prediction of reality that it can act on with increasing foresight.
You do not comprehend what you just stated, and if not, how can you claim to testify that there is such a thing as god, and that the entire list you provide is anything other than a hierarch of fictions by ignorant creatures only barely evovled from great apes.
Reply addressees: @WoodworkerBear
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-26 21:46:40 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640108027490578433
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640105178203561984
It’s very hard to ‘science’ that set of sentences, since the terms are themselves pseudoscientific. Instead there is a tendency of christian sects to vary by trinitarian metaphysics, giving priority differently to each vertex. But if we science this trinity it’s a reflection of trifunctionalism, which is a reflection of the sex differences, and in turn the equilibration of the universe. So Instead of that abstraction, if we science the method of argument: theology/pilpul, sophistry/philosophy, dialectical materialism/critique, vs testimony/science etc, what we end up with is the masculine vs feminine spectrum of truth to deceit, and just a spectrum of means of lying. So it doesn’t matter what people claim, it matters more the method of how they claim it. And they claim it mostly to lie.
Source date (UTC): 2023-03-26 21:16:33 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640100449503137794
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640097330706751488