[I] don’t claim to be an atheist. I talk to my god every day. The difference is I understand that god or gods exist as information in men’s minds. And just as I can imagine talking with you, I can imagine talking with that god. Which is why we have gods – because we can do that. And because it works. And because it is somewhat difficult to lie to ourselves when imagining a diety that can read our minds – because these deities CAN read our minds. And they provide the same value as a therapist does, or parables do – they provide disintermediation from our intuitions. As such they prevent us from lying to ourselves. That is why gods do their job. They are a system of measurement of human thought, display, word, and deed without limit. A complete system of measurement for interpreting the world and its fitness for our group evolutionary strategy, and how to work within that world and according to our strategy. Unfortunately, this habit can be turned into an addictive disease (Abrahamism). Or it can be turned into an encyclopedia (gods who are competitors or at least of little recourse, the primacy of man despite those gods, heroes of history, and the heroes among us. ) Gods are literary characters, that function as archetypes for, a group’s evolutionary strategy – and some are good and some are bad, and history determines by the evidence the consequences of those gods. The abrahamic are worst of all. Now one might say that if there is no god above this universe and its laws then that is not then god by their definifion. One could also say that this universe produces all that it does by calculating through trial and error its survival from the pressure of entropy and that it as such the universe is a god that we attribute anthropomorphic traits to because we have primitive minds, and that the universe produces us, and gods that we can understand to serve it. Or one could say that the universe can only form as it does, and that life, sentience, and systems of measurement in the self-image of the sentient life are manifestations of the same laws of the universe. It doesn’t matter unless you want others to believe your lies on your terms. So therefore the most likely answer is the one that requires the least lies. The mechanistic universe from which all defeat of entropy will eventually manifest if it possibly can. ie: sentience and archetypes. Survival of the test of least lies.
Form: Mini Essay
-
The Principle of Least Lies
[I] don’t claim to be an atheist. I talk to my god every day. The difference is I understand that god or gods exist as information in men’s minds. And just as I can imagine talking with you, I can imagine talking with that god. Which is why we have gods – because we can do that. And because it works. And because it is somewhat difficult to lie to ourselves when imagining a diety that can read our minds – because these deities CAN read our minds. And they provide the same value as a therapist does, or parables do – they provide disintermediation from our intuitions. As such they prevent us from lying to ourselves. That is why gods do their job. They are a system of measurement of human thought, display, word, and deed without limit. A complete system of measurement for interpreting the world and its fitness for our group evolutionary strategy, and how to work within that world and according to our strategy. Unfortunately, this habit can be turned into an addictive disease (Abrahamism). Or it can be turned into an encyclopedia (gods who are competitors or at least of little recourse, the primacy of man despite those gods, heroes of history, and the heroes among us. ) Gods are literary characters, that function as archetypes for, a group’s evolutionary strategy – and some are good and some are bad, and history determines by the evidence the consequences of those gods. The abrahamic are worst of all. Now one might say that if there is no god above this universe and its laws then that is not then god by their definifion. One could also say that this universe produces all that it does by calculating through trial and error its survival from the pressure of entropy and that it as such the universe is a god that we attribute anthropomorphic traits to because we have primitive minds, and that the universe produces us, and gods that we can understand to serve it. Or one could say that the universe can only form as it does, and that life, sentience, and systems of measurement in the self-image of the sentient life are manifestations of the same laws of the universe. It doesn’t matter unless you want others to believe your lies on your terms. So therefore the most likely answer is the one that requires the least lies. The mechanistic universe from which all defeat of entropy will eventually manifest if it possibly can. ie: sentience and archetypes. Survival of the test of least lies.
-
EUGENICS SUCCEEDS – EVEN PLATO DISCUSSED IT Eugenics (/juːˈdʒɛnɪks/; from Greek
EUGENICS SUCCEEDS – EVEN PLATO DISCUSSED IT
Eugenics (/juːˈdʒɛnɪks/; from Greek εὐ- “good” and γενής “come into being, growing”) is a set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population,[3][4] historically by excluding people and groups judged to be inferior and promoting those judged to be superior.[5]
HISTORY
The concept predates the term; Plato suggested applying the principles of selective breeding to humans around 400 BC. Early advocates of eugenics in the 19th century regarded it as a way of improving groups of people. In contemporary usage, the term eugenics is closely associated with scientific racism and white supremacism.[2] Modern bioethicists who advocate new eugenics characterise it as a way of enhancing individual traits, regardless of group membership.
PRE-WAR SUCCESSES
While eugenic principles have been practiced as early as ancient Greece, the contemporary history of eugenics began in the early 20th century, when a popular eugenics movement emerged in the United Kingdom,[6] and then spread to many countries, including the United States, Canada,[7] and most European countries. In this period, people from across the political spectrum espoused eugenic ideas. Consequently, many countries adopted eugenic policies, intended to improve the quality of their populations’ genetic stock. Such programs included both positive measures, such as encouraging individuals deemed particularly “fit” to reproduce, and negative measures, such as marriage prohibitions and forced sterilization of people deemed unfit for reproduction. Those deemed “unfit to reproduce” often included people with mental or physical disabilities, people who scored in the low ranges on different IQ tests, criminals and “deviants,” and members of disfavored minority groups.
DOWNFALL
The eugenics movement became associated with Nazi Germany and the Holocaust when the defense of many of the defendants at the Nuremberg trials of 1945 to 1946 attempted to justify their human-rights abuses by claiming there was little difference between the Nazi eugenics programs and the U.S. eugenics programs.[8] In the decades following World War II, with more emphasis on human rights, many countries began to abandon eugenics policies, although some Western countries (the United States, Canada, and Sweden among them) continued to carry out forced sterilizations.
REVIVAL
Since the 1980s and 1990s, with new assisted reproductive technology procedures available, such as gestational surrogacy (available since 1985), preimplantation genetic diagnosis (available since 1989), and cytoplasmic transfer (first performed in 1996), concern has grown about the possible revival of a more potent form of eugenics after decades of promoting human rights.
CRITICISM
A criticism of eugenics policies is that, regardless of whether negative or positive policies are used, they are susceptible to abuse because the genetic selection criteria are determined by whichever group has political power at the time.[9] Furthermore, many criticize negative eugenics in particular as a violation of basic human rights, seen since 1968’s Proclamation of Tehran[10] as including the right to reproduce. Another criticism is that eugenics policies eventually lead to a loss of genetic diversity, thereby resulting in inbreeding depression due to a loss of genetic variation.[11] Yet another criticism of contemporary eugenics policies is that they propose to permanently and artificially disrupt millions of years of evolution, and that attempting to create genetic lines “clean” of “disorders” can have far-reaching ancillary downstream effects in the genetic ecology, including negative effects on immunity and on species resilience.[12]
(via wikipedia)
Source date (UTC): 2020-07-21 12:56:00 UTC
-
THE PRINCIPLE OF LEAST LIES I don’t claim to be an atheist. I talk to my god eve
THE PRINCIPLE OF LEAST LIES
I don’t claim to be an atheist. I talk to my god every day. The difference is I understand that god or gods exist as information in men’s minds. And just as I can imagine talking with you, I can imagine talking with that god. Which is why we have gods – because we can do that. And because it works. And because it is somewhat difficult to lie to ourselves when imagining a diety that can read our minds – because these deities CAN read our minds. And they provide the same value as a therapist does, or parables do – they provide disintermediation from our intuitions. As such they prevent us from lying to ourselves.
That is why gods do their job. They are a system of measurement of human thought, display, word, and deed without limit. A complete system of measurement for interpreting the world and its fitness for our group evolutionary strategy, and how to work within that world and according to our strategy.
Unfortunately, this habit can be turned into an addictive disease (Abrahamism). Or it can be turned into an encyclopedia (gods who are competitors or at least of little recourse, the primacy of man despite those gods, heroes of history, and the heroes among us. ) Gods are literary characters, that function as archetypes for, a group’s evolutionary strategy – and some are good and some are bad, and history determines by the evidence the consequences of those gods. The abrahamic are worst of all.
Now one might say that if there is no god above this universe and its laws then that is not then god by their definifion.
One could also say that this universe produces all that it does by calculating through trial and error its survival from the pressure of entropy and that it as such the universe is a god that we attribute anthropomorphic traits to because we have primitive minds, and that the universe produces us, and gods that we can understand to serve it.
Or one could say that the universe can only form as it does, and that life, sentience, and systems of measurement in the self-image of the sentient life are manifestations of the same laws of the universe.
It doesn’t matter unless you want others to believe your lies on your terms. So therefore the most likely answer is the one that requires the least lies.
The mechanistic universe from which all defeat of entropy will eventually manifest if it possibly can.
ie: sentience and archetypes.
Survival of the test of least lies.
Source date (UTC): 2020-07-21 10:50:00 UTC
-
TRANSCENDING ABRAHAMIC METHOD OF DECEIT Abrahamism like Aristotelianism and Conf
TRANSCENDING ABRAHAMIC METHOD OF DECEIT
Abrahamism like Aristotelianism and Confucianism consists of a means of persuasion: a ‘grammar’. Aristotelian Truth, Confucian Wisdom, and Abrahamic Deceit. Aristotle and Confucius make no false promises, bait man with no lies, speak of the beauty of life. The Abrahamic death cults hate life, hate civilization, and promise falsehoods to bait the ignorance into supernatural submission, rather than the hard work of developing agency.
There is a reason the European Jews did nothing except produce volumes of mysticism, develop organized financial crime; the Christians did nothing but spread superstition, ignorance, and reverse Greco roman literacy learning and commerce; and the Muslims reduced to ignorance, dysgenic, and ashes every great civilization of the ancient world. Abrahamic religions are just an addictive drug for those unwilling and lacking leadership that trains them as the Romans and Greeks did, through incentives for status, into developing agency: knowledge of, adaptation to, and application of, the physical, natural, evolutionary laws, by thought, display, word, and deed, of realism, naturalism, and operationalism.
My work merely exposes the Abrahamic method of deceit that utilizes the female strategy of seduction and addiction, using false unwarrantable promises of freedom from physical natural and evolutionary laws, and extends existing law on fraud to criminalize the Abrahamic method of fraud and political warfare, in all speech in public to the public in matters public. That’s the premise of the work. The prohibition on false promises baiting into hazard. And the reformation of our informational, educational, economic, and political commons to purge those false promises.
Grow up. Man up. Face the Truth. Learn from the east Chinese and our pre-Christian ancestors – the only peoples to escape the great lies. There are no gods but those we imagine. And those we imagine are literary archetypes, that provide a system of intuitionistic measurement for our group’s strategy. And the Abrahamic gods are, at best, when undressed, the most evil demons man can conceive. And we know this by the evidence, no matter what lies and excuses their addicted slaves concoct.
Aristotle is our lawgiver: the laws of nature. Tyr/Tiwaz is our god (universal military militia). Heroes of History are our Demigods. Stoicism/Epicureanism are our religion of mindfulness. Only Nature and Ancestors and Nature are due our debts (worship). And all universalist gods are the enemy of our people. Jesus was – at best – a philosopher the eastern empire dressed up in garb to make the conquered peoples submissive so that they could be taxed and ruled. At worst he was another Abrahamic deceiver who taught the dysgenic bottom, like Gandhi, how do undermine the aristocracy that sought to drag mankind out of ignorance, superstition, and poverty.
Aristotelianism is the most advanced system of thought most correspondent with the laws of the universe, that empowers man to transcend the animal, and Abrahamism is the most advanced system of lying to deny them and destroy mankind ever invented.
The Byzantines the Romans and finally the Germans, and then Germanized Christianity, and the British in science, the french in socialism, the germans in philosophy – all Europeans – seek to escape it with Americans the only hold outs.
The only problem is they failed to replace it. Or rather they replaced it with the doctrine of human rights, without providing the stoic discipline, political discipline, social integration, or german culture to bring it about.
This is a problem we can solve.
Source date (UTC): 2020-07-21 10:10:00 UTC
-
NO THE CANCER OF THE LEFT HASN”T GONE TOO FAR – UNTIL THE ELECTION. THE STRATEGY
NO THE CANCER OF THE LEFT HASN”T GONE TOO FAR – UNTIL THE ELECTION. THE STRATEGY WILL WORK
—“If the social revolution is the global metastasis (of sense) already far gone, that is, already extended to and infiltrated regionally, is a regional compromise not impossible? And is a military strategy not doomed to failure, by sheer imbalance of robot numbers, both human and machine?”—Pierre Rousseau
No, the strategy will work because it’s ‘real’ not just verbal or moralizing but offers real material benefits to everyone at the expense of world elites. The problem is getting past the noise into discussion of those benefits.
And because if the ‘threat’ of having 100k men moving about, consuming everything in their path, picking up more men as they go along, even if they do nothing martial, doesn’t work – then letting them loose on infrastructure will do the rest.
Controlling the narrative forces the discussion on policy.
Discussing the policy exposes the system of lying.
Removing the myth of state power removes the will to resist.
The worst that happens is separation.
The gov’t cannot ‘fire on’ its own people when they are asking for financial reforms without world justification for ‘punishing the government’ from without.
It will work flawlessly – If we get 100k people before the left takes office.
Source date (UTC): 2020-07-21 09:37:00 UTC
-
Why Are All Sociologists Leftist (Not Right)
WHY ARE ALL SOCIOLOGISTS LEFTIST (NOT RIGHT) Sociology is a leftists discipline because it is the Pseudoscience and the center of the replication crisis: the measurement of reported interests (virtue signaling). Right-wing ‘social science’ consists of aristocratic politics, law, and economics: the sciences of measuring demonstrated interests. The Right-wing uses science: Rule of law that produces markets that determine one’s value to others, economics to measure the success at rule of law in producing those markets, policy to supplement those markets – and we don’t deny the fact that natural selection must continue by continuing the western tradition of limiting reproduction to those that can survive and pay for their offspring by service of one another in those markets, with those policies, under that rule of law, measured by economics, and correspondence with, and coherence with, physical, natural, and evolutionary laws. Period. The purpose of non-economic ‘social science’ beginning with Boaz, is purely Jewish cosmopolitan universalist, and its Marxist, Neo-Marxist, Postmodernist (second Jewish counter-revolution against truth, reason, science): is to provide pseudo-scientific cover for the Great Lies: The Great Lies of That Deny The Physical, Natural, and Evolutionary Laws 1. The Nature of Man (acquisitive, amoral, kin selective, super-predator), 2. The Variation in Man (Races, classes, sexes, ages, generations), 3. The Malleability of Man (the slate isn’t blank or rewritable), 4. The Inevitability of The Red Queen (preventing regression to the mean – eugneics) 5. The Possibility of Endless Growth (end of scarcity); And therefore: 6. The Myth of Oppression: to claim Europeans are ‘evil’ and ‘oppressors’ for the discovery of physical, natural, and evolutionary laws, domesticating themselves and others, so that Europeans nearly single-handedly dragged mankind out of superstition, ignorance, hard labor, poverty, disease, suffering, and early death. The purpose of the first Jewish-Christian-Islamic counter-revolution against European civilization, and the purpose of the second Jewish Marxist, postmodernist, feminist, political correctness, counter-revolution against European civilization, is constructed by the myth of oppression, rather than domestication, and that the Great Lies are an alternative to the truth: that we must live within the limits of the physical, natural, and evolutionary laws if we wish to prosper and pass thru the great filter; that only Europeans discovered and adapted to them; an that all other civilizations either failed to develop, or stagnated, or fell, because they failed to have the courage to face the truth: the physical, natural, and evolutionary laws are tragic for man.
-
Why Are All Sociologists Leftist (Not Right)
WHY ARE ALL SOCIOLOGISTS LEFTIST (NOT RIGHT) Sociology is a leftists discipline because it is the Pseudoscience and the center of the replication crisis: the measurement of reported interests (virtue signaling). Right-wing ‘social science’ consists of aristocratic politics, law, and economics: the sciences of measuring demonstrated interests. The Right-wing uses science: Rule of law that produces markets that determine one’s value to others, economics to measure the success at rule of law in producing those markets, policy to supplement those markets – and we don’t deny the fact that natural selection must continue by continuing the western tradition of limiting reproduction to those that can survive and pay for their offspring by service of one another in those markets, with those policies, under that rule of law, measured by economics, and correspondence with, and coherence with, physical, natural, and evolutionary laws. Period. The purpose of non-economic ‘social science’ beginning with Boaz, is purely Jewish cosmopolitan universalist, and its Marxist, Neo-Marxist, Postmodernist (second Jewish counter-revolution against truth, reason, science): is to provide pseudo-scientific cover for the Great Lies: The Great Lies of That Deny The Physical, Natural, and Evolutionary Laws 1. The Nature of Man (acquisitive, amoral, kin selective, super-predator), 2. The Variation in Man (Races, classes, sexes, ages, generations), 3. The Malleability of Man (the slate isn’t blank or rewritable), 4. The Inevitability of The Red Queen (preventing regression to the mean – eugneics) 5. The Possibility of Endless Growth (end of scarcity); And therefore: 6. The Myth of Oppression: to claim Europeans are ‘evil’ and ‘oppressors’ for the discovery of physical, natural, and evolutionary laws, domesticating themselves and others, so that Europeans nearly single-handedly dragged mankind out of superstition, ignorance, hard labor, poverty, disease, suffering, and early death. The purpose of the first Jewish-Christian-Islamic counter-revolution against European civilization, and the purpose of the second Jewish Marxist, postmodernist, feminist, political correctness, counter-revolution against European civilization, is constructed by the myth of oppression, rather than domestication, and that the Great Lies are an alternative to the truth: that we must live within the limits of the physical, natural, and evolutionary laws if we wish to prosper and pass thru the great filter; that only Europeans discovered and adapted to them; an that all other civilizations either failed to develop, or stagnated, or fell, because they failed to have the courage to face the truth: the physical, natural, and evolutionary laws are tragic for man.
-
CHRISTIANITY IN EUROPE WAS A RELIGION OF, FOR, AND BY THE ELITE. (Christianity =
CHRISTIANITY IN EUROPE WAS A RELIGION OF, FOR, AND BY THE ELITE.
(Christianity = Marxism-Postmodernism)
“All roads lead to Rome.
Christianity in Europe was a religion of, for, and by the elite. For example Catholic Mass was given in Latin until 1963. Did peasants speak, read or understand Latin? Not 12th century french peasants that is for damn sure. The elite nature of the church goes back to the original legitimacy of kings. When the Roman Empire collapsed there was a huge power vacuum in the conquered territories. The very small and very young Catholic Church held onto its dominance in Europe by holding onto the power of the ancient Pontiff Maximus. Kindling the ancient legitimacy and glory of Rome the Pope was the origin of authority in Christendom.
Here we have to interject a distinction between the Eastern and western Roman empires. In the Orthodox and Eastern Church the High Priest did not trump the authority of the Kings/Emperors. But, in the West the Pontiff (Pope) did trump the authority of kings. This traditional distinction between the two could go back to Caesar being Pontiff Maximus before being Emperor. And later Constantine being King who appointed priests.
Remember when Napoleon crowned himself Emperor? This was to signify that he stands over the authority of the pope. First off what we know today as France was not completely unified during the Middle Ages. It was actually a diverse place with a Normans, Franks, Goths, Anglo-Germanic peoples, and who could forget the Swiss.
If we start with the two hundred years between Charlemagne and the Norman invasion of Great Britain (East Anglia) in 1066 as a measure we can be assured that peasants in Europe were still very pagan. Charlemagne (crowned by the Pope) spread the authority of the Holy Roman Empire with a sword. Charlemagne is basically the ultimate Christian warrior king for Christ. If you do some digging you will find much of his kingship was spent on horseback spreading the word by spilling blood. He traveled collected taxes and asserted his and the Churches legitimate authority.
In Early Christian France alone there is a very very diverse group of peoples living together. So basically the average peasant would only know what they are told by the Church i.e. the divine nature of the king, the dominance of the Christ, the meaning of the divine birth, and the meaning of Christ’s death. What is interesting is the degree of which the early church in Europe actually adapted the rituals and practices of the people in Europe.
For exapmle we even today still celebrate, May first (Beltaine), Christmas (Saturnalia), Easter(Roman New Year), and Holloween (Samhaine). Have you ever played around a May Pole? Have you ever kissed under Holly? What about drinking at the modern New Year? All of these holidays (Holy Days) were originally pagan holy days. Is it not interesting how we still celebrate them? Did you know the puritan colony of Massachusetts had laws prohibiting all of the aforementioned Holy Days on the grounds that they were in fact Pagan!
So basically the early church appealed to the native religions of Europe by adapting their practices. Because remember, Europeans were the first conquest of the cross they had to be slowly integrated because there were far to many pagans to kill.
So in a TLDR answer to your question a peasant in early christian France would most likely still know about the ancient religion of their forefathers. They would be practicing Christians but the practices of villages across France would be markedly different. If you ever visit France you will notice village saints or church relics across the country. The peasants would know relatively know nothing outside of their small worlds. Being illiterate and with feudal system laws in place tying people to the land there was little opportunity for people to learn much about the world out side of what the local authority figures said. Those saints were once either pagan gods or heroes now forgotten and adapted by the Church. Those relics therein were once pagan relics. This was the only way the early church was able to survive in the Pagan stronghold of Europe. Through a conquest of integration built off of the once Omnipotent authority of the Roman Empire.
Remember Beowulf was written down in the 11th century the line between pagan and christian was still fairly thin well into the renascence. There are some, like Colin, who have even theorized that the Druids, and Pagan Kings went underground joining the church in an attempt to keep their ancient traditions alive.”
Edit: sources:
Viola, Frank and Greg Barna: Pagan Chritianity (2008)
González, Justo L. (1984). The Story of Christianity: Vol. 1: The Early Church to the Reformation. San Francisco: Harper.
Grabar, André (1968). Christian iconography, a study of its origins. Princeton University Press.
Morris, Colin (1989). The papal monarchy : the western church from 1050 to 1250. Oxford: Clarendon.
Source date (UTC): 2020-07-20 18:37:00 UTC
-
WHY ARE ALL SOCIOLOGISTS LEFTIST (NOT RIGHT) Sociology is a leftists discipline
WHY ARE ALL SOCIOLOGISTS LEFTIST (NOT RIGHT)
Sociology is a leftists discipline because it is the Pseudoscience and the center of the replication crisis. Right wing ‘social science’ is aristocratic politics, law, and economics: science. The Right-wing uses science: Rule of law that produces markets that determine one’s value to others, economics to measure the success at rule of law in producing those markets, policy to supplement those markets – and we don’t deny the fact that natural selection must continue by continuing the western tradition of limiting reproduction to those that can survive and pay for their offspring by service of one another in those markets, with those policies, under that rule of law, measured by economics, and correspondence with, and coherence with, physical, natural, and evolutionary laws. Period.
The purpose of ‘social science’ is purely Marxist-Postmodernist (second Jewish counter-revolution against truth, reason, science): is to provide pseudo-scientific cover for the Great Lies: The nature of man (amoral), the variation in man (Race, class, age), the malleability of man (the slate isn’t blank or rewritable), the possibility of endless growth (end of scarcity), and therefore to claim Europeans are ‘evil’ and ‘oppressors’ for the discovery of physical, natural, and evolutionary laws, domesticating themselves and others, so that Europeans nearly single-handedly dragged mankind out of superstition, ignorance, hard labor, poverty, disease, suffering, and early death.
The purpose of the first Jewish-Christian-Islamic counter-revolution against European civilization, and the purpose of the second Jewish Marxist, postmodernist, feminist, political correctness, counter-revolution against European civilization, is constructed by the myth of oppression, rather than domestication, and that the Great Lies are an alternative to the truth: that we must live within the limits of the physical, natural, and evolutionary laws if we wish to prosper and pass thru the great filter; that only Europeans discovered and adapted to them; an that all other civilizations either failed to develop, or stagnated, or fell, because they failed to have the courage to face the truth: the physical, natural, and evolutionary laws are tragic for man.
Source date (UTC): 2020-07-20 17:03:00 UTC