Please don’t use ‘seems like’. There are two idiot-terms I delete. “seems like” and “boomer”.
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-30 12:16:00 UTC
Please don’t use ‘seems like’. There are two idiot-terms I delete. “seems like” and “boomer”.
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-30 12:16:00 UTC
IMPERFECTION IS NOT A CRITICISM OF “BEST” AND PRE-WAR EUROPEAN WAS “BEST”
—“But was it not the colonial project that partly brought in and spiraled Christianity, which movement you so loathe?”—đ€ Jason
Ah, but colonialism brought everything else too. And it is not christianity (imitation of Jesus) that I so deeply object to, but the lies that surround it – the false promises of the unwarrantable, in exchange for blind obedience (trade) rather than self discipline.
Of the four european constructs Aryanism(Achievement), Stoicism(self change), Epicureanism(living within means), and christian submission (denial of reality), only the last requires a false promise.
And there is no false promise in using church to persuade each other to follow the example of Jesus – because we are produce a high trust society capable of commercial expansion by doing so.
I just want to end the lying by abrahamic means, and end the possibility of abrahamic sophism.
We forget that while the europeans invented scientific truth, and the chines rational wisdom, and the hindus mythical wisdom, that the semitic people invented a technology of deceit that was just as powerful as the european technology of truth: abrahamism.
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-30 12:13:00 UTC
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_kg5QueHwVw/83611857_195019781896183_7355594586363789312_o_195019775229517.jpg

Source date (UTC): 2020-01-30 11:56:00 UTC
TRI-PARTISM AND THE TRI-FUNCTIONAL HYPOTHESIS OF OUR NATURAL GODS, AND OUR NATURAL RELIGION
(mandatory understanding on IE origins of Market Gods) (compare with the Monopoly of semitic underclass gods)
The Trifunctional Hypothesis of prehistoric Proto-Indo-European society postulates a tripartite ideology (“idĂ©ologie tripartite”) reflected in the existence of three classes or castesâpriests, warriors, and commoners (farmers or tradesmen)âcorresponding to the three functions of the sacral, the martial and the economic, respectively.
The trifunctional thesis is primarily associated with the French mythographer Georges Dumézil, who proposed it in 1929 in the book Flamen-Brahman, and later in Mitra-Varuna.
According to DumĂ©zil (1898â1986), Proto-Indo-European society comprised three main groups corresponding to three distinct functions:
1. Sovereignty, which fell into two distinct and complementary sub-parts:
… 1.1 one formal, juridical and priestly but worldly;
… 1.2 the other powerful, unpredictable, and also priestly but rooted in the supernatural world.
2. Military, connected with force, the military and war.
3. Productivity, herding, farming and crafts; ruled by the other two.
In the Proto-Indo-European mythology each social group had its own god or family of gods to represent it and the function of the god or gods matched the function of the group. Many such divisions occur in the history of Indo-European societies:
Southern Russia: Bernard Sergent associates the Indo-European language family with certain archaeological cultures in Southern Russia and reconstructs an Indo-European religion based upon the tripartite functions.
Early Germanic society: The supposed division between the king, nobility and regular freemen in early Germanic society.
Norse mythology: Odin (sovereignty), TĂœr (law and justice), the Vanir (fertility). Odin is assigned one of the core functions in the Indo-European pantheon as a representative of the first function (sovereignty) corresponding to the Hindu Varuáča (fury and magic) as opposed to TĂœr, who corresponds to the Hindu MitrĂĄ (law and justice); while the Vanir represent the third function (fertility). Odin has been also been interpreted as a death-god (“Psychopomp”: transporting us to the afterlife) and connected to cremations, and has also been associated with ecstatic practices.
Classic Greece: The three divisions of the ideal society as described by Socrates in Plato’s The Republic. Bernard Sergent examined the trifunctional hypothesis in Greek epic, lyric and dramatic poetry.
India: The three Hindu castes, the Brahmins or priests; the Kshatriya, the warriors and military; and the Vaishya, the agriculturalists, cattle rearers and traders. The Shudra, a fourth Indian caste, is a peasant or serf. A 2001 study found that the genetic affinity of Indians to Europeans is proportionate to caste rank, the upper castes being most similar to Europeans whereas lower castes are more like Asians. The researchers believe that the Indo-European speakers entered India from the Northwest, mixing with or displacing proto-Dravidian speakers, and may have established a caste system with themselves primarily in higher castes.
TRIPLE (TRIPARTITE) DIETIES
A triple deity (sometimes referred to as threefold, tripled, triplicate, tripartite, triune or triadic, or as a trinity) is three deities that are worshipped as one. Such deities are common throughout world mythology; the number three has a long history of mythical associations. Carl Jung considered the arrangement of deities into triplets an archetype in the history of religion.
In classical religious iconography or mythological art, three separate beings may represent either a triad who always appear as a group (Greek Moirai, Charites, Erinyes; Norse Norns; or the Irish MorrĂgan) or a single deity known from literary sources as having three aspects (Greek Hecate, Roman Diana).
THE INDO EUROPEAN ORIGINS OF TRIPARTISM, TRIFUNCTIONALISM, TRIPLE GODS, AND TERNARY LOGIC
Georges DumĂ©zil’s trifunctional hypothesis proposed that ancient Indo-European society conceived itself as structured around three activities: worship, war, and toil. In later times, when slave labor became common, the three functions came to be seen as separate “classes”, represented each by its own god. DumĂ©zil understood this mythology as reflecting and validating social structures in its content: such a tripartite class system is found in ancient Indian, Iranian, Greek and Celtic texts. In 1970, DumĂ©zil proposed that some goddesses represented these three qualities as different aspects or epithets and identified examples in his interpretation of various deities including the Iranian AnÄhitÄ, the Vedic SarasvatÄ« and the Roman Juno.
Vesna Petreska posits that myths including trinities of female mythical beings from Central and Eastern European cultures may be evidence for an Indo-European belief in trimutive female “spinners” of destiny. But according to the linguist M. L. West, various female deities and mythological figures in Europe show the influence of pre-Indo-European goddess-worship, and triple female fate divinities, typically “spinners” of destiny, are attested all over Europe and in Bronze Age Anatolia.
POST BRONZE AGE COLLAPSE CULTURES
Ancient Celtic cultures
The Matres or Matronae are usually represented as a group of three but sometimes with as many as 27 (3 Ă 3 Ă 3) inscriptions. They were associated with motherhood and fertility. Inscriptions to these deities have been found in Gaul, Spain, Italy, the Rhineland and Britain, as their worship was carried by Roman soldiery dating from the mid 1st century to the 3rd century AD.[24] Miranda Green observes that “triplism” reflects a way of “expressing the divine rather than presentation of specific god-types. Triads or triple beings are ubiquitous in the Welsh and Irish mythic imagery” (she gives examples including the Irish battle-furies, Macha, and Brigit). “The religious iconographic repertoire of Gaul and Britain during the Roman period includes a wide range of triple forms: the most common triadic depiction is that of the triple mother goddess” (she lists numerous examples).[25]
In the case of the Irish Brigid it can be ambiguous whether she is a single goddess or three sisters, all named Brigid.[26] The MorrĂgan also appears sometimes as one being, and at other times as three sisters,[27][28][29][30] as do the three Irish goddesses of sovereignty, Ăriu, FĂłdla and Banba.[31]
Hinduism
In Hinduism, the supreme divinity Para Brahman can take the form of the Trimurti, in which the cosmic functions of creation, preservation, and destruction of the universe are performed by the three deities of Brahma (the creator), Vishnu (the preserver), and Shiva (the destroyer), who are at the same time three forms of the one Para Brahman.[32] The divine being Dattatreya is a representation of all three of these deities incarnated as a single being.[33]
Christianity (the trinity)
Christians profess “one God in three divine persons” (God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost). This is not to be understood as a belief in (or worship of) three Gods, nor as a belief that there are three subjectively-perceived “aspects” in one God, both of which the Catholic Church condemns as heresy. The Catholic Church also rejects the notions that God is “composed” of its three persons and that “God” is a genus containing the three persons.
The Gnostic text Trimorphic Protennoia presents a threefold discourse of the three forms of Divine Thought: the Father, the Son, and the Mother (Sophia).
Many Christian saints, especially martyrs, are trios who share a feast day or other remembrance. (See Category:Saints trios.) Whether they are subject to actual veneration and prayed to for supernatural aid, or simply honored, varies by Christian denomination.
ESTATES OF THE REALM
A 13th-century French representation of the tripartite social order of the Middle Ages â Oratores (“those who pray”), Bellatores (“those who fight”), and Laboratores (“those who work”).
The estates of the realm, or three estates, were the broad orders of social hierarchy used in Christendom (Christian Europe) from the medieval period to early modern Europe. Different systems for dividing society members into estates developed and evolved over time.
The best known system is the French Ancien RĂ©gime (Old Regime), a three-estate system used until the French Revolution (1789â1799). Monarchy was for the king and the queen and this system was made up of clergy (the First Estate), nobles (the Second Estate), and peasants and bourgeoisie (the Third Estate). In some regions, notably Scandinavia and Russia, burghers (the urban merchant class) and rural commoners were split into separate estates, creating a four-estate system with rural commoners ranking the lowest as the Fourth Estate. Furthermore, the non-landowning poor could be left outside the estates, leaving them without political rights. In England, a two-estate system evolved that combined nobility and clergy into one lordly estate with “commons” as the second estate. This system produced the two houses of parliament, the House of Commons and the House of Lords. In southern Germany, a three-estate system of nobility (princes and high clergy), knights, and burghers was used. In Scotland, the Three Estates were the Clergy (First Estate), Nobility (Second Estate), and Shire Commissioners, or “burghers” (Third Estate), representing the bourgeois, middle class, and lower class. The Estates made up a Scottish Parliament.
TRIPARTISM (COOPERATIONISM, MARKETS) IN PROPERTARIANISM
In P we begin with the three means of coercion: Force-Defense, Remuneration-Deprivation, and Inclusion-Undermining (ostracization) in a market preserved by the judiciary. We argue that the three classes developed three ‘market competitions’ for elites; martial-judicial, priestly-educational, and productive-labor and trade. These three sets of elites we recognize as Conservative-Capitalizing (force), Progressive-consuming(Undermining), and Libertarian-Productive (Trade).
In P we restore the “cooperation between the compatible but unequal classes”: The Monarchy as judge of last resort, The Judiciary as preservation of sovereignty, the Senate (nobility) as territorial (tribal) interests, the Upper House as the Commercial Interests, and the Lower House as Family and Labor Interests.
Under this interpretation, christianity is migrating to its natural place as the feminine (forgiveness, love), while we are restoring our traditional gods as we try to restore our civlization after the abrahamic dark ages of death and decline.
LEARN MORE
This info is collected from wikipedia, but read Dumezil or at least the spartk notes version. đ If you undestand Dumizel’s description of, Campbell’s Monomyth, and the nordic myths you can begin to reconstruct our natural religions in both northern second generation and southern european first generation forms.
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-30 11:36:00 UTC
HAS THE INTERNET MADE A DIFFERENCE IN THREAT PERCEPTION?
—“Is anything different now — or has the internet just made us more AWARE of how the left rolls? For instance … if we were to apply our current knowledge of history to the standard history textbook of the 1980s, we would say “this is intolerable.” Or if we applied current understanding of inter-sexual dynamics to the dating marketplace of the 1990s (peak friendzone) we would say “this is intolerable.”—Michael Churchill
Great question. A three part answer (a) yes we are more aware (b) we cannot threaten, argue with, silence, or exit them – because our interpersonal physicality and genetic status is invisible and inaccessible on the web – so GSRRM is more effective than physicality (c) yes they are a greater threat demographically because they think they can win (caused by obama)
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-30 11:01:00 UTC
Updated Jan 30, 2020, 10:42 AM
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-30 10:42:00 UTC
—“WASPS havenât declined so much as been artificially suppressed. Once we remove the monetary monopoly from the hands of our oppressors you will see how artificial their dominance of academia, entertainment, media, finance, and government administration in America really was.”—Scott De Warren
Why? Because we are exceptional not only for what we do BUT FOR WHAT WE DO NOT DO. And they are exceptional for what they do that we don’t: organized crime.
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-30 10:41:00 UTC
A life of solving this category of thought: civilizational crisis -requires we forgo most other forms of consumption into a stoic, epicurean, and spartan devotion of our lives exclusively to calculation by means of internal interpersonal and group argument: evolution by survival from competition. It is a costly means of obtaining immortality. But it is one of the only means of doing so. đ And once you transcend the animal it is one of the most rewarding.
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-30 10:37:00 UTC
—“I’m pretty sure there are enough of us to get the job done if necessary. Certainly many of us are willing to die trying.”— Jeremy Standiford
Yes, we need to state our objectives, those objectives need to solve the problem for right and center (and even some of the left) and we must convince them that it is the only win-win solution and that all others solutions are win lose .. and we’re happy to be the winners in win-lose scenarios. And then we need to show up in sufficient numbers. 100K is more than enough. 1M and its deterministically over on day one.
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-30 10:29:00 UTC
“CURT: HAVE YOU TRIED ANSWERING THE HARD PROBLEM OF CONSCIOUSNESS?” (YES)
(“The only observer is memory of the last moment: recursion.”)
—“Have you tried answering what I think neuroscientists call the “hard problem”? which is, how is it that electrical activity within neurons gives rise to subjective experience.”— Martin Edhouse
I think we know the answer and I don’t think it’s even complicated. The problem is that they want an observer and we are recursively observing a stream of memory that is changing so fast – like movie frames – that we can’t detect differences other than those differences necessary or useful for our perception and action (novelty).
As far as I can tell everything is experienced where it’s constructed and we can’t disambiguate inputs any more than we can disambiguate the outputs (how we move our limbs).
So the following iteration (recursion) of experience produces layers upon layers of predictions constantly falsified by the next moment of prediction that our short term memory can only identify changes – not introspectively hold any given state for analysis (we capture episodic memory for condensing that stream of experiences.)
The reason being that the distributed calculation producing what we call either input experience or output action is so granular its only meaningful as a stream of changes TO ITSELF in very short term memory.
So like everything else in the brain, all we have is memory to work from. Either memory of the past little bit, or the forecasts we make from the last little bit into the future, and our control over that process by focusing our attention – which does nothing except shut off that which we aren’t interested in. I think the only thing stopping the average person from comprehension of experience is a basic understanding of the mechanisms for assembling and then predicting from the spectrum of spatial models from interior to body to proximity to space to boundaries, to the intentions and minds and imaginations of others – that’s what consciousness consists of that prediction and memory of changes in those predictions.
In that sense, while we have our six senses so to speak, they are primitives, and the first generation assembly of those senses is into a spatial model. it’s that spacial model of the world we experience. And we are so heavily dependent upon it we almost can’t ignore it.
Once you see that we do this just like a three-dee video game does (exactly the same way – it’s scary) and that we have neurology that specifically produces the same information as does a three dee video game for the same reason, you see it’s naturally deterministic that we would think that way and that computer games would have to be architected that way – just as much as atoms must be composed of only three particles. It’s beautiful, it’s terrifying, and it’s dehumanizing – and yes, we compute differently from computers but the analogy is more correct than it is false.
So my understanding is that while the above narrative might be improved upon, that like newton’s gravity the description is correct for every and all questions of human scale – which is all we need for self and other understanding.
I differ from Dennett in that Dennett uses philosophical and neurological frames first, and I use technological and neurological frames first, and avoid philosophy which I consider only slightly better than theology. I don’t differ from Searle that much. I consider myself the beneficiary of Searle as much as I do the beneficiary of Hayek. Again he uses the philosophical frame and I avoid it.
I differ only in that I have perhaps a slightly better understanding of how subjective experience is constructed because one of the side effects of my illness is a rather slow restoration of consciousness when I (frequently) lose it and CAN experience that construction at least a little at a time each time. It might also be that I am VERY current on the research (I know the working papers) and he is not producing as much public material. So I don’t know what he thinks today. I might like to ask him but he’s getting on in years.
I think the most articulate expression for ordinary people that’s available in video is Michio Kaku’s explanation of consciousness and it’s something like three minutes or less and it’s spot on. It’s just prediction of space and time at increasing distances.
The perception I find most interesting is that even with very little consciousness, when waiting for stimuli, when waiting for that thin layer of neurons to create a sense of reality outside the body, that ‘temperament’ you consider ‘you’ is there. What I find most interesting is the shift from that temperament when I’m first aware of it, through changes as your world model and layers of memories come back to life. I feel every time, that I’m moving from childhood to adulthood and I see my change in values as the world model and current context, and intertemporal context come into being. It’s fascinating.
In most cases, I avoid philosophy except to explain why its false – or to find a way to bridge between someone else’s frame of reference and what I understand to be the scientific (most parsimonious and consistent) frame of reference.
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-30 10:20:00 UTC