Western realism and naturalism, middle easter occultism and supernaturalism
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-04 19:39:58 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1786843230765551966
Reply addressees: @KareMHaret
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1786842981363847386
lol… I think everyone understood I was referring to the current American pagan-heathen groups. ;). India’s problem isn’t so much religion (which is rather fascinating) but it’s an 84 IQ south eurasian population with a vast population that is having trouble modernizing because…
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-04 19:28:33 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1786840357088505942
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1786839678932725790
(choice words)
—“Modern histories basically give a very cursory study of the classical world, skip the Middle Ages, treat the non western world purely as victims except for non orientalist empires they write a sentence about to glorify without any context. Then they obsess over western modern humanist thinkers while ignoring most of them were “militaristic racists” or religious fanatics They draw the right to rule from those who would reject them. Even a democrat politician or the Soviet Union from 1970 would view the modern left as an abomination”– @whatifalthist – Rudyard Lynch
This is clear, simple, perfect, true.
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-04 19:26:49 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1786839920092262401
Well, while you’re correct about fundamentalism you’re not correct about the moral and ethical tradition – which produces higher trust polities wherever applied (if not high trust). Also, christianity is a prophylactic against worse religions and ideologies (particularly islam and the marxist sequence). It’s true that these ‘goods’ can be produced with our ancestral folk religions, but that’s largely because we’re metaphysically viewing them through christian intuition. What I am certain you’re correct about, is that christianity is the source of cultural vulnerability because for a set of reasons, probably feminine dominance in the church, and so its no longer hostile to antagonists.
Reply addressees: @superhumanic
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-04 14:15:32 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1786761582057263104
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1786757478954500301
CULTURAL DIFFERENCES MATTER – A LOT https://t.co/Xgn5KMyvCn
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-04 02:41:10 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1786586838028751320
(Just Staying On Message)
Tyr, Zeus, and Thor are not directly related names, but rather represent different sky gods in various Indo-European mythologies.
Tyr: In Proto-Germanic, the sky god was known as *Tīwaz or *Teiwaz, which is derived from the Proto-Indo-European root *dyeus, meaning “sky” or “shining.” In Old Norse mythology, Tyr (or Týr) is a one-handed god associated with law, justice, and heroic glory. He is not the chief god in the Norse pantheon but is considered a brave and wise figure.
Zeus: In ancient Greek mythology, Zeus is the king of the gods and the ruler of Mount Olympus. His name is derived from the Proto-Indo-European root *dyeus, which also gives rise to the Proto-Hellenic form *Dzeus. Zeus is associated with the sky, thunder, lightning, justice, and law. While both Tyr and Zeus derive their names from the same Proto-Indo-European root, they developed independently in their respective mythologies.
Thor: In Old Norse mythology, Thor (or Þórr) is the god of thunder, lightning, storms, oak trees, strength, hallowing, and fertility. He is the son of Odin and is often depicted wielding his hammer, Mjölnir. The name Thor is derived from the Proto-Germanic *Þunraz, which comes from the Proto-Indo-European root *tónros, meaning “thunder.” This root is different from the one that gives rise to Tyr and Zeus.
In summary, while Tyr, Zeus, and Thor are all sky gods in their respective Indo-European mythologies, their names developed independently from different Proto-Indo-European roots.
Tyr and Zeus share a common linguistic origin (*dyeus), while Thor’s name derives from a separate root (*tónros). Each god underwent unique mythological and linguistic developments within their specific cultural contexts.
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-03 17:30:44 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1786448320082149376
–“Odin isn’t a peace-loving god, as portrayed in mass culture; Vikings used to put children on a spear in his honour. Because for him, he didn’t need a special sanctuary; wherever you plant the spear in the ground, that’s where one can worship.
He’s a monster, Like you said one of his nicknames being “Ygg,” which means Terrible One. Odin’s name actually is a nickname as well. In the future, it took the place of a legitimate name, but it’s essentially a nickname.
Among hundreds of others, his nicknames include terrible, scoundrel, and madness one. He was called by these names not by his enemies but also by those who worshipped him.
In Proto-Germanic, his name was “Wōðanaz,” which means Lord of frenzy from the word “Wōð,” meaning rage or frenzy.
Initially, Odin wasn’t the Supreme God; The supreme was god known to us now as the thunder god Thor, who also inherits his cultural heritage from Zeus.
He’s present in almost all cultures as the god of the sky.
Everything began to change with the Great Migration. Initially, Odin was encountered as a god in individual military brotherhoods, separate from others, the patron of martial madness.
Of course, this wasn’t universal; he appeared differently in various places.
Now, imagine the times when a narrowly specialized usurping god becomes the supreme God. Look at Viking burials, observe the symbols on these mounds—the symbol of Thor (his hammer) predominates, not Odin’s, which is three triangles, or they are very rarely clear.
There’s also the question of Odin’s supremacy in Scandinavia—whether he was the Supreme God for all tribes or only for the Warrior Elite.’–
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-03 17:26:33 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1786447266124890112
(a) Only on slavery of fellow christians (b) originally only encouraged kindness toward slaves and freeing slaves as an act of charity. (c) gregory in 600 justified it but sought kindness to and respect from slaves (d) Aquinas
said only that it is permissible through positive law win response to behavior (e) the Mercearian monks actually ransomed christian slaves. (f) it didn’t really succeed in suppressing slavery until the end of the middle ages.
Reply addressees: @YOUSSEFBENATTA1 @WerrellBradley
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-03 14:01:05 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1786395557277163520
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1786392440632492147
Not when there are european entrepreneurs limited by european culture and economies, and we can make good use of them. But that’s the only criteria.
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-03 00:27:31 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1786190817033379895
Reply addressees: @zis_nz @EndWokeness
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1786189329586688153
The hard part is choosing the states is a far better territory both for defense, trade, and resources. “exporting” our ‘non europeans’ and importing evenmore europeans would be safer. That said I’d prefer the variety of european states in europe.
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-02 22:06:55 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1786155432987255202
Reply addressees: @GoingHome_90
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1786109517148660052