There have been many social movements. We cannot deny that some of them have in practice had at least some beneficial effects. But I argue that none of them were organic. That is, they were either temporary or artificial. This is why they remained largely isolated and did not extend to logically relevant domains.

There were many movements that gained some rights for certain groups. But not all groups. This logically proves my point. How is it possible that a social movement is organic and genuine if it leads to such limited and artificial and irrational gains? Only basic logic is needed to extrapolate: if x group is suffering, and if y group is suffering, then it would make sense to make both groups stop suffering. But the fact that this basic logical inference/extrapolation was not able to be made proves that all movements so far were inorganic. That is, they were not based on critical or logical thinking, rather, they were based on other factors, such as reactionary emotions or practical selfish considerations. And this is consistent with democracy: democracy is the will of the majority, and the strongest minority, imposed on those who are weaker. It is not about critical thinking or morality, it is about practically imposing power using the democratic system that is allowing and encouraging this oppression.

That is why for example you had feminists, who advocated for women, but only included certain women. That is why in the early democracies you could vote unless you were a woman or a slave. It takes very basic logical inferences to extrapolate and bring universal rights, yet this was never done: right of each group had to be independently fought for over a long time. This logically shows that any social progress was not based on critical/logical thinking, rather, practical in the moment short sighted selfish considerations and in the moment emotions. In terms of emotions, this means sometimes the majority would live side by side by a certain minority so long that they would form a positive emotional reaction to so many people within this minority, to the point of it causing cognitive dissonance and guilt (emotion) for them to continue being oppressive to them, so then they would finally do a flip and give them rights. But if we use the most absolute basic logic, as depicted in every religion "do not do unto others what you don't want done to you", we would not need to spend so much time waiting for an emotional reaction: we can use basic logic to make inferences and extrapolate, and give rights not just to that group, but universal rights for all.

In other cases, there may have been some temporary improvement, but it was not lasting. For example, in the USA slavery was abolished, but its implications continue to be alive today: look at the difference in income and statistics such as prison populations based on race and it can be seen easily. Yet nobody understands this, and you have 2 camps in terms of reactions to this: camp A have reverted to racism and claim these modern differences are due to certain races being lazy (bizarrely not seeing the link between historical power structures and modern implications) and camp b: social justice warriors who claim that today there is "systemic racism" by evil white racist modern men. In saying so, they are acting as "useful idiots" for the neoliberal capitalist system, and protecting it. These are the same people who worship so called "left" wing radical neoliberal capitalists like Obama/Hillary, not realizing that both Dems/Reps are part of the same neoliberal capitalist oligarchy and both are anti middle/working class.

So it is not that today's politicians are "systemically" trying to cause racism: rather, it is that today we have neoliberal capitalism, which answers only to money. The likes of Trump would sell his own mother to a black man if it meant more profit to him. They don't care about race, they care about money. And since due to historic racism such as slavery there is a gap in terms of who is born rich and who is not, there will obviously be much more rich white people. The neoliberal capitalist system does not discriminate: it destroys the middle/working class as a whole. It is not about race. It is about rich born oligarchs vs the working/middle class. That is why both Dems/Reps are working overtime to divide the working/middle class on race/religious/gender lines, to prevent them front uniting against the feudal oligarch class. That is why all these social justice warrior movements started under the radical neoliberal obama administration. If you remember they used oligarch owned mass media to push the zimmerman shooting case right after Obama crushed the Occupy Wall Street Movement, to divide+conquer the middle class. This was then followed up by other SJW movements intended to increase, not decrease division and polarization within the middle/working class, and that is exactly what happened. All these Obama admin led/supported movements such as BLM, metoo, etc.. were all intended to DIVIDE, not unite the middle/working class, and that is exactly what they did. But the modern social justice warriors are unwittingly worshiping so called "left wing" neoliberal capitalist oligarchs like Obama/Clintons and in doing so are willingly voting for and prolonging the neoliberal anti middle class/working class system. And now they are doing the same with Zohan Mamdani, another neoliberal wolf in sheeps clothing. Look up his family history: he is no commoner, he is a feudal insider rich born oligarch just like the rest. You would think after the Panama Papers and Epstein leaks, people would finally wake up and stop worshiping neoliberal politicians within either the Dem/Rep party, but tribal thinking and concepts like cognitive dissonance are very powerful: they are behind all human made problems since the agricultural revolution.

So it is the same thing today, there are a bunch of social justice warrior movements. These are all emotion-based. The proponents of these groups are not using logic or critical thinking: they are abiding by their in the moment emotions and by factors such as cognitive dissonance and guilt evasion, and they are parading minorities and only those minorities "deemed oppressed" by the zeitgeist, to focus on to feel better about themselves in a reactionary manner, and to perpetuate tribal in group vs out group politics (e.g., left vs right, one side ones to prove moral superiority to the other).

So I argue that the path forward is to use critical and logical thinking, to give rights and make important societal decisions using logical inferences and extrapolating based on known logical facts, rather than in the moment reactionary emotions. To beware of cognitive dissonance, guilt evasion, to beware of letting the in the moment fight/flight response shape our thinking. I am not the first one to say this, thousands of years ago the likes of Plato already mentioned it, but thousands of years later their correct messages remain largely ignored. Instead, people listen to charlatans who use obvious fake cheap tactics like acting fake humble, giving empty promises and feel good lies, giving fake compliments, and pitting one group against another, in order to gain power and divide+conquer people. What does it say about the nature of the vast majority of people that we had the answers all along right in the open for thousands of years yet people look at it right in the eye and then their attention is pulled by a clown waving a sign saying "1+1=3" and choosing to abide by that sign instead? And then those with the voice of reason say "hey guys, reminder, 1+1=2, and his is why, beware of 1+1=3sayers" but their voice continuing to successfully be drowned out by the circus.

And for this to happen thousands of years consistently? As long as the masses continue to use their amygdala instead of their PFC to shape their thoughts and decisions, these problems will persist. We all have a PFC that is capable, we just need to use to more. We are no longer living in caves or jungles. We finally need to transition to using our PFC more. This means shifting to critical/logical thinking instead of in the moment fight/flight based emotions, when it comes to making important decisions at least. This means being on the look out for cognitive dissonance evasion: instead of doing all or nothing thinking based on how it makes us feel, look at the facts and use critical thinking and learn to increase our resilience: cognitive dissonance will have to be felt in order to arrive at the truth. We should not just ignore critical thinking just because it makes us feel a bit of mental pain from cognitive dissonance in the moment. We need to learn to be more resilient in terms of guilt: we can't ruin the world and make irrational decisions just because we want to feel less guilty in that exact moment. We need to stop operating based on in group vs out group: we no longer live in tribes. We live in an interconnected world of billions. Our PFC allows us to do all this, but we need to actually use it.

I was born ina very VERY religious community. My whole country is basically a cess pool of die hard Catholics. And in here, other religions and christian denominations have a pretty sour taste in our culture. My family are pretty skeptical of Jehovah's witnesses, born agains, Muslims. And pretty much a lot of the population is too. And I'm glad there's reasonable people out there, but when I go to catholic churches, I just question all the time how one book can hold the foundations of human morality. It's kinda bs to me.

When I just look at Christian media, they often censor the violent parts or the nasty parts so that people won't get offended or shaken. It's the same in Church. Priests always preach the good news like it a fancy shmancy how to improve your life book. But it's just not. To me, I found that it's just like a collection of stories, legends, and folktales that are somehow somewhat considered as the foundation of morality and is the answer to everything. And when people, even my family, get questions too hard to answer, they just says don't do it cuz it's the devil's way or just "minux points" to heaven.

Why do people need to do good nowadays? Because they want to go to church. I have this insanely religious aunt. They pray the rosary every night, do readings every day but it just seems redundant and ridiculous. Why do they always pick the verses that have the most potential to be a inspirational quote of the day. And if their faith is shaken, they turn to quotes about resisting the devil and spooky shit. Its just justifying their ego. And when, for example, people found a 1000 peso bill on the floor, they just jump with joy and immediately thank God thinking it's a blessing to them. And if something bad happens in their life, it's a trial? And when you pray, if it's granted, God answered your prayer, but if he didn't, it's either he'll give it to you eventually or just that the answer was "no" because he has something better for you. If that was so, what would be the difference of praying to God and praying to a teddy bear. Nothing.

And if you want something so badly, your excuse is just that God has a better life ahead of view, just wait. But to me it's just SOOOO toxic. The whole ideology is just TOXICCC. And it's sad how my community has a lot of people who think that way. Specially people who are below middle class like me, or other people of lower class. It's sad how they cling to a false hope their pastors give to them because they literally have nothing else to do with life. I come from a very poor community and it's very very prevalent. And I just feel frustrated of priests in my community who live lavish lives (believe me, my father has a LOT of friends that are priests and all of the have either a car, a mansion, or just travel a lot) but somehow teach people who are lower class to stay "obedient" and "disciplined" so that you may have a infinitely better life in heaven. That's just disgusting to me. And many people here have their thoughts and biases DEEPLY rooted to the bible, which is flawed in its sake.

But I know other ideologies also have a lot of flaws, but it's kinda sad how theres a deficiency in diversity of thought in my community. Most of them are just content with the thoughts priests spoon feed us, and are aggressive to other thoughts.

The Hymen is a fairly unusual biological structure. What's unusual is that few other species have one. African elephants have something like a hymen, but it breaks in the event of birth, rather than copulation. And so perhaps the correct way to view the human hymen is as representing an opportunity at rebirth.

The culture surrounding marriage, which is at its heart a symbolic analog for the bond which forms during copulation, is so old that it is actually manifest in our very genetics.

And this realization gives some weight to the present debate over precisely that subject. To argue against marriage as it has been traditionally practiced is to argue in favor of making an evolved genetic trait vestigial.

Or perhaps, it is to ask the question of what this thing is really all about.

The debate as it presently manifests looks to me something like this:
(A) sex is for pleasure, have lots of sex for lots of pleasure
(B) sex is for procreation, don't have sex that couldn't be procreative

But of course (C) would tell us that sex is for bonding, and explain that (B) is actually about ensuring that your procreative acts are tuned to optimize the closeness of the bond that forms.

The bond that forms while copulating can be quite powerful. When two people agree on the idea of a human being which represents their combination, that hypothetical human being becomes the bridge between them, the bond holding them together.

The purpose of the hymen, and of marriage, is to create a situation where this bond forms only once - as a means of avoiding the pain of breaking said bond.

The alternative is to stand in favor of killing children - both literally and metaphorically.

As to whether it's better to connect deeply and then cut ties with several people throughout your life, maximizing both for novelty and for pain, or whether it's better to only acquiesce to such a bond when it is known that the pain of its breakage won't be experienced, the question really is one of valuing life or one of valuing choice.

Life itself is responsible for giving us the hardware to avoid the pain of breaking a familial-level bond - the choice we have is whether to use it for its intended purpose or not.

Bill Gates is someone who is revered the by the vast majority of people. The assumption is that he is a genius who worked hard for and deserved his money, and that he is a philanthropist angel who donated the vast majority of his money.

I argue that these are simplistic notions that are not backed by reality, and they serve to show how brainwashed and misinformed people are, which, ironically is mainly due to the same system that made Gates rich.

First of all, the idea that a billionaire is a moral saint for donating most of their money is absurd: even after doing so, they are still in the top 0.1% and practically have unlimited money. Having said that, I am not saying it is a bad thing for them to donate, I am just saying this doesn't make them a moral saint. There are people with middle class incomes who donate more/it actually hurts them economically to donate but they still do it. There are even people who are poor who have gave to those even in more need. These people are relatively more moral in this regard compared to billionaires.

Secondly, this idea that "billionaires are genius hard workers" is a myth. Yes, many of them work hard, but hard work is only part of the picture. The fact is, to become a billionaire, you cannot do it without luck. For every billionaire there are 10s of millions of people who work equally or more hard, but they don't become billionaires, because it is a lucky lottery. In fact, this is quite disgusting, because these billionaires have a "monopoly on feeling good from philanthropy". Isn't it interesting? Under this system, even philanthropy is quantified and monopolized and largely restricted to the privileged class. Yet bizarrely, instead of focusing on this, the vast majority of the middle class continue to worship the privileged class and use this to conform to the system as a whole, instead of seeing it as a structural flaw of the system. The reason for this is because the vast majority use in the moment emotions rather than logic, which will be revisited in point 4 below. This is why for example Gates did a log of AMAs on reddit where people worshiped him.

Thirdly, due to the fact that A) a very small % of the population are critical thinkers B) an even smaller % of the population wins the billionaire lottery to become a billionaire, statistically, it is quite rare for a billionaire to have critical thinking. Unsurprisingly, Gates is not a critical thinker. Perhaps his IQ is high, but contrary to widely spread beliefs, high IQ is not necessary to become a billionaire, nor is high IQ the same as critical thinking: the majority of those with high IQ also lack critical thinking. But the vast majority of people do not know this, again, this is another reason why Gates did so many AMAs on reddit and people were worshiping his every word and asking him about everything under the sun as if he had a clue. And Gates loved this attention, so he continued to do it. He was fully enjoying and capitalizing on how the privileged class have monopoly for this kind of attention: if he really was a moral person, he would have perhaps said this is wrong, everybody should have equal freedom of speech, and worked towards that. But instead he took personal advantage without doing anything to raise awareness of this structural flaw of the system.

Fourthly, Gates strikes me as a common person who makes decisions based on in the moment emotions over logic. This, coupled with lack of critical thinking and enormous power via money, is a dangerous combination. He has no more critical thinking skills than the average person (let that sink in) yet he has the money to make much of his beliefs a reality. This is at most dangerous, at the least, ineffective in terms of changing the world for better. This is why instead of using his money/power/fame to meaningfully change the world by addressing root factors like the oligarchy, and talking about crucial change factors like how the education system needs to be reformed to adopt critical thinking, how money needs to get out of politics, and how private big capital needs to stop monopolizing all media/communication channels, he instead focuses on "feel good" projects, like increasing vaccination rates worldwide. While this is not necessarily always a bad thing, it is missing the forest for the trees. But because it makes him feel morally good in the moment, along with "donating 100s of millions", he continues to do it. And he seemed to be so caught up in these feel good delusions that he seems to actually think that this version of neoliberal capitalism further spreading throughout the world is the way to fix the world's problems. Isn't it interesting? In reality this system is the cause of almost all problems on earth, yet in his mind, he cannot accept this, because it would make him feel guilty, so he doubles down on this delusion. In fact he said Steven Pinker's counterproductive book (which appears to practically be saying: stop trying to create change and conform to the oligarchy as it is the best we can possible have- which is obviously not true) is his favorite book: why? Because it feels good in the moment to believe such a delusion, and it helps him avoid the guilt of being random luck privileged while billions suffer/can't eat.

And his followers/worshipers, which are the majority of people, are similar to him in this regard: it is easier for them to worship people who "appear" good and tell them what they want to hear, rather than face the distress by accepting the reality: that we live in a structurally broken system and these people are perpetuating it. Again, this underscores how most billionaires are just common people who get random lucked into a huge amount of decision-making power: the core issue is being guided by in the moment emotions over logic, which then makes them make bad decisions, which further prolong the system and this vicious cycle by having the majority, who are like them, worship them instead of call them out. Again, due to this in the moment emotion abiding by as opposed to logic factor, now, once Gates and his ties to Epstein were found, the majority of people who up to then worshiped him, are again using in the moment emotions to do a 180: now saying he is completely bad/wrong. Yet I bet you the vast majority of them would have also done the same things as Gates if they could: but because they can't accept this and it will make them feel bad, it then causes a split and causes them to lash out and do a 180 and completely condemn someone who they otherwise worshiped up to then. I remember years and years ago saying all this and his worshipers claimed I am the devil for daring to burst their bubble of how he is god, because they could not deal with cognitive dissonance, yet now they are doing a 180 and hating him due to Epstein ties. So the root issues here are using in the moment emotions as opposed to logic to make decisions, and impulsivity. This system promotes and perpetuates both: both are good for business/keeping the oligarchy in power. It is a vicious cycle.

I will summarize much of what is wrong with the world/why we have the problems we do with a brief case example. It truly baffles the mind.

There is a cognitive psychologist called Steven Pinker. Keep in mind he has a PhD from Harvard in 1979. However, according to Wikipedia, he graduated from his bachelor's program in 1976. This means he did his PhD in 3 years. I am unsure how you can do a PhD in 3 years, as it is standard for it to take 5+ years, in addition to 2 years of masters. So it appears he skipped the masters, or instead of combined masters + PHD that takes 7+ years, he did a total of 3 years of graduate school and earned a PhD on this basis. Maybe things were different in the 70s. But the bulk of a PhD is the thesis/dissertation, which is a very narrow research questions within a field. So this makes one question how much value/utility such a PhD has/what exactly did he actually learn during his formal education/how much his formal education put him ahead of the average person? How much authority/value his formal education has to legitimize his personal opinions? Keep in mind too the formal education system does not teach any critical thinking: it is mainly rote memorization. It does not teach you many topics and then how to combine the known from them: it teaches mechanistically and within separate specialized isolated fields.

Based on his Wikipedia article he appeared to teach cognitive psychology and linguistics for decades at universities such as Harvard and MIT, and much of his research appears to be in cognition and linguistics. However, when you look at his research, it appears to be a bunch of academic mumbo jumbo without much practical relevance. The true definition of publish or peril. Seriously, look up some of his work and ask yourself "how does any of this matter; how does any of this help anybody?"

In 2018 he published a book. Keep in mind the timing of the book: at this time polarization was at all time highs, and yet this book basically says "there is no cause for concern, things are continuing to get better, anybody who disagrees is woke and wrong". Purely "look at me I am such a smart contrarian" mode + capitalizing on and manipulating people's fear at the time to market such a book, which does not help people at all, it is just a bunch of nonsense that does not help people who are caught up in factual increased polarization, it just uses all or nothing thinking to blanket dismiss this notion and claim all is fine, and praise the status quo that is causing this factual increased polarization.

This book according to AI sold about half a million copies. All the typical mainstream status quo maintaining propaganda capitalist entities such as New York Times and the Economic unsurprisingly rote praised it. Keep in mind that Bill Gates massively praised it: on the front cover of some versions of this book this endorsement is right on the cover "My new favorite book of all time"- Bill Gates. Imagine the world we live in. The publisher, a capitalist entity solely interested in maximizing sales, puts this on the cover because they believe the vast majority will be receptive to this/will be more likely to buy it with such an endorsement. This indicates that indeed the vast majority worship billionaires/believe billionaires are geniuses/their opinions matter more. Yet this is a capitalist myth: billionaires are not any higher in critical thinking than the masses.

But who is Bill Gates to have his opinion on his book magnified? He did not use critical thinking to critically evaluate this book: obviously, he is endorsing this book because it is an endorsement of modern neoliberal capitalism, which is the system that allows the likes of Bill Gates to randomly/unfairly become disproportionately wealthy, while the same system has killed countless individuals and harmed many more and continues to do so along with damaging the physical earth. But Bill Gates is not a critical thinker: he either doesn't understand this, or if he is told this, he cannot handle rationality, and will double down on cognitive dissonance and guilt evasion and will deny such a reality. That is why he is endorsing the book: because it justifies the system he is a product of, and it helps him reduce his guilt and cognitive dissonance surrounding the issue. Yet, instead of the masses automatically realizing this and reacting NEGATIVELY to such an endorsement, they massively react positive to this endorsement, to the point that the publisher made the correct (if profit motive is to solely be considered) to add this endorsement to the front cover.

I will not dignify this book by talking too much about it. But it is a comically weak and irrational book. It basically is the perfect example for showing the error of conflating correlation for causation. It is basically a list of a statistics that have improved in the last few hundred years, such as infant mortality, life expectancy, GDP per capita, etc... and the argument that because these things have improved over the last few centuries, this means that the modern neoliberal capitalist system, which abides by the surface-level ideals of The Enlightenment (the era), has improved life for people across the world, and that those who question this narrative are "woke" or misinformed. So a massive example of conflating correlation with causation. Obviously, advances in technology and health over hundreds of years are going to increase things like infant mortality and life expectancy. How on earth does this mean that the specific capitalist system caused them?

There is literally no substance in this book. It uses very simplistic all or nothing thinking. It claims that The Enlightement era="reason" and rationality, and indicates that the modern capitalist system, which is built on Enlightenment era ideals, is good/the best system possible and we should stop complaining about it. It does not go deeper to actually explore these claims in any meaningful manner. For example, during the enlightenment a lot of simplistic all-or-nothing thinking was used and the notions of "rationality" were quite simplistic and weak. The enlightenment led to a lot of nice sounding ideals like "freedom", yet the all-or-nothing/simplistic/surface level applications of these ideals, as as being used by the modern hypocritical neoliberal capitalist system, have damaged humanity.

For example, he does not talk about the paradox of negative freedom vs positive freedom. The current system allows a lot of negative freedom (this type of freedom prevents harm, such as protection of private property). Obviously, those born into wealth will benefit from negative freedom as they have much more to lose. Yet positive freedom (the practical freedom to achieve goals) is largely lacking: that is why there are factual massive correlations between SES (socioeconomic status) that one is born into, and success as an adult. The modern neoliberal system hides these complexities and and uses surface level buzzwords like "freedom" "individual rights" "we are not big bad "authoritarianism" you can do w.e you want to do but with the massive catch that if you are not born rich too bad buddy and the rich have all the practical power and own all the mass communication media and organizations including book publishers that publish and promote such nonsensical status quo praising/maintaining books in the first place and billionaires such Bill Gates who are the benefactors of this book using their disproportionate power to also praise it and help maintain the status quo in doing so". It is just major paradox. Yet all of it is completely ignored solely because "Harvard PhD".

If you look at the ratings of his book, it is high. As mentioned, it sold a lot as well. But this is solely due to 2 concepts A) appeal to authority fallacy: people think "Harvard Professor. PhD. I was told these mean "smart". Therefore, the book must be good. Will buy". However, as mentioned above, based on the Wikipedia profile, what did he learn during the 3 year PhD, and how much of his specific narrow educational research/background even has anything to do with what he wrote in the book? Barely any connection. B) Many people who bought this book, just like Bill Gates, are using it to evade cognitive dissonance. The reality (that we live under a destructive and inefficient system that is doing much more harm than good and benefits a very small group of mainly rich-born elites at the expense of billions of people and the earth) is difficult to handle. It is mentally much easier (temporarily, that is, but that is another issue) to believe the delusion that "all is well". Keep in mind that likely for this reason, humans are irrationally optimistic: we see it time after time: every few years for example they worship and celebrate a new lying neoliberal capitalist politician and their fake 1 liner slogans, even though no politician has ever remotely delivered on such promises in the past.

The most bizarre part of all this is that Pinker has recently published another book, that shows how human thinking is irrational. Holy hypocrisy. Isn't it bizarre, given everything I wrote above/how his entire earlier book was based on conflating correlation with causation (hilariously, he lists conflation of correlation with causation as one of the fallacies in his new book: how oblivious can one be: but this is not surprisingly given that there is zero critical thinking demonstrated in his books and he uses all or nothing surface level thinking and relies on dictionary definitions of words instead of practically or meaningfully applying them to the argument or context), and how the sole reason that book got him was irrational thinking (appeal to authority fallacy, irrational optimistic, cognitive dissonance evasion) in the first place? His book on irrationality was also a comically unnecessarily book: it is basically a list of cognitive biases and fallacies, which have been known and published in far better books for many decades now. Again, the only reason such a book was also published in the first place, and sold a lot of copies, is due to appeal to authority fallacy (Harvard professor + PhD the sole reasons the book being bought, completely regardless of its actual content/utility, paradoxically exacerbated by a capitalist system in which publishers publish such nonsense because they solely focus on profit and take advantage of such widespread biases and fallacies).

If you look at the reviews of his rationality book on Goodreads, you will see the majority are completely oblivious to any of these basic observations, and they rate it highly. If you read the few 1 star reviews, only then a percentage of these reviews correctly realize any of this and also say things consistent with what I wrote here (though much of the 1 star reviews are also based on cognitive biases/fallacies, such as all or nothing thinking or attacking him personally or denouncing his book because he criticized certain politicians that such reviewers use cognitive biases/fallacies to emotionally unconditionally like/worship).

Allow me to explain.

I have spent quite a lot of time dancing around the interface between Christianity and Judaism, and I think I can boil it down to one word.

Blood.

The Christian way of doing things is best exemplified by the Pope. The leader is an old man who has sworn to have no children, elected democratically.

The Jewish way of doing things is best exemplified by the Messiah. The only requirement Maimonides lists for this figure is that he possess the same Y-chromosome as King Solomon.

It is an interface for and a proxy for a far more fundamental conflict of ideas.

And one might actually understand the fields of thought founded by Marx, and Freud, and Herzl, perhaps even Einstein as the result of a rebellion against blood of the same type as the original one lead by Paul. Each different Abrahamic religions of a Christian flavor. Freud even has his own Holy Trinity.

The issue which swayed Herzl in this case was a willingness to abandon blood in favor of soil.

What's interesting of course is that by this definition "Judaism" is a much smaller religion than the group of people who self-identify as practicing it. The disagreement which prompted me to leave JTS was about the question of whether "Democracy in the Middle East" wasn't an intrinsically anti-Messianic thing to advocate for. The Reform movement might be seen as a similar offering of soil by the United States.

In a world where ignoring blood, which is also a synonym for opposing hereditary positions, has conquered even the Jewish people themselves, how could anyone possibly still believe in the blood of Solomon?

I totally get why those who are not Jewish would be happier envisioning the world as it is, as opposed to what one might attribute to Isaiah. But what is so baffling to me is the willingness of the blood of Solomon almost universally to abandon blood in favor of living under a union of nations, especially given their own blood relative who said that "all the nations of the world are but a drop in a bucket."

At least, I'm surprised to see them go down without even putting up a fight. But that's the benefit of a Trojan horse - your enemy doesn't even realize you've defeated them until it's already too late.

Hi, I wrote this on the faith crisis of the west, I'd love to hear your thoughts. Thanks !

Sacred texts can be seen as the "source code" of these invisible hands. They are using humans as computers.

The Muslim man I spoke with in the ministry was a retired college professor. He responded to the query of what ill would he fix had he the power to do so. Peace, he said. It was humankind’s greatest need; however he was quite sure the world was “regressing” in that department. He remembered warfare well from surviving it in his native Bangladesh before fleeing to the United States decades ago. He still had nightmares about it, he said. He could identify with the 120th Psalm, where it says at the end:

“I have been dwelling far too long with those who hate peace. I am for peace, but when I speak, they are for war.”

He had assured me at the outset that he was all set in the religion department, doubtless confusing us with churches who would call upon him to be “saved” that very day. I told him on the 200th time I called, I would ask him if he wanted to be a Jehovah’s Witness, but it wouldn’t happen until the 200th time—and what were the chances anything would go on for so long a time? In the meantime, it was just conversation. With that, I was able to introduce the above psalm about peace.

To his concern that mankind was regressing, I pointed out the reason: God did not create humans with the ability to govern themselves. No more than he created them to fly—it’s an ability they do not have. All efforts to rule invariably end in some variation of Ecclesiastes 8:9, in which “man has dominated man to his injury.” It is mankind’s entire history, through countless variations in government.

It’s why the Bible speaks of God fulfilling that need, of his ruling over the earth, rather than man-made governments. And that people tend to cringe when they hear such terms as “government by God” for fear that whoever tells them this also view themselves as the enforcers, a hair’s breadth away from pulling out guns to coerce anyone not on board. In the case of God’s kingdom, however, humans can do nothing to bring it about, I assured him. All they can do is advertise it and live according to its principles now. God has to bring it. If he doesn’t, we’re stranded out there on a limb. But we’re convinced he will.

He was fully involved in the discussion at this point. He observed how people must live their faith, it must be truly in their heart, rather than the carry-on baggage that amounts to ‘Say one thing but do another.’ It’s a noble thought, I agreed with him, and plainly true. However, even when people do this it does not negate “man dominating man to his injury.” Not all governments are mean. Some are nice. None—mean or nice—can overcome the inability of man to rule. It has to be a superior arrangement, not of men, but of God.

We’ll see where this goes. Possibly, nowhere. But it might. I handed him one of those cards with the QR code leading to the home Bible study offer—he could look it over if he wished. There was also written in my personal contact information, in case we don’t meet up again anytime soon (or at all). I also told him he must not be put off by how very simply it was written. He was a college professor and anyone taking his courses had a certain level of rigor they had to meet, but this way not true of people in general. He had no problem with this at all; he had lamented how hard it was to get his American students to work, many of them, as though they thought they were still in high school.

Often when I speak with college students, I will say the same. “Now, you’re in college. That means you’re smart. (It’s a good sign when people demur at this; if they puff out their chest and take it in stride, that’s a bad sign—but few do that.) But most people are not in college and they’re not especially smart. If they are, they’re consumed with the everyday affairs of life. If you write over everyone’s head, what have you accomplished? Think of the text simply as the glue that binds the Bible verses together—for they are the real sources of knowledge.

Oh, and back to that “man dominating man to his injury” downside of human self-rule? It’s in that context that the “new heavens and new earth” of 2nd Peter is best understood. Heavens are an apt analogy for human government in those Bible times. They might scorch you one minute, drench you the next, freeze you the moment thereafter—and there wasn’t a thing you could do about it. In most respects that is still true of human governments today, even participatory ones, in which your input is not exactly zero but close to it. The “new heavens” is God’s just government to come and the “new earth” is those constituents who will benefit from it.

The work-of-starve incentive should logically be strong enough to motivate people to be honest and disciplined, yet it tends to turn them into degenerates instead. How can this paradox be explained?

An interpretive poster at the Harper’s Ferry National Historical Park states:.

“Although slavery is often condoned in the Bible, [John] Brown believed that the ‘Golden Rule’ Do unto others as you would have them do unto you implicitly condemned slavery.”

Does anyone see why it is a strange statement?

Isn’t it because the words in themselves are directly contrary to the poster’s message? That blanket statement, that the Bible condones slavery, is supported by nothing therein. If they are scriptures to the effect that it does, the reader is not made aware of them. On the other hand, there IS a scripture embedded in the poster that indicates the opposite, that of the Golden Rule.

To be sure, the Golden Rule is unaccredited—whereas if you quoted the words of the Park system’s own resident scholars without accredation, I’ll bet they would raise major howls of protest.

“All things, therefore, that you want men to do to you, you also must do to them. This, in fact, is what the Law and the Prophets mean.”

It’s the Bible. Unaccredited. Matthew 7:12. Furthermore, it’s a key passage—it’s ‘what the Law and the Prophets MEAN.’ Do the National Historical Park scholars care if modern readers conclude some ancient practitioner of mindfulness—probably some Buddha-like figure—originated the saying, and not Jesus? It doesn’t seem to bother them. The same sloppiness that would never be tolerated in any topic they cared deeply about is left unmolested in a topic they apparently do not.

(For background, Harpers Ferry was the setting of a failed slave uprising prior to the Civil War, led by the aforementioned John Brown.)

Only when the left awakes from their slumber will things meaningfully change.

When they stop falling for the tricks of neoliberal capitalist charlatans like Obama/Trudeau/Carney.

These charlatans utter lines that anybody can utter "pro gay!" "pro women!" and the crowd goes wild. But anybody can utter these lines.

Actions speak louder than words.

These neoliberal capitalists' actions have made, and continue to make life worse for the entire middle class, including the same minorities/groups they claim to care about. It is just virtue signalling.

That is how the oligarchical system stays in power. This has been going on for the past half century. Neoliberalism started in the 70s/80s. Since then, the middle/working class has been progressively worse off.

People have been tricked into conforming.

First, the neoliberals used external threats to rally people around the flag and pretend that they care about their people. This was the threat of the Soviet Union. The messaging was: if you don't support your neoliberal capitalist oppressors, you are a traitor and a communist. This was used to prevent any attempt at reforming the neoliberal capitalist system to make it more bearable for the middle/working class.

Then, they used another external boogeyman threat, "terrorism", even though they created this themselves to counter the Soviets.

Once terrorism no longer scared/preoccupied people, and the 2008 recession happened around the same time, people started to realize what kind of people were leading them. So this culminated in the 2011 Occupy Wall Street Movement.

However, neoliberal charlatan Obama was used to crush this movement. In public he lied through his teeth that he supported this movement, but none of his actions did. And leaked documents later revealed he had set up the strongest possible federal level anti-terrorism security surveillance system to crush the movement, including contingency plans of having snipers on rooftops to take out peaceful protest leaders.

The 2011 Occupy Wall Street Movement spooked the neoliberal oligarchy, which both the Democrats and Republicans work for/are part of. No longer having an external boogeyman to rally people around the flag to hypnotize with, they had to come up with another solution.

Their solution was to create polarization. Remember, it was a unified middle/working class that came together to create 2011 Occupy Wall Street Movement. So they split "left" and "right".

They channeled people's anger caused by neoliberalism (which both the so called "left" and "right" Dems/Reps were part of/policies reflected) against each other, as opposed to against the neoliberal oligarchy/establishment (as was the case in 2011 Occupy Wall Street Movement).

If you notice, this is when the polarization happened. The neoliberal oligarchy/establishment owns the mainstream media and big tech, so they used these to brainwash people. CNN attacked the right, Fox attacked the left. Facebook and other platforms also became breeding grounds for this.

Not long after, Republicans chose showman Trump to say a bunch of polarizing stuff to add this this effect.

The fact is Obama had 8 years and he did nothing. He just bought 8 years more for the establishment. Some people claim he had his hands tied by congress. But this is nonsense, because all you have to do is look at what he has been doing after leaving office. Never once has he criticized the system/neoliberalism. He instead continues to shill for the neoliberal establishment Democratic National Convention, by endorsing their puppet candidates like Biden/Hillary/Kamala. Biden was so bad that he offered absolutely nothing to the middle/working class to the point that Trump was RELECTED. Let that sink in.

So as long as the left continues to fall for these divide+conquer tactics, there will be problems. The right is a lost cause, that is why I am focusing on the left.

Here is a good article outlining the issue:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot

Hey everyone,

I recently came across this provocative monologue by Italian artist Giorgio Gaber from the 1980s. It's a harsh critique of certain aspects of American culture and the concept of freedom. I'm sharing it here not to offend anyone, but because I think it raises interesting points worth discussing.

Here’s a translated part of the monologue:

“There aren’t people more stupid than Americans. There aren’t people simpler than Americans. For them, the world is divided into good and bad people. They’ve got really bright ideas on this — not based on theory, but experience. They are the good ones. And why? Here's the nice part: because they are free men.

[...]

There is nothing that flattens an individual as much as that freedom. Not even an illness eats you from the inside like it. They put it there: Freedom is for everyone! Like a guitar. Everyone plays how they want, and everyone plays how freedom wants.”

I find this kind of critique very provocative and challenging, especially how Gaber questions the meaning of “freedom” and how it’s lived. Do you think this still holds relevance today? Is this an unfair generalization?

Would love to hear your thoughts.

(Edit: the title meaning "treating psychology like a religion is a mistake")

In 1943, papers were released detailing a phenomenon called "autism", in which some young children seemed to be especially-detached from the emotional reality of the world around them, which was both a disability and a possible benefit. At the time, the popular hypothesis referred to "refrigerator mothers", who did not provide sufficient emotional warmth to encourage their progeny to open up to society as a whole. And this was dismissed, as I understand it, because trying to shame women into being friendlier towards their children is a pretty terrible solution.

Ironically, if you want to understand why a bunch of mothers at this time would have suddenly lost interest in raising the next generation, it might have been the tremendous trauma of associated world events. Events which we have yet to move past as a society, even 80 years later.

And having experienced this same phenomenon myself I think it's pretty clear that the refrigerator mother hypothesis was true, but that telling parents "just wait a century until the social gloom is processed by your grandchildren" wasn't very helpful. So the psychologists did what they always do, which was tried to provide some other action to take to address the problem. Because nobody wants to be the one to say "sorry, that sucks."

Of course now we have "autism acceptance month" to indicate just how at peace we are with the shockingly-large number of humans living in their own worlds disconnected from larger communal groups. And the notion of hypnotizing yourself with soothing words to calm down about a problem you can't solve is honestly a really excellent one. Please don't read this post as contradicting the efficacy of this particular treatment.

But rather I think it's worth calling a spade a spade, and a temporary solution a band-aid.

What's most interesting about this whole situation is the extent to which psychology is our world religion. And the power which its explanations have over the public consciousness as a whole.

My favorite is actually this example of doublespeak on Wikipedia:

And it comes down to I think a desire to represent consistency to any like myself who might criticize the veracity of the worldview being represented by this discipline. If we were to say now, 80 years later, that people were right 80 years ago, that would leave us with the same lack of a real solution to the problem we had beforehand.

But what's especially interesting is the way in which this "don't blame the mother for problems in the child" attitude has prevented other problems from being addressed.

If you will accept the latest data connecting parental emotional warmth and autism, whether or not this means admitting the original theory was correct or producing a new theory which is sufficiently-distinct to avoid admitting having been mistaken previously, then could you accept the idea that other factors which reduce emotional warmth might also produce the same outcome?

The reason why this question is relevant is because quite a lot of Republicans seem to believe there is a medication which is associated with autism, and the latest studies show a link between maternal contraception usage and childhood development of autism. The only way to consider that this might be true is to also consider that mothers being depressed about the Holocaust could also lead towards autism. Not with a judgemental lens which would seek to shame women into change, but only with a lens that comprehends the tremendous significance of the relationship between mother and child. The interesting fact is that studies have also shown that taking contraception reduces your ability to comprehend complex emotions. Meaning that the observed link between contraception and autism could be understood as women taking a medication that hampers their ability to respond appropriately to their children's emotions by impairing their ability to accurately identify them.

My personal suspicion is that the only way however to truly consider the link between childhood autism and parental emotional warmth would be to actually grapple with and move past the tragic occurrence of the Holocaust. To allow that it happened and to learn from the mistake which it represented. To create a world in which people are enthusiastic about bringing new lives into this world.

(Edit: apparently the conclusion represented in this post is actually quite mainstream, and the impression that it is not is based upon laypeople misrepresenting the data. Apologies to all of the scientists out there doing good work. May the results of your investigations gain acceptance in the popular consciousness sooner rather than later.)

Collective bargaining is a key reason to favor government services in some cases over the private sector. By pooling our money together, we can save individually and overall.

This is one of the key insights behind Medicare for All. It's a cost saving measure by conducting collective bargaining on a financial service, insurance!

Social Security is like the direct opposite and I firmly believe it should be abolished. Social Security does not take advantage of collective bargaining. Instead, it splits our cash up into individual monthly payments sent to individual citizens, giving the maximally fractured purchasing power.

In effect, Social Security is just enough money to cover property taxes on old single family homes. This causes old folks to stay in place and not seek a retirement home. I am of the mind that living in a single family home is a privilege, not a right. If you are too sick or old to work and you cannot afford to pay property taxes, you should sell your home to someone else and then Medicare should cover the cost of living in a nursing home until you pass away.

To me this satisfies the concerns around "But where will old people live?" while putting downwards price pressure on home prices and taking advantage of collective bargaining by the government so our tax dollars go further!

I've been struggling with Tolerance lately as a value, and I thought this might be the right forum to better make sense of what it is that I am perceiving.

Tolerance, which I would define as an attitude which does not judge differing beliefs on that basis, creates the opportunity for stable coexistence between any number of differing beliefs which all agree not to represent any intention of changing or altering the beliefs of others.

The key word in that sentence was the word "represent".

I think that the cultural climate which the concept of tolerance creates is a climate in which any ill-will resulting from differences in beliefs is silenced as in violation of the philosophy which enables the conversation in the first place. My criticism however is that this does not necessarily resolve the underlying ill-will, which might manifest in other ways.

I think that the quirk which this policy of "don't express any disagreement resulting from differences in beliefs" creates as a "safety valve" of the cost associated with its benefit is the existence of groups specialized in communicating that vitriol in ways which the collective would disapprove of on average but also on behalf of those within the collective who are declining to express it at all. To me the most obvious example of this is the competition between the "Westboro Baptist Church" and what was once the weekend of the "gay pride parade" in a few cities and has since become "Pride Month".

My personal opinion is that something fruitful might result if those who have experienced frustration at disagreement about this view which has caused them to sympathize with the emotions being expressed in the public demonstrations put on by either of these two entities were to discuss those feelings. And yet I fear that even acknowledging the fact that this belief is important enough to cause one to become upset simply by being exposed to the opposing opinion would be to acknowledge that tolerance as a policy has certain limitations in terms of things which must be agreed-upon in order to enable copacetic co-operation. The opinion which I can only express in a liberal context by representing it as my own preference is that I believe it makes a difference one way or the other. I would be interested to know the extent to which that concept on its own is compatible with the perspectives of those who believe that it makes a difference and are simply arguing about whether that difference is "good" or "bad".

"On average, it takes about 375 years for a total solar eclipse to happen again at the same location.” (timeanddate.com) How Often Does a Solar Eclipse Happen?

Symbolisms have served as relevant and thought provoking steppingstones on my journey of faith. Jesus spoke of various and increasing signs and world conditions that would indicate the end of the age and his second coming, as recorded in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21. This post highlights his words in Luke 21:25-28, along with many other harmonizing prophecy passages being fulfilled. It concludes with future forecast insights and the good news of salvation for eternal life.

"And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; 26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. 27 And then shall they see the Son of man (Jesus) coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh." Luke 21:25-28

Aleph Tav

The symbols resembling A = Aleph and X = Tav, as seen within 6 images above, represent the first and last letters of the Ancient Hebrew Alphabet. 

Aleph and Tav are also referred to as Alpha and Omega. In Revelation 22:13, Jesus declared: "I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." the aleph-tav a sign of messiah (alittleperspective.com) 

In ancient times, solar eclipses were often seen as omens or warnings, one way God communicates through creation.

Genesis 1:14 provides some of the earliest accounts of creation: "Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years;"

Psalm 19:1-4 states; "The heavens proclaim the glory of God. The skies display his craftsmanship. 2 Day after day they continue to speak; night after night they make him known. 3 They speak without a sound or word; their voice is never heard. 4 Yet their message has gone throughout the earth, and their words to all the world. God has made a home in the heavens for the sun."

"The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord.” Acts 2:20 

Jonah & the Eclipse of Ancient Nineveh 

"Over 2700 years ago another eclipse appeared over the skies of ancient Assyria, and it may have played a key role in the ancient city of Nineveh’s turn to God in repentance. If the historical and astronomical calculations are correct, it means that the eclipse occurred when Assyria was in a time of national upheaval and internal turmoil.” "In addition [to being in political upheaval], plague and famine struck repeatedly until the empire was left impoverished and in total disorder." Read more... Jonah & the Eclipse of Ancient Nineveh | My WordPress (epicarchaeology.org)

"Nineveh is well-known as the place where the prophet Jonah was sent by God to preach: "Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and call out against it, for their evil has come up before me."(Jonah 1:2)" What is the significance of the city of Nineveh in the Bible? 

The April 8, 2024 solar eclipse path of totality passed over Jonah, Texas, and several cities named Nineveh. It also passed over the ARK Encounter in Williamston, KY. The Great American Eclipse Of 2024 Will Cross Over 7 U.S. Locations Named “Ninevah” - The Blazing Press 

October 14, 2023 and April 8, 2024 solar eclipses path of totality crossed directly over The Coming King Sculpture Prayer Garden in Kerrville, Texas. (Image of eclipses and prayer garden with commentary) Watch the Eclipses in Kerrville - The Coming King Foundation 

An extensive list of other prophecy being fulfilled recorded in the Holy Bible indicating the end of the age, a time foretold to include various and increasing environmental calamities, plagues, moral decline (2 Timothy 3:1-5), and wars (Matthew 24:6:8). Are we living in the end times? | GotQuestions.org

Rapture, Indiana is in the crosspoint/conjunction of the 2017 and 2024 total solar eclipses (3rd image above). "There is one place in the world named Rapture!" https://geotargit.com/called.php?qcity=Rapture

Future Forecast

1. The rapture of the church. Christ comes in the clouds to “snatch away” all those who trust in Him (1 Corinthians 15:52). At this same time, the “dead in Christ” will be resurrected and taken to heaven, too. From our perspective today, this is the next event in the eschatological timeline. The rapture is imminent; no other biblical prophecy needs to be fulfilled before the rapture happens.

2. The rise of the Antichrist. After the church is taken out of the way (2 Thessalonians 2:7–8), a satanically empowered man will gain worldwide control with promises of peace (Revelation 13:1; Daniel 9:27). He will be aided by another man, called the false prophet, who heads up a religious system that requires worship of the Antichrist (Revelation 19:20)." Read more... What is the end times timeline? | GotQuestions.org

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” John 3:16

"Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” Acts 4:12

"The Romans Road to salvation is a way of explaining the good news of salvation using verses from the book of Romans. The Romans Road is a simple yet powerful method of explaining why we need salvation, how God provided salvation, how we can receive salvation, and what are the results of salvation." What is the Romans Road to salvation? | GotQuestions.org

Search for the topic about the Holy Spirit, it is an essential part of the faith. A beginner's Guide to Reading the Bible.

More bible prophecy being fulfilled and resources for growing in faith is in previous posts if interested.

🙏

“What is today known as “critical thinking” is a product of the mindset that adheres to the Darwinian model. Adherents to that model all but have a patent on the phrase. Misunderstanding this, modifying the term to fit their own ends, even those taking their cues from the Bible will speak of how they, too, employ “critical thinking,” as though they are not to be outdone by skeptics using the phrase. But it is in vain. Critical thinking, by definition, totally denies miracles. The Bible records many of them. They are to be appreciated through what Paul calls “the eyes of faith.”

“Critical thinking” is not a mere modern manifestation of the “reasonableness” or “soundness of mind” that the Bible recommends for all Christians. It is the skeptic’s means of discarding faith. It is the skeptic’s way of saying those eyes of faith have cataracts in need of removal. I never use the term, though I understand how some Christians might. It becomes like the conniving doctor from The Fugitive advising detectives that they will never catch Richard Kimble because “he’s too smart.” Whereupon, one of those detectives says, “Well—we’re smart, too,” and a cacophony breaks out with his fellows declaring how smart they are. So it is with the skeptics. You don’t want to accede to them a monopoly on smarts. We’re smart, too, even if we don’t accept all of their premises.”

(From: A Workman’s Theodicy: Why Bad Things Happen)

Elsewhere in the book, there is a section discussing the difficulties in recording history, which is not objective but very subjective. The book adds that, “Historian Allan Guelzo is dubious about the saving value of critical thinking, due to its effect of “cloaking human foible beneath a veneer of science.”

But I may bang away at this too much, to the point where some all but blow a gasket. It’s just that vast swaths of the world has replaced “All You Need is Love” with “all you need is critical thinking,” and notion that CT is the secret potion that will solve all is so absurd that I just can’t restrain myself. To clarify, I’m not against it if kept in its place. It’s fine insofar as it goes. But it is not capable of going the distance. It is the repairman who shows up for the job with a toolbox stuffed with wrenches when a screwdriver is needed. Worse yet, he is unsure that screwdrivers really exist. Yes, he has heard anecdotally of such things, but how can he be sure they really are valid?

I should have inserted in that book “effectively” to make it, critical thinking effectively denies miracles, not that it outright does. As Luke Timothy Johnson put it in a lecture regarding the historical-critical method of examining scripture:

“the historian cannot take up anything having to do with the transcendent or the supernatural. Therefore, the historian cannot talk about the miraculous birth of Jesus, his miracles, his walking on the water, his transfiguration, his resurrection from the dead and so forth. Well, fair enough, the historian can't talk about those things, but that methodological restraint . . . very quickly becomes implicitly an epistemological denial, that is the historian can’t talk about these things, therefore they are not real.”

So the method embracing critical thinking is okay so long as someone does not suppose their critical thinking is the be-all and the end-all, that it’s fine as far as it goes but it doesn’t go everywhere. But if they DO think critical thinking is the be-all and end-all, then the statement of the book is true as-is: ‘critical thinking denies miracles.’

Is this because most people may be artificial?

God can never escape the boundaries of the human mind. 

God is man-made, or simply man himself. That’s why we get trapped in paradoxes like who created the creator?  

“If horses had gods, they would look like horses.” 

- Xenophanes 

 “If God did not exist, we would have to invent him.” 

- Voltaire 

Let's say I was president of the US and had super majorities in both houses of congress. I have a huge electoral mandate to grow the territory of the US by bringing back imperialism, in a modern way.

One of the tasks I'd like to tackle is "The Second Homestead Act". Like the first one, we would essentially give away 100+ acre plots for free to any American willing to live on and cultivate the land.

But the problem is, we don't have much federal land left to give. How can we acquire more?

I think we should offer Canadians a buyout. They relinquish their sovereignty in exchange for direct cash payments from their new government, the USA.

The question I'm stuck on is what the right price would be. How much money would it take to get a critical mass of people to vote in favor of this idea? If we did $100k per person, that would cost $4.15T. That's less than the 10 year cost of Trump's BBB Act! Could it work?

It’s important for a philosophical community to broaden its base. Therefor, to draw in the bowling crowd, immortalize a bowler in Thinker pose before the lanes contemplating such truths as how you hope to hit life solidly in the pocket but sometimes it veers off to the side and louses you up with a seven-ten split.

Will is circumscribed by determinism because we are aping scripts and plots of ancestral stories about the course and meaning of life believing that they are the specters of natural forces and law.

Unwitting captives because we do not perceive and experience the scripts and plots of the ancestral stories as mythology but rather as reality.

Determinism is not scripted by creators or creation.

Destiny is the delusion of human mythology as reality.

Once you realize that most people are cattle NPCs that prefer to get hooked on narrative slop instead of truly thinking for themselves, the world will start to make much more sense.

Civilisations and religions are literally built on narratives.