Skip to main content

A Clash of Civilizations

 Samuel P. Huntington was right, there will be and there is a clash of civilizations: He got the major forces completely wrong, though. While in many regions religions fight with each other because they persecute each other, that is laughably wrong on what will mold the future of civilizations.  The main fight is not religion vs. religion, but secularism and democracy vs. cronyism, theocracy, royalty and dictatorships

Do humans take charge of their own governance or are they slaves to the group that happens to have some guns or claim to be able to give you ever-lasting life? I have my preferences. What are yours?

From Wikipedia: Religion (the fake life offerors) has continued to decline, in the US less than half of people are members of any official religion.

Change in religious identification, 1950 - 2020

Percentage of Americans by religious identification (1950 – 2020)[157]

  Christian (nonspecified)

  No Answer

The people will rule. Since 1776 there has been a steady increase in democracy and a steady decrease in religiosity. The people are taking their power from the elites. No more shall anyone be punished for the supposed crime of heresy. There is no such 'crime' (sin?) as apostasy. This is the last dying gasp of a mode of civilization that has been dealt death blows over 150 years ago. During the last great clash between citizens and their repressive elites who tried to enforce feudalism: the civil war of the United States. It did not end well for the farmers and their need for slave labor to thrive. They've been resentful for 150 years, but not only did they lose then, they are losing now. 

Religions have a few fundamental problems which cause their own downfall from within. The fundamental fraud that all religions fall inherent to is the fraud of infallibility. To claim their supremacy for moral decisions, they must claim to be infallible. If not, then they are open to argument, reason and truth; from which they would fail miserably; so they cannot go back on their claims. Thus they cannot change their minds, the model they build will invariably be wrong, so they must claim faith is the only way to show they are legitimate. Faith: the ability to claim to believe in things you cannot prove. They bend and twist the meaning of faith to imply it means believing in things that are untrue. This is why they will not stand as a legitimate societal institution. When your entire institution is based on a lie, it will eventually collapse.

Democracies are inherently safer than autocracies because of the extra effort that must be spent to convince the government to do anything. If the government does anything the people don't like, in a democracy, there's a legal, non-violent way to change it. In an autocracy, it's only about what the autocrats want. There is no accountability. This is dangerous. Look at the rate of wars democratic countries have been in versus autocratic countries. Essentially, democracies do not go to war against each other, autocracies do it all the time. Democracies aren't saints, democracies tend to fight autocracies.

However, the long march of history is clear: towards more democracy and less religion. 

The human race is making progress.

Thanks for reading!



Popular posts from this blog

The Declaration of Independence is the foundation of modern ethics

The Settlement of the War between Science and Religion . Why the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights are More Important than you realize. These two documents provide the foundation of the Grand Moral Compromise between Religion and Science that allowed the Industrial Revolution to progress by defining the morals and ethics of governments and their relationship with the people. The only moral and ethical form of government is declared to be a Lawful Democracy with Religious  Freedom . These two documents define why this is from first postulates and dictate the method to form a government. The Grand Moral Compromise was defined in the Declaration of Independence and codified in the Bill of Rights : it is the agreement that abolished the crime of heresy in return for freedom of all religions , including science , the harbinger of truth . Only about half [G] of the world has agreed to this  Grand Moral Compromise , the rest are still at war with themselv

Quantum Mechanics is weirder than you think. It might be weirder than anyone can think.

Reflections on " Experimental rejection of observer-independence in the quantum world " and an updated version " Experimental test of local observer-independence ". Are we quantum mechanical or not? This paper basically proves that the famous Schrodinger's cat experiment , which says the cat is a quantum mechanical wave function is correct. The cat is actually in an entangled state which means the cat is alive and dead at the same time. That's pretty weird! But we an make it even  weirder! Imagine, if you will, [1] that you are taking the place of Schrodinger's cat. We don't want to kill you so we'll modify the experiment in line with Deutsch's proposal and Wigner's interpretation. [2] The experiment performed above is exactly Deutsch's proposal and the result is that yes, you as the observer are in a superposition of quantum states. What is you in that previous statement? You only ever remember one set of events. You never have

The Social Dilemma - Sounds to me like a medical problem.

 If you're not familiar with the plot of docudrama "The Social Dilemma", go watch it now.  If you haven't seen it, the short summary is the following: Social network sites get paid for you to watch their ads. The more ads they get you to see, the more they get paid. Their entire capitalistic inc3entive is to make you watch more of their ads. They work very, very, very hard to make this come true. They're really good at it. They suck you in and keep you doom-scrolling as long as they can. They don't care if it's bad for  your health, they want those ad dollars. They want to increase their feed's 'stickiness.' They want your attention and they'll get it any way they can.  And how do they get it? The don't create their own content... they entice you to scroll for content you've 'signed up' for. Content that your friends publish. Content that your favorite authors publish. Content that other famous people publish. That seems rea