Research:MDem/5.1r/1612 correct-religion - Revision history

Reversedragon: page alias: Q19,6,10

2025-08-09T02:08:18Z

page alias: Q19,6,10

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:08, 9 August 2025
Line 41:		Line 41:
	{{HueClaim \|P=item type\| {{Ontology:Z1\|Z1\|C=Q2}} }}		{{HueClaim \|P=item type\| {{Ontology:Z1\|Z1\|C=Q2}} }}
	{{HueRoster\|EP=PPPA/L\|lang=en\| {{Philosophical Research:MDem/5.1r/1612 correct-religion}} }}		{{HueRoster\|EP=PPPA/L\|lang=en\| {{Philosophical Research:MDem/5.1r/1612 correct-religion}} }}
	{{HueRoster\|EP=PPPA\|lang=en\| using Trotsky to determine the correct religion (<cite>MDem</cite> 5.1 scrap) \| <cite>MDem</cite> 5.1/{{TTS\|tts=16-12\|1612}} correct-religion \| bop alias <code>v5-1_{{TTS\|tts=16-12\|1612}}_correct-religion</code> }}		{{HueRoster\|EP=PPPA\|lang=en\| using Trotsky to determine the correct religion (<cite>MDem</cite> 5.1 scrap) \| <cite>MDem</cite> 5.1/{{TTS\|tts=16-12\|1612}} correct-religion \| bop alias <code>v5-1_{{TTS\|tts=16-12\|1612}}_correct-religion</code> \| [[Philosophical Research:MDem/5.1r/1612 correct-religion/Q19610\|Q19,6,10]] (tentative Item number; retired at this time) }}
	{{HueRoster\|EP=P4\| <cite>MDem</cite> 5.1 entry [[Category:MDem v5.1 entries]] [[Category:MDem v5 entries ontology]] \| bop-format brainstorm shard / bop scrap }} <!-- en: case of -->		{{HueRoster\|EP=P4\| <cite>MDem</cite> 5.1 entry [[Category:MDem v5.1 entries]] [[Category:MDem v5 entries ontology]] \| bop-format brainstorm shard / bop scrap }} <!-- en: case of -->
	{{HueRoster\|P=thesis portal entry\| [[Philosophical Research:MDem/5.1r/1612 correct-religion]] }}		{{HueRoster\|P=thesis portal entry\| [[Philosophical Research:MDem/5.1r/1612 correct-religion]] }}

Reversedragon: /* Metadata */ check metadata against old ontology page before inactivating it

2025-08-09T02:02:30Z

Metadata: check metadata against old ontology page before inactivating it

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:02, 9 August 2025
Line 34:		Line 34:
	== Metadata ==		== Metadata ==

	{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean compound"><li> {{ArticleTitle\|[Z] using Trotsky to determine the correct religion - MDem 5.1/ scrap 16,12 correct-religion}}		{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean compound"><li>
	<onlyinclude><dfn class="field_mdem" data-dimension="Z" data-serial="16,12" data-edsuffix="r" data-alias="correct-religion" data-field="meta-Marxism" data-work="Molecular Democracy drafts" data-tale="correct-religions" data-note="bop scrap" data-lexeme="">{{#if: {{{1\|}}} \| [[Philosophical Research:MDem/5.1r/1612 correct-religion\|{{{1}}}]] \| [[Philosophical Research:MDem/5.1r/1612 correct-religion\|<cite>MDem</cite> 5.1/ "correct-religion"]] }}<ins class="~~note~~"> ([[Philosophical_Research:MDem\|scrap]])</ins>{{WaveScore\|sum=1\|quilt=1\|ply=1\|enddfn=1}}</onlyinclude>		{{ArticleTitle\|[Z] using Trotsky to determine the correct religion - MDem 5.1/ scrap 16,12 correct-religion \| h1 = Philosophical Research:MDem/5.1r/{{TTS\|tts=16-12\|1612}} correct-religion}}
	</li></ol>		<onlyinclude><dfn class="field_mdem manual" data-dimension="Z" data-edition="5.1" data-serial="16,12" data-edsuffix="r" data-alias="correct-religion" data-field="meta-Marxism" data-work="Molecular Democracy drafts" data-tale="correct-religions" data-note="bop scrap" data-lexeme="">{{IZ1/MX}}{{#if: {{{1\|}}} \| [[Philosophical Research:MDem/5.1r/1612 correct-religion\|{{{1}}}]] \| [[Philosophical Research:MDem/5.1r/1612 correct-religion\|<cite>MDem</cite> 5.1/ "correct-religion"]] }}<ins class="field"> ([[Philosophical_Research:MDem\|scrap]])</ins>{{WaveScore\|sum=1\|quilt=1\|ply=1\|enddfn=1}}</onlyinclude></li></ol>

	<dl class="wikitable hue">		<dl class="wikitable hue data_mdem5">
	{{HueClaim \|P=item type\| {{Ontology:Z1\|Z1\|C=Q2}} }}		{{HueClaim \|P=item type\| {{Ontology:Z1\|Z1\|C=Q2}} }}
	{{HueRoster\|EP=PPPA\|lang=en\| MDem v5.1/ using Trotsky to determine the correct religion \| MDem 5.1/{{TTS\|tts=16-12\|1612}} correct-religion \| <code>v5-1_{{TTS\|tts=16-12\|1612}}_correct-religion</code> }}		{{HueRoster\|EP=PPPA/L\|lang=en\| {{Philosophical Research:MDem/5.1r/1612 correct-religion}} }}
	{{HueRoster\|EP=P4\| bop scrap }} <!-- en: case of -->		{{HueRoster\|EP=PPPA\|lang=en\| using Trotsky to determine the correct religion (<cite>MDem</cite> 5.1 scrap) \| <cite>MDem</cite> 5.1/{{TTS\|tts=16-12\|1612}} correct-religion \| bop alias <code>v5-1_{{TTS\|tts=16-12\|1612}}_correct-religion</code> }}
			{{HueRoster\|EP=P4\| <cite>MDem</cite> 5.1 entry [[Category:MDem v5.1 entries]] [[Category:MDem v5 entries ontology]] \| bop-format brainstorm shard / bop scrap }} <!-- en: case of -->
			{{HueRoster\|P=thesis portal entry\| [[Philosophical Research:MDem/5.1r/1612 correct-religion]] }}
			{{HueRoster\|P=bop sort code\| 5.1/{{TTS\|tts=16-12\|1612}} }}
			{{HueRoster\|EP=P34\| {{E:Q19000}} \| {{E:Q92}} }} <!-- en: field MDem (unfinished book) meta-Marxism -->
	</dl>		</dl>

	=== Bibliographic information ===		=== Bibliographic information ===

	<dl class="wikitable hue">		<dl class="wikitable hue data_mdem5">
	{{HueClaim \|P=date\| <time datetime{{=}}"2025-04-30T04:35:33Z">25-4-30</time> \|OP=with context\| created }}		{{HueClaim \|P=date\| <time datetime{{=}}"2025-04-30T04:35:33Z">25-4-30</time> \|OP=with context\| created }}
	{{HueClaim \|P=title\| v5.1-5.2 scraps/ using Trotsky to determine the correct religion \|OP=format\| bop metadata line }}		{{HueClaim \|P=title\| <code>v5.1-5.2 scraps/ using Trotsky to determine the correct religion</code> \|OP=format\| bop metadata line }}
	{{HueClaim \|P=author ~~name string~~\| R. Bergfalk \| R. Bergfalk "R.D." @{{TTS\|tts=ReverseDragonThree\|reversedragon3}} }}		{{HueClaim \|P=author\| R. Bergfalk \| R. Bergfalk "R.D." @{{TTS\|tts=ReverseDragonThree\|reversedragon3}} }} <!-- author name string / author -->
	</dl>		</dl>
	<!--		<!--
Line 57:		Line 61:
	-->		-->

			== Wavebuilder combinations ==

	~~[[Category~~:MDem v5.~~1 entries]]~~ [[Category:~~MDem v5 entries ontology~~]] [[~~Category~~:~~Text pages containing experiments~~]] ~~__NOTOC__~~		<dl class="wikitable hue data_wavebuild three data_mdem5">
			{{WaveBuild\| {{Philosophical Research:MDem/5.1r/1612 correct-religion}} \| (other scraps?) \| 5.2/1612 TheologicalMorality }} <!-- en: WITH ?? PRODUCES ?? -->
			</dl>


			[[Category:Pages serving as current format examples]] <!-- page ends here.
			magic words: --> __NOTOC__
			<!-- duplication hint: copy or update bop formatting / metadata section from [[Special:PermanentLink/NNNN\|16,12 correct-religion]] -->

Reversedragon: update formatting from 2370 layers

2025-08-09T01:10:51Z

update formatting from 2370 layers

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-<pre>------
+{{BopCSS}}<div class="bop top"><h3 id="intro"><time datetime="2025-04-30T04:35:33Z">(litho<span style="text-transform: lowercase;"><em class="caps">Graph</em>Ica</span> prototype)</time></h3>
-(lithoGRAPHica prototype) [cr. 2025-04-30T04:35:33Z]
+<div class="bop-text"><blockquote>[S2] Applying any philosophy to Trotsky eventually gets you to the correct answers</blockquote>
 most people in the United States believe Trotsky was justified to stand up against the Soviet Union. thus, any religion which is the correct religion would send Trotsky to the good place for resisting Stalin.
@@ Line 23: / Line 21: @@
 if morality is largely about the arrangements of people and the study of human behavior, there are only tiny differences between morality and historical materialism, if any. the more people bring up "history" and phrases like "the right side of history" the more the difference between the two closes toward there being no difference.
-this explains why people confusedly think inclusive history or anti-racist ideology is "Marxism" even when internally it is almost explicitly anticommunist. Tories are fundamentally afraid of _historical materialism_ — the proposition that there even is any such thing as a correct course of history, or a course of history that can deliberately be repeated. no matter how much you try to rid your practice of "violence", "authoritarianism", "censorship", or any other supposed Communist value, if you ever propose to Tories any statement whatsoever that history could have gone another way or that one future is better than another future, they _will_ become offended and insist you're actually a Communist. the only real way to appease Tories and entirely clear yourself of such accusations looks something like accepting that Tories are a separate nation with a separate culture and separate ethnic history and you must approach them specifically from within their cultural context, including requirements that everybody convert to a particular Christianity, cultural traditions of racial segregation, ethnic history of celebrating an arbitrary assortment of pseudo-Christian holidays and not knowing anything about other cultures until the moment somebody corrects them on a microaggression, cultural beliefs that Anarchism is not welcome and repeat instances of crime ought to bring militaristic criminal-shooting brigades, and other such local traditions and practices. to the Tory subpopulation, all Tories together form a kind of Subject, and they want their population to essentially be treated just like an individual. they do not want their population to be forced to change its will from the outside, even if some people call that "democracy". they do not like people asserting that their population has a particular future, and they consider this as offensive as someone trying to assign a particular future to an individual. the reason that Tories react so negatively to being told they are bigots or they are doing immoral things is that they see any attempt to put rules on their population as a form of authoritarianism in which an individual with its own will (the population) is being ordered around and forced to do things or forced to adopt somebody else's culture instead of everybody solving their problems through horizontally forming relationships and free association. Tories are fully wired into Existentialism and the notion of The Subject; they are some of the most Existentialist people to exist. far from not understanding human emotions and The Subject, they exploit their knowledge of The Subject to the maximum to maximally claim all the rights of a Subject at all times. a Tory population optimizes itself to not include anybody that would impair its personal freedom by taking up its material resources on such things as government programs, and then it calls "The Subject" to not have to unify itself into other populations. the common notion of intersubjectivity is wholly the wrong way to comprehend Toryism. Toryism is an isolationist sociophilosophy that creates wholly separate social countries which are materially sovereign from all other people who might be talking about intersubjectivity. Toryism must be treated like it is the only person in the universe, and a very, very disagreeable person at that. if you can explain why the last person on earth should change, or Vegeta sitting in an empty universe after exterminating all life should change, then you might have an idea of how to get Toryism to willingly decide to change. outside of that, nothing else will work.</pre>
+this explains why people confusedly think inclusive history or anti-racist ideology is "Marxism" even when internally it is almost explicitly anticommunist. Tories are fundamentally afraid of _historical materialism_ — the proposition that there even is any such thing as a correct course of history, or a course of history that can deliberately be repeated. no matter how much you try to rid your practice of "violence", "authoritarianism", "censorship", or any other supposed Communist value, if you ever propose to Tories any statement whatsoever that history could have gone another way or that one future is better than another future, they _will_ become offended and insist you're actually a Communist. the only real way to appease Tories and entirely clear yourself of such accusations looks something like accepting that Tories are a separate nation with a separate culture and separate ethnic history and you must approach them specifically from within their cultural context, including requirements that everybody convert to a particular Christianity, cultural traditions of racial segregation, ethnic history of celebrating an arbitrary assortment of pseudo-Christian holidays and not knowing anything about other cultures until the moment somebody corrects them on a microaggression, cultural beliefs that Anarchism is not welcome and repeat instances of crime ought to bring militaristic criminal-shooting brigades, and other such local traditions and practices. to the Tory subpopulation, all Tories together form a kind of Subject, and they want their population to essentially be treated just like an individual. they do not want their population to be forced to change its will from the outside, even if some people call that "democracy". they do not like people asserting that their population has a particular future, and they consider this as offensive as someone trying to assign a particular future to an individual. the reason that Tories react so negatively to being told they are bigots or they are doing immoral things is that they see any attempt to put rules on their population as a form of authoritarianism in which an individual with its own will (the population) is being ordered around and forced to do things or forced to adopt somebody else's culture instead of everybody solving their problems through horizontally forming relationships and free association. Tories are fully wired into Existentialism and the notion of The Subject; they are some of the most Existentialist people to exist. far from not understanding human emotions and The Subject, they exploit their knowledge of The Subject to the maximum to maximally claim all the rights of a Subject at all times. a Tory population optimizes itself to not include anybody that would impair its personal freedom by taking up its material resources on such things as government programs, and then it calls "The Subject" to not have to unify itself into other populations. the common notion of intersubjectivity is wholly the wrong way to comprehend Toryism. Toryism is an isolationist sociophilosophy that creates wholly separate social countries which are materially sovereign from all other people who might be talking about intersubjectivity. Toryism must be treated like it is the only person in the universe, and a very, very disagreeable person at that. if you can explain why the last person on earth should change, or Vegeta sitting in an empty universe after exterminating all life should change, then you might have an idea of how to get Toryism to willingly decide to change. outside of that, nothing else will work.
-<dl class="bop-meta"><!--
+[[Category:MDem v5.1 entries]] [[Category:MDem v5 entries ontology]] [[Category:Text pages containing experiments]]  __NOTOC__

Reversedragon: Reversedragon moved page Philosophical Research:Molecular Democracy/5.1r/1612 correct-religion to Philosophical Research:MDem/5.1r/1612 correct-religion: Abbreviating long subpage to shorter path

2025-08-08T21:47:35Z

Reversedragon moved page Philosophical Research:Molecular Democracy/5.1r/1612 correct-religion to Philosophical Research:MDem/5.1r/1612 correct-religion: Abbreviating long subpage to shorter path

← Older revision	Revision as of 21:47, 8 August 2025
(No difference)

Reversedragon: Ontology Item

2025-04-30T07:19:03Z

Ontology Item

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:19, 30 April 2025
Line 24:		Line 24:
	if morality is largely about the arrangements of people and the study of human behavior, there are only tiny differences between morality and historical materialism, if any. the more people bring up "history" and phrases like "the right side of history" the more the difference between the two closes toward there being no difference.		if morality is largely about the arrangements of people and the study of human behavior, there are only tiny differences between morality and historical materialism, if any. the more people bring up "history" and phrases like "the right side of history" the more the difference between the two closes toward there being no difference.
	this explains why people confusedly think inclusive history or anti-racist ideology is "Marxism" even when internally it is almost explicitly anticommunist. Tories are fundamentally afraid of _historical materialism_ — the proposition that there even is any such thing as a correct course of history, or a course of history that can deliberately be repeated. no matter how much you try to rid your practice of "violence", "authoritarianism", "censorship", or any other supposed Communist value, if you ever propose to Tories any statement whatsoever that history could have gone another way or that one future is better than another future, they _will_ become offended and insist you're actually a Communist. the only real way to appease Tories and entirely clear yourself of such accusations looks something like accepting that Tories are a separate nation with a separate culture and separate ethnic history and you must approach them specifically from within their cultural context, including requirements that everybody convert to a particular Christianity, cultural traditions of racial segregation, ethnic history of celebrating an arbitrary assortment of pseudo-Christian holidays and not knowing anything about other cultures until the moment somebody corrects them on a microaggression, cultural beliefs that Anarchism is not welcome and repeat instances of crime ought to bring militaristic criminal-shooting brigades, and other such local traditions and practices. to the Tory subpopulation, all Tories together form a kind of Subject, and they want their population to essentially be treated just like an individual. they do not want their population to be forced to change its will from the outside, even if some people call that "democracy". they do not like people asserting that their population has a particular future, and they consider this as offensive as someone trying to assign a particular future to an individual. the reason that Tories react so negatively to being told they are bigots or they are doing immoral things is that they see any attempt to put rules on their population as a form of authoritarianism in which an individual with its own will (the population) is being ordered around and forced to do things or forced to adopt somebody else's culture instead of everybody solving their problems through horizontally forming relationships and free association. Tories are fully wired into Existentialism and the notion of The Subject; they are some of the most Existentialist people to exist. far from not understanding human emotions and The Subject, they exploit their knowledge of The Subject to the maximum to maximally claim all the rights of a Subject at all times. a Tory population optimizes itself to not include anybody that would impair its personal freedom by taking up its material resources on such things as government programs, and then it calls "The Subject" to not have to unify itself into other populations. the common notion of intersubjectivity is wholly the wrong way to comprehend Toryism. Toryism is an isolationist sociophilosophy that creates wholly separate social countries which are materially sovereign from all other people who might be talking about intersubjectivity. Toryism must be treated like it is the only person in the universe, and a very, very disagreeable person at that. if you can explain why the last person on earth should change, or Vegeta sitting in an empty universe after exterminating all life should change, then you might have an idea of how to get Toryism to willingly decide to change. outside of that, nothing else will work.</pre>		this explains why people confusedly think inclusive history or anti-racist ideology is "Marxism" even when internally it is almost explicitly anticommunist. Tories are fundamentally afraid of _historical materialism_ — the proposition that there even is any such thing as a correct course of history, or a course of history that can deliberately be repeated. no matter how much you try to rid your practice of "violence", "authoritarianism", "censorship", or any other supposed Communist value, if you ever propose to Tories any statement whatsoever that history could have gone another way or that one future is better than another future, they _will_ become offended and insist you're actually a Communist. the only real way to appease Tories and entirely clear yourself of such accusations looks something like accepting that Tories are a separate nation with a separate culture and separate ethnic history and you must approach them specifically from within their cultural context, including requirements that everybody convert to a particular Christianity, cultural traditions of racial segregation, ethnic history of celebrating an arbitrary assortment of pseudo-Christian holidays and not knowing anything about other cultures until the moment somebody corrects them on a microaggression, cultural beliefs that Anarchism is not welcome and repeat instances of crime ought to bring militaristic criminal-shooting brigades, and other such local traditions and practices. to the Tory subpopulation, all Tories together form a kind of Subject, and they want their population to essentially be treated just like an individual. they do not want their population to be forced to change its will from the outside, even if some people call that "democracy". they do not like people asserting that their population has a particular future, and they consider this as offensive as someone trying to assign a particular future to an individual. the reason that Tories react so negatively to being told they are bigots or they are doing immoral things is that they see any attempt to put rules on their population as a form of authoritarianism in which an individual with its own will (the population) is being ordered around and forced to do things or forced to adopt somebody else's culture instead of everybody solving their problems through horizontally forming relationships and free association. Tories are fully wired into Existentialism and the notion of The Subject; they are some of the most Existentialist people to exist. far from not understanding human emotions and The Subject, they exploit their knowledge of The Subject to the maximum to maximally claim all the rights of a Subject at all times. a Tory population optimizes itself to not include anybody that would impair its personal freedom by taking up its material resources on such things as government programs, and then it calls "The Subject" to not have to unify itself into other populations. the common notion of intersubjectivity is wholly the wrong way to comprehend Toryism. Toryism is an isolationist sociophilosophy that creates wholly separate social countries which are materially sovereign from all other people who might be talking about intersubjectivity. Toryism must be treated like it is the only person in the universe, and a very, very disagreeable person at that. if you can explain why the last person on earth should change, or Vegeta sitting in an empty universe after exterminating all life should change, then you might have an idea of how to get Toryism to willingly decide to change. outside of that, nothing else will work.</pre>


	<div class="bop-foot">		<div class="bop-foot">

	<dl class="bop-meta"><!--		<dl class="bop-meta"><!--
	{{BopFwd\|Philosophical_Research:Molecular_Democracy/4.4r/2099 debt\|link}}		{{BopFwd\|Philosophical_Research:Molecular_Democracy/4.4r/2099 debt\|link}} -->
	; {{~~BopComment~~}} -->		{{BopFwd\|Ontology:Q19610\|MDem SSR/ Ontology Item}}
			<!-- ; -->{{BopComment}}
	{{BopCreated\|2025-04-30T04:35:33Z}}		{{BopCreated\|2025-04-30T04:35:33Z}}
	{{BopHandle\|correct-religion}}		{{BopHandle\|correct-religion}}

Reversedragon: footer

2025-04-30T07:16:04Z

footer

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:16, 30 April 2025
Line 23:		Line 23:

	if morality is largely about the arrangements of people and the study of human behavior, there are only tiny differences between morality and historical materialism, if any. the more people bring up "history" and phrases like "the right side of history" the more the difference between the two closes toward there being no difference.		if morality is largely about the arrangements of people and the study of human behavior, there are only tiny differences between morality and historical materialism, if any. the more people bring up "history" and phrases like "the right side of history" the more the difference between the two closes toward there being no difference.
	this explains why people confusedly think inclusive history or anti-racist ideology is "Marxism" even when internally it is almost explicitly anticommunist. Tories are fundamentally afraid of _historical materialism_ — the proposition that there even is any such thing as a correct course of history, or a course of history that can deliberately be repeated. no matter how much you try to rid your practice of "violence", "authoritarianism", "censorship", or any other supposed Communist value, if you ever propose to Tories any statement whatsoever that history could have gone another way or that one future is better than another future, they _will_ become offended and insist you're actually a Communist. the only real way to appease Tories and entirely clear yourself of such accusations looks something like accepting that Tories are a separate nation with a separate culture and separate ethnic history and you must approach them specifically from within their cultural context, including requirements that everybody convert to a particular Christianity, cultural traditions of racial segregation, ethnic history of celebrating an arbitrary assortment of pseudo-Christian holidays and not knowing anything about other cultures until the moment somebody corrects them on a microaggression, cultural beliefs that Anarchism is not welcome and repeat instances of crime ought to bring militaristic criminal-shooting brigades, and other such local traditions and practices. to the Tory subpopulation, all Tories together form a kind of Subject, and they want their population to essentially be treated just like an individual. they do not want their population to be forced to change its will from the outside, even if some people call that "democracy". they do not like people asserting that their population has a particular future, and they consider this as offensive as someone trying to assign a particular future to an individual. the reason that Tories react so negatively to being told they are bigots or they are doing immoral things is that they see any attempt to put rules on their population as a form of authoritarianism in which an individual with its own will (the population) is being ordered around and forced to do things or forced to adopt somebody else's culture instead of everybody solving their problems through horizontally forming relationships and free association. Tories are fully wired into Existentialism and the notion of The Subject; they are some of the most Existentialist people to exist. far from not understanding human emotions and The Subject, they exploit their knowledge of The Subject to the maximum to maximally claim all the rights of a Subject at all times. a Tory population optimizes itself to not include anybody that would impair its personal freedom by taking up its material resources on such things as government programs, and then it calls "The Subject" to not have to unify itself into other populations. the common notion of intersubjectivity is wholly the wrong way to comprehend Toryism. Toryism is an isolationist sociophilosophy that creates wholly separate social countries which are materially sovereign from all other people who might be talking about intersubjectivity. Toryism must be treated like it is the only person in the universe, and a very, very disagreeable person at that. if you can explain why the last person on earth should change, or Vegeta sitting in an empty universe after exterminating all life should change, then you might have an idea of how to get Toryism to willingly decide to change. outside of that, nothing else will work.		this explains why people confusedly think inclusive history or anti-racist ideology is "Marxism" even when internally it is almost explicitly anticommunist. Tories are fundamentally afraid of _historical materialism_ — the proposition that there even is any such thing as a correct course of history, or a course of history that can deliberately be repeated. no matter how much you try to rid your practice of "violence", "authoritarianism", "censorship", or any other supposed Communist value, if you ever propose to Tories any statement whatsoever that history could have gone another way or that one future is better than another future, they _will_ become offended and insist you're actually a Communist. the only real way to appease Tories and entirely clear yourself of such accusations looks something like accepting that Tories are a separate nation with a separate culture and separate ethnic history and you must approach them specifically from within their cultural context, including requirements that everybody convert to a particular Christianity, cultural traditions of racial segregation, ethnic history of celebrating an arbitrary assortment of pseudo-Christian holidays and not knowing anything about other cultures until the moment somebody corrects them on a microaggression, cultural beliefs that Anarchism is not welcome and repeat instances of crime ought to bring militaristic criminal-shooting brigades, and other such local traditions and practices. to the Tory subpopulation, all Tories together form a kind of Subject, and they want their population to essentially be treated just like an individual. they do not want their population to be forced to change its will from the outside, even if some people call that "democracy". they do not like people asserting that their population has a particular future, and they consider this as offensive as someone trying to assign a particular future to an individual. the reason that Tories react so negatively to being told they are bigots or they are doing immoral things is that they see any attempt to put rules on their population as a form of authoritarianism in which an individual with its own will (the population) is being ordered around and forced to do things or forced to adopt somebody else's culture instead of everybody solving their problems through horizontally forming relationships and free association. Tories are fully wired into Existentialism and the notion of The Subject; they are some of the most Existentialist people to exist. far from not understanding human emotions and The Subject, they exploit their knowledge of The Subject to the maximum to maximally claim all the rights of a Subject at all times. a Tory population optimizes itself to not include anybody that would impair its personal freedom by taking up its material resources on such things as government programs, and then it calls "The Subject" to not have to unify itself into other populations. the common notion of intersubjectivity is wholly the wrong way to comprehend Toryism. Toryism is an isolationist sociophilosophy that creates wholly separate social countries which are materially sovereign from all other people who might be talking about intersubjectivity. Toryism must be treated like it is the only person in the universe, and a very, very disagreeable person at that. if you can explain why the last person on earth should change, or Vegeta sitting in an empty universe after exterminating all life should change, then you might have an idea of how to get Toryism to willingly decide to change. outside of that, nothing else will work.</pre>


	-~~-----~~		<div class="bop-foot">

	:~~: cr~~. 2025-04-30T04:35:33Z		<dl class="bop-meta"><!--
	~~; 1745987733~~		{{BopFwd\|Philosophical_Research:Molecular_Democracy/4.4r/2099 debt\|link}}
	~~:: t.~~ correct-religion		; {{BopComment}} -->
	~~:: t.~~ v5-1_1612_correct-religion		{{BopCreated\|2025-04-30T04:35:33Z}}
	; v5.1-5.2 scraps/ using Trotsky to determine the correct religion</~~pre~~><!--		{{BopHandle\|correct-religion}}
			{{BopHandle\|v5-1_1612_correct-religion}}
			{{BopCommentTitle\|v5.1-5.2 scraps/ using Trotsky to determine the correct religion}}
			</dl></div><!--
	-->[[Category:MDem v5.1 entries]] __NOTOC__		-->[[Category:MDem v5.1 entries]] __NOTOC__

Reversedragon: archive scrap as-is; cr. 2025-04-30T04:35:33Z

2025-04-30T06:55:35Z

archive scrap as-is; cr. 2025-04-30T04:35:33Z

New page

<pre>------
(lithoGRAPHica prototype) [cr. 2025-04-30T04:35:33Z]

> [S2] Applying any philosophy to Trotsky eventually gets you to the correct answers

most people in the United States believe Trotsky was justified to stand up against the Soviet Union. thus, any religion which is the correct religion would send Trotsky to the good place for resisting Stalin.
Christianity does not revere Trotsky or entertain the world changing to Trotskyism. Christianity is not the correct religion.
Islam isn't Christianity. the one thing you're not allowed to do in Islam is not believe in Islam, so Trotsky goes to the bad place for being an atheist. Islam is not the correct religion.
schizoanalysis says that anybody who is aligned with the majority of people can go to the good place assuming there is one, but according to schizoanalysis the majority of people turn against Bolshevism and Trotsky is the enemy. schizoanalysis is not the correct cosmic morality.

any religion which is the correct religion must entertain that Trotsky is a part of that group. Trotsky believes that the morally correct thing is to create a world Leninism. this means that any religion which is the correct religion must entertain the broad possibility of creating a world Leninism. this is a necessary point if we believe that the correct religion will be the one that unites everyone onto the same morality consisting of the same universal human values of what is right and wrong. if everyone is to have the same morality, then they must have the same moral opinions about Bolshevism, and the same moral opinions about Stalin.

early-existentialism would like to assert that people can make their own meaning. but that means that Trotsky will have one opinion about himself and other people will have an array of other opinions about him, leading to a fractured plurality of different moralities which do not overlap into a universal set of human values. if we believe there is a universal set of human values of what is right and wrong, early-existentialism cannot be the correct cosmic morality.

any cosmic morality which is the correct one must entertain that Liberalism and Bolshevism are not enemies, and can actually merge together into one system which does not erase or destroy Bolshevism. practically no religion ever devised has ever entertained this, and nearly no secular philosophies have entertained it either. Deng Xiaoping Thought is about the only philosophy which has come close, but really all it did was say that Existentialism and Existentialism can merge together — a country can build itself up purely by being closed off and existing really hard and living a lot by itself until it becomes powerful enough that stochastic relationships with others aren't likely to grant power over it. it was pretty much always known that Existentialism could merge with Existentialism, given they both focus on small scales and they're the same thing.

any cosmic morality which does not destroy Bolshevism must not allow people to assign fully arbitrary meanings to things. if people are allowed to assign arbitrary meanings to things, then there is always the potential for bigotry, either in the form of anticommunism, blatant racism, or anything else. things must to some extent have objective meaning of some kind such that it is impossible for bigots to be correct within their own reality and then claim their own reality is the truth and have to be treated as correct by everybody else.
if a religion allows mythical figures to assign arbitrary meanings to things in the way any ordinary individual would it is probably not the correct religion, because it proposes an order with the potential for bigotry.

any cosmic morality which is going to be correct will take its cause and effect from the actual interactions between people. an individual person is in general the main morally-relevant object that defines morality. most actions that are morally wrong are wrong because they harm particular human beings, or particular conscious lifeforms. although each situation can have its own peculiarities that modify it, the observed responses of particular people and the generic behavior of people in general will feed into the objective definition of whether any action was right or wrong. you can't get a correct statement about the morality of a situation involving two material people from somebody else dreaming up universal truths while never looking at that particular system and observing how the pieces actually interact.

if a cosmic morality is going to be correct, but it has to draw from within the actual interactions between people, then morality is effectively just the same thing as asking the question of what are the correct ways for human beings to interact and to arrange together into groups without in the process doing the wrong things that harm people. morality must include the question of how people are arranged because arrangements are the difference between two people that will be involved in a murder living next door to each other or living too far away for it to happen; arrangements are the difference between having a president that will gleefully exterminate Native Americans versus an arrangement of people who would never elect that president.

if morality is largely about the arrangements of people and the study of human behavior, there are only tiny differences between morality and historical materialism, if any. the more people bring up "history" and phrases like "the right side of history" the more the difference between the two closes toward there being no difference.
this explains why people confusedly think inclusive history or anti-racist ideology is "Marxism" even when internally it is almost explicitly anticommunist. Tories are fundamentally afraid of _historical materialism_ — the proposition that there even is any such thing as a correct course of history, or a course of history that can deliberately be repeated. no matter how much you try to rid your practice of "violence", "authoritarianism", "censorship", or any other supposed Communist value, if you ever propose to Tories any statement whatsoever that history could have gone another way or that one future is better than another future, they _will_ become offended and insist you're actually a Communist. the only real way to appease Tories and entirely clear yourself of such accusations looks something like accepting that Tories are a separate nation with a separate culture and separate ethnic history and you must approach them specifically from within their cultural context, including requirements that everybody convert to a particular Christianity, cultural traditions of racial segregation, ethnic history of celebrating an arbitrary assortment of pseudo-Christian holidays and not knowing anything about other cultures until the moment somebody corrects them on a microaggression, cultural beliefs that Anarchism is not welcome and repeat instances of crime ought to bring militaristic criminal-shooting brigades, and other such local traditions and practices. to the Tory subpopulation, all Tories together form a kind of Subject, and they want their population to essentially be treated just like an individual. they do not want their population to be forced to change its will from the outside, even if some people call that "democracy". they do not like people asserting that their population has a particular future, and they consider this as offensive as someone trying to assign a particular future to an individual. the reason that Tories react so negatively to being told they are bigots or they are doing immoral things is that they see any attempt to put rules on their population as a form of authoritarianism in which an individual with its own will (the population) is being ordered around and forced to do things or forced to adopt somebody else's culture instead of everybody solving their problems through horizontally forming relationships and free association. Tories are fully wired into Existentialism and the notion of The Subject; they are some of the most Existentialist people to exist. far from not understanding human emotions and The Subject, they exploit their knowledge of The Subject to the maximum to maximally claim all the rights of a Subject at all times. a Tory population optimizes itself to not include anybody that would impair its personal freedom by taking up its material resources on such things as government programs, and then it calls "The Subject" to not have to unify itself into other populations. the common notion of intersubjectivity is wholly the wrong way to comprehend Toryism. Toryism is an isolationist sociophilosophy that creates wholly separate social countries which are materially sovereign from all other people who might be talking about intersubjectivity. Toryism must be treated like it is the only person in the universe, and a very, very disagreeable person at that. if you can explain why the last person on earth should change, or Vegeta sitting in an empty universe after exterminating all life should change, then you might have an idea of how to get Toryism to willingly decide to change. outside of that, nothing else will work.

------

:: cr. 2025-04-30T04:35:33Z
; 1745987733
:: t. correct-religion
:: t. v5-1_1612_correct-religion
; v5.1-5.2 scraps/ using Trotsky to determine the correct religion</pre>[[Category:MDem v5.1 entries]] __NOTOC__

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:08, 9 August 2025
Line 41:		Line 41:
	{{HueClaim \|P=item type\| {{Ontology:Z1\|Z1\|C=Q2}} }}		{{HueClaim \|P=item type\| {{Ontology:Z1\|Z1\|C=Q2}} }}
	{{HueRoster\|EP=PPPA/L\|lang=en\| {{Philosophical Research:MDem/5.1r/1612 correct-religion}} }}		{{HueRoster\|EP=PPPA/L\|lang=en\| {{Philosophical Research:MDem/5.1r/1612 correct-religion}} }}
	{{HueRoster\|EP=PPPA\|lang=en\| using Trotsky to determine the correct religion (<cite>MDem</cite> 5.1 scrap) \| <cite>MDem</cite> 5.1/{{TTS\|tts=16-12\|1612}} correct-religion \| bop alias <code>v5-1_{{TTS\|tts=16-12\|1612}}_correct-religion</code> }}		{{HueRoster\|EP=PPPA\|lang=en\| using Trotsky to determine the correct religion (<cite>MDem</cite> 5.1 scrap) \| <cite>MDem</cite> 5.1/{{TTS\|tts=16-12\|1612}} correct-religion \| bop alias <code>v5-1_{{TTS\|tts=16-12\|1612}}_correct-religion</code> \| [[Philosophical Research:MDem/5.1r/1612 correct-religion/Q19610\|Q19,6,10]] (tentative Item number; retired at this time) }}
	{{HueRoster\|EP=P4\| <cite>MDem</cite> 5.1 entry [[Category:MDem v5.1 entries]] [[Category:MDem v5 entries ontology]] \| bop-format brainstorm shard / bop scrap }} <!-- en: case of -->		{{HueRoster\|EP=P4\| <cite>MDem</cite> 5.1 entry [[Category:MDem v5.1 entries]] [[Category:MDem v5 entries ontology]] \| bop-format brainstorm shard / bop scrap }} <!-- en: case of -->
	{{HueRoster\|P=thesis portal entry\| [[Philosophical Research:MDem/5.1r/1612 correct-religion]] }}		{{HueRoster\|P=thesis portal entry\| [[Philosophical Research:MDem/5.1r/1612 correct-religion]] }}