Historically there’s good reason to think the West was Matriachal originally, and it was the indo-European invasion or migration that brought patriarchal systems and religions
We have functionally no evidence at all for what any European culture was like pre-Indo-European migration. I'd like to know what reason we have to think they were a matriarchal society.
For a revival of nature worship, we would first have to be sure that pre-christian and pre-roman societies did actually practice anything of the sort, which we are not.
On top of that, I'm not sure that a religious movement is necessary or desirable for nature advocacy or preservation.
The International Workingmen's Association, the first large international organisation of socialists and proto-socialists.
The Matriarchal pagan stuff is a Victorian romantic invention. We know extremely little about the societies of the Celts and related peoples, with the vast majority of what we do know coming from two accounts, both Roman, which are very obviously reductive takes of similar academic rigour to Victorian anthropologists talking about the Australian aboriginals.
While of course, much of what people are attached to in their fixations on the Romans and Greeks is also Victorian fiction, we at least have a wealth of first hand written sources and corroborating archeological evidence. For the Celtic peoples across Europe and particularly in Britain, we have essentially nothing. No idea of what their religion looked like, what their laws and traditions were or how they organised their society.
All I know is that she's definitely the male beauty standard for me.
Between 1945 and 1950, somewhere around 12 million ethnic Germans were forcibly expelled from within the new boundaries of Poland and Czechoslovakia.
Between 0.5 and 2.5 million people are claimed to have died during this expulsion.
Oh, no. I didn't mean to come across that way at all. Sorry if it looked like that.
and doing the heavy lifting for LLM hype marketers.
I'm not fighting for those idiots. We're a long way away from a real machine intelligence.
to go back to the analogy you are here like one of the uncontacted people encountering a radio, and, after much experimentation and analysis among your group has concluded that the voice cannot come from inside but form some as yet unknown source outside, you call them insane for positing even the hypothetical existence of such a thing instead of assuming it comes from inside in some way we don't yet understand
Yet they also seem to be claiming that the source of the voices is not just unknown, but unknowable, and they cannot explain even conjecturally how it might be that the voices are transmitted. When there is observable activity inside the radio that might seem to be creating the voices, but our group does not yet understand the details of how it works, it might not be insane, but it's not particularly rational to focus on the transmission theory.
It's optimistic of them to think that the thing they have built is capable of becoming seriously dangerous to the entire species in the way that they seem to be suggesting, and it's optimistic to think it's that easy to create a superintelligence.
It's not rationally grounded because they don't seem to have any supporting evidence.
"All knowledge is unprovable and so nothing can be known" is a more hopeless position than "existence is absurd and meaning has to come from within". I shall both fight and perish.
The French Revolution and it's immediate aftermath is critical to understanding the cultural and political climate that produced Marxism. Avoiding it is doing yourself a disservice.