• If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!


why civilisation must end

Page history last edited by Kaisiris Tallini 2 years, 2 months ago

Why the civilisation or Aristotelian

paradigm must come to an end

In ancient Greece the ekklesia, a transliterated form of the Greek word ἐκκλησία [Strong's G1577] meaning, "gathering of those summoned", was the assembly of citizens in a city-state. All Athenian male citizens had the right to attend and vote in the ekklesia (a word sometimes Latinised as ecclesia), and a full popular assembly met about every 10 days. At the age of 18, young Athenian males — young women were given a different set of skills in the city-state or polis (πόλις) [plural: poleis (πόλεις)] — were enrolled in their citizen lists, and then they served for two years in the military. After that, they could be in the assembly or ekklesia, unless they were otherwise restricted.


It should be noted that in antiquity, open space markets were typically situated in a town's centre, and ancient Rome was no exception, except that Rome had two market places, which in Latin they were called fora [singular: forum]: the Forum Romanum, and Trajan's Forum.


In modern Greek agora (αγορά) [plural: agores (αγορές)] is the word best connected with the Ancient Greek word ekklesia (ἐκκλησία), since the assembly of male adult citizens was held there, and this open space is, in turn, associated with words such as shopping, marketplace, bazaar, and mart...


No, I'm not making this up.


The word can be found also in the agora (ἀγορά) of Homer — Ὅμηρος in Ancient Greek, or Homeros — near the meeting place of the people called ekklesia (ἐκκλησία), so the word had commercial and political, more than spiritual or educational purposes.


The word ekklesia (ἐκκλησία) is associated with terms in the New Testament such as church, churches, assembly, and congregation. Today ministers would have you believe that these places are supposed to be holy places. They are about as holy as today's shopping malls.


Outside the Bible or ectobiblically, ekklesia is also associated with a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, or an assembly.


When one examines the various instances of ekklesia (ἐκκλησία) in the New Testament examples shown at the link below, one realises that the word is most often associated with either a church, or churches, and the biblical verses of Acts 8:1 and Acts 11:22 even mention a church in, or at Jerusalem, which clearly had nothing to do with the real Christian body of believers:




In fact, if you really think about it like a scientist would, even the two references from the gospels themselves seem rather scarce, for such an apparently important Christian word.


In Matthew 16:18, Jesus speaks of Simon Peter as being not his "church", but a piece of it, and it seems more like he could be talking a posteriori, rather than a priori to historical facts, and about a building in a remote future place, rather than a person, especially the born again Simon Peter today.


Ordered by Emperor Constantine sometime between 318 and 322 CE, Old St Peter's Basilica took about 40 years to complete.


The Latin language Vulgate, largely the work of Jerome of Stridon, was commissioned shortly after, in 382 CE.


All the Vetus Latina ("Old Latin") manuscripts that preceded the Vulgate by Jerome that are preserved today, are also dated from 350 CE to the 13th century, and it was only after the Council of Trent (1545 – 1563) that the Vulgate translation was affirmed as the authoritative text of Roman Catholic scriptures. Some Vetus Latina texts, however, still survive in parts of the liturgy — eg, in the Pater Noster, or the Lord's Prayer.


Moreover, the born again Simon Peter today is greatly absorbed by thoughts about expecting to become a first-time mother to a baby girl, but overall she is definitely more interested in Native American affairs, even in fishing today, more than she is interested in building churches, or even following the born again Jesus.


In the other reference to ekklesia in Matthew 18:17, Jesus speaks about how one should treat sinners within the real congregation of believers, and basically states that if the sinner still refuses to take heed of the criticisms, then you should treat them as you would a pagan, or a tax collector.


This statement, by the way, doesn't really make any sense if coming from Jesus' mouth, because Jesus spoke with both pagans, such as brutal Roman centurions (centuriones in Latin; singular: centurio), who didn't seem particularly threatened by him, and even to tax collectors, such as Matthew the Apostle himself, originally a tax collector. These are also biblical details, but when you call an over-redacted, and somewhat mistranslated or misinterpreted book meant more for Franco Zeffirelli cinematography film scripts, than for instruction about God or Salvation as the "Word of God", and not what most likely came straight out of the Nazorean's mouth himself, then it is clear all reason or logic, with the baby, gets thrown out the window with the bath water.


The word koinonia, on the other hand, is a transliterated form of the Greek word κοινωνία [Strong's G2842], which refers to concepts such as fellowship, joint participation, the share which one has in anything (such as Salvation), a gift jointly contributed, a collection, or a contribution.


In modern Greek, κοινωνία is associated with words like society, communion, and community.


The Wiktionary adds an important detail: «koinonia thilyko» (κοινωνία θηλυκό) stands for 'female society', and says the term is about a set of people who live organised and according to specific rules. Greek Orthodox nuns in a monastery today?


More likely, however, those Greek words probably refer to this: in antiquity there were several matriarchal societies. Further details were supplied by a Wikipedia text in Greek: matriarchy, believe it or not, was the first form of social or societal organisation for people in the prehistoric period, until about 2500 BCE. The Greek text adds that the matriarchal paradigm had two dominant features: 1) "feminism" (which is not a valid prehistoric association at all, as feminism is nothing more than a modern political movement); and 2) the worship of the Mother goddess (which is indeed prehistorically relevant, and probably associated with a great deal of ancient reverence towards women in general).


As I point out in a different article I've written in May 2021...




...the human brain was growing, not shrinking in size back then. Something's got to give in order to reverse this major downsizing in brain mass trend.


The word koinonia (κοινωνία) is associated with terms in the New Testament such as fellowship, sharing, participation, and contribution, but also with terms like association, community, communion, joint participation, and intercourse.


When one examines the various instances of koinonia (κοινωνία) in the New Testament examples shown at the link below, one realises that the word is most often associated with the actual fellowship between believers:




Paul the Apostle, in the verses of 1 Corinthians 1:4–9, uses an instance of the Greek word κοινωνία when stating that God's grace was given to those who belong to Jesus, not to those who belong to some church building.


Real followers of Jesus — the one who will write the name of his God on you (which according to the best recollection, sounded like "Yehovah" in English, even in Google Translate); the one who will name the city, the New Jerusalem, which shall come down out of Heaven from his God; the one who also promised to write his new name on you (Revelation 3:12) — shall be blessed in every way because of this.


Paul states that there is no gift of the Holy Spirit that we don't have today, and true believers will wait filled of hope for Jesus' future coming. God will also keep true believers strong in the faith to the very end, for then we shall be without blame on the day the Lord Jesus returns, because God is faithful, and He has chosen the true believers to ... share life with / be partners with / have fellowship with (the meaning of κοινωνία) ... his son, who is Lord only to all those who truly seek him.


To recapitulate, it seems that while the Ancient Greek word koinonia (κοινωνία) [Strong's G2842] may have something to do with genuine followers of Jesus today, the Ancient Greek word ekklesia (ἐκκλησία) [Strong's G1577] doesn't at all, and the difference between the two terms is that the first is largely social or societal in nature, while the second is largely tribal or political.


Moreover, even when we use political terms, both Ancient Greek and Hebrew had much more pertinent words to true believers than the term ekklesia (ἐκκλησία).


A temenos (τέμενος) [plural: temene or τεμένη] is a piece of land cut off, and assigned as an official domain, especially to kings and chiefs; or it is a piece of land marked off from common uses, and dedicated to a deity, ie a sanctuary, a holy grove, or a holy precinct.


Temenos is definitely a much holier and more respectable Greek religious word than the word ekklesia, and it is clear the temenos term can still serve a political purpose.


The Holy of Holies — Hebrew:‎ Qodesh haqqodashim [קֹדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים] [Strong's H6944] — is a term in the Hebrew Bible that refers to the inner sanctuary of the Tabernacle, where God's presence appeared.


According to Hebrew tradition, that area of the Tabernacle was defined by four pillars that held up the veil of the covering, under which the Ark of the Covenant was held above the floor. The Ark, according to Hebrew scripture, contained the Ten Commandments, which were given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai.


Again, the Hebrew Qodesh haqqodashim is far holier, and more respectable than the Greek religious word ekklesia.


But it isn't just the Bible, the "Deepfake Bible" as I call it, which has a lot of truth, but which has also been highly corrupted in order to suit the needs of the "Church of Constantine", the «Ἐκκλησία του Κωνσταντίνου» (Ekklesia tou Konstantinou), to use the correct Ancient Greek inflected form, which is basically what Christianity is today.


If the purpose of the "institution" of marriage was to level the playing field between the two genders, since in the ancient world, but much more recent than that of the aforementioned koinonia thilyko (κοινωνία θηλυκό) prehistoric period — or the Upper Palaeolithic (Late Stone Age) matriarchal period, characterised by striking Venus figurines (most dating from 26,000 – 21,000 years ago) —, women were not equal to men in a de facto way, and didn't even have the right to inherit property in many societal contexts; then what is the purpose of marriage today, since women are equal to men at least legally or juridically, and life, and the perpetuation of life on planet Earth, would in fact be impossible without at least one natural member of both genders?


Note that here I use the term 'member' in a Cesidian law context, since it means both senior (21 years or older) or junior adult (14–20 years of age) persons ('people' are humans of any age), as well as the 'ambi-essential' genitals required for de facto or biological reproduction, which in turn is imperative for the continued existence of human beings.


Roman corporations — 'corporation' is a word which derives from corpus, the Latin word for body, or body of persons, and these originally were little more than the fake tribes of the rich Roman patricians, tribes of those rich on paper only (ie legal or juridical, de jure wealthy, not necessarily de facto wealthy), but which now function, and are even treated as equal to both men and women both factually (de facto), and legally (de jure) — are the very reason why prenuptial agreements were created.


Corporations allow one apparent "member" of the marriage agreement — the wealthiest "member", the one with the most pre-marital ties to corporations, or the "member" who is already a de facto party since he, or even she in some cases today, is already effectively married, already a party to some other agreement, rather than a genuine individual member in a Cesidian law sense — to select and control many of the legal rights the other member in the marital agreement would acquire upon marrying.


Prenuptial agreements even allow that same party — who is not a genuine individual member in a Cesidian law context, ie a free man or a free woman, and that is why I call them a party — to determine, a priori, what happens when, and if, the marriage of the wealthiest fake member (effectively a party) ends by death or divorce.


These prenuptial agreements have done, in fact, nothing to level the playing field through the marriage "institution" (a fake institution), but have allowed the real institution of the tribunes, those today of the legal profession to prosper, all at the expense of both men and women, and all in favour of states or countries — countries are federations of states in a Cesidian societal-political science (Csps) context.


Modern states or countries, by the way, are nothing more than ecosystems friendly to corporations and their continued existence, more than ecosystems friendly to groups of natural people or persons — aka real, or natural societies.


These states or countries have acquired even more power over both men and women, even over large groups of relatively organised men and women (aka tribes), and states or countries are absolutely non-essential for the perpetuation of life, even for the perpetuation of the civilisation paradigm, in fact, which as I'm beginning to show, is not even a valid or egalitarian — ie, legally justified — human paradigm, because it has nothing absolutely human or even humane about it!


Modern states or countries are just as fictional as the primarily legal or juridical bodies of lawyers (the only fully recognised parts of corpora, or corporations today), or quasi-lawyers (wealthy legal clients) that they are made up of.


Prior to the establishment of the institution of the tribunes (aka lawyers today) in the 5th century BCE; prior to the generic corporations these tribunes eventually started, when a range of singular corporate entities variously called universitas, corpus, or collegium came to be called corporations, but natural tribes (tribus) were never defined such; prior even to these tribunes eventually causing the creation of prenuptial agreements; natural states — better known as tribes (tribus) —, which are made up a number of bodies of relatively egalitarian persons working in harmony — better known as natural societies (curiae), sometimes inappropiately called ekklisies (εκκλησίες), the plural of ekklesia (εκκλησία) or 'church' in New Testament Greek [Strong's G1577], but which should rather be called koinonies (κοινωνίες) —, were not exclusively dependent on strong and hard-working men, and yet they were still heavily dependent, and they definitely were not dependent on the weak, and generally work-free legalised forms of prostitution the tribunes created, such as through the various kinds of corporations.


So in fact even most lawyers — what the original Roman tribunes essentially were — do not come to serve, or embody, any redeeming or redeemable function, and this despite their egalitarian origins as supposed protectors, or champions of the people!


The civilisation paradigm is so dominant today that even real natural tribes — that is, large groups of relatively organised men and women, and their weaker younger and older societal members, which in turn are made up of a number of real societies or koinonies (κοινωνίες); singular: koinonia (κοινωνία) [Strong's G2842] — are treated like non-entities, when they should be treated like natural, or non-juridical corporations, and afforded the same rights and privileges.


This is no different than old forms of slavery, which treated even adult human males and females in a degrading and inhumane fashion, simply because they were not individual members of the self-selected, and self-entitled dominant oligarchy — members of only legalised, and as I'm showing, only prostituted or adulterated forms of tribes, the ones whose individual 'members' shouldn't even be allowed to get married in many cases, since they are already married to other (corporate) spouses, and so they shouldn't be allowed to marry if monogamy is truly the only form of marriage that is allowed.


The juridical corporations embodying various corporate missions today, and which were originally defined as singular universitas, corpus, or collegium, were little more than the fake tribes of the rich. Rome itself was originally made up of 35 tribes, only 4 of which were actual natural tribes, the "plebeian", or tribes of the working folks, and these tribes made up the original four boroughs, quarters, or regiones of ancient Rome, prior to the purely geo-political, and very Cleisthenes-like reforms of Augustus.


Today, however, real natural wealth — as fully embodied in the leader of a real or natural tribe, someone who the ancient Oscans would have called the «Meddíss Túvtiks» (Oscan-Latinish: «Meddix Tuticus»; English: Community Manager), and Titus Livius or Livy (59 BCE – 17 CE) would have called the «Summus Magistratus», or the Paramount Magistrate — is looked at like paper currency used to be looked at by Europeans before Marco Polo (15.09.1254 – 08.01.1324) discovered, and documented its use in today's China.


The leader of a real or natural tribe is the real, and not the fake tribunus plebis; he is the real, not fake plebeian tribune, and yet he is treated today with less respect than even a prepubescent boy or girl!


It should be noted that the plebeian tribune was the first office of the Roman state that was open to all plebeians, and was, throughout the history of the Republic in fact, the most important check on the power of the (corrupt and ruthless) Roman Senate and magistrates.


It is clear why natural, rather than fake tribes (corporations), need to be re-established.


What is less clear is how, and why Cesidian law needs to dominate even as your legal set of values, because the alternatives not only cannot colonise above low Earth orbit (LEO) environments, but you would not even survive in such an environment.


If you want to hold on to these old legal values, values that allow apparent members of either gender that are already effectively married to still marry again, even though the marriage in itself is a conflict of interest towards the only real member, and partner in the marriage agreement, regardless of their gender, then be my guest in upholding such grossly conflicting relationships, and all their only apparent "morality".


The simple truth is that these relationships, even state-approved marriages themselves, should be declared illegal.


In fact, Cesidian law calls monogamous marriages which are not affected by any pre-marital agreement 'stirpesation, marriage, or family-forming unions', but these are not the only kind of social or societal unions that are allowed under Cesidian law:




These modern fake relationships juridically called "marriages", in turn, also foster all kinds of values which besides being selfish and immoral, if not downright criminal in many instances, are also deadly in an outer space environment, even simply in a LEO environment.


Because of prenuptial agreements, and because of the conflicting values marriage partners often have towards their "better half", Cesidian law considers even most marriages no better than heavily restricted corporations.


Under Cesidian law, you can have a "better half" ('stirpesation, marriage, or family-forming union'), but also an actual "better third", or "better quarter" ('gentilisation, ordination, or clan-forming union'). It is all about commitments one wishes to truly keep towards others, not about what alien municipal corporations allow, or not. This is also another conflict of interest by states and countries who should have no business in regulating such things, since they are definitely not blessing anyone, as well-wishers do in real, natural societies, or koinonies.


Think about it: if a good woman can have have multiple children, even treat them all in the most egalitarian fashion, why are multiple partners, if treated in an equally egalitarian way, such a big problem in most modern, but genuinely fake societies?


Answer: because Aristotelian or political "societies" are not real, or natural societies, Pythagorean societies, or koinonies (κοινωνίες) — singular: koinonia (κοινωνία). Aristotelian "societies" are definitely not as real as that multiple child-bearing woman that I mentioned!


Hence, there shall be a new «genus» in the near future, there shall be at least two «genera».


Not just the «genus» called MankindHumano genere»), but also the «genus» called WomankindHumana genere»).


Not just the «genus» called «Homo sapiens sapiens» (in reality a misnomer, because it is really «Homo stultus», or "foolish man" slave to Aristotelian zookeepers in most cases), but also the «genus» called «Homo sapiens ethicus», or «Homo noeticus».


Not just the seed or progeny of the serpent (Mankind or men), but also the seed or progeny of the woman (Womankind or gods).


Not just the «genus» called the «Anthropotita» (Ανθρωπότητα), but also the «genus» called the «Gynaikatita» (Γυναικάτητα).


Note that in Greek today, γένος (genos) can mean too many things for it to be a useful word any longer, thanks in great part to that ancient Athenian "lawgiver" Cleisthenes. A better professional description for him, in my view, is tyrant, and his grandfather by the same name was also considered a tyrant.


Γένος (genos) can actually mean genre, race, strain, sex, species, breed, family, kind, gene, ilk, stock, brood, kin, or issue!


Yes, γένος (genos) can also mean 'clan', and if a 'family' and a 'race' is the same thing, not only is our current biological classification register — don't even bother calling it an "Anglo-Latinist lingo" — total nonsense, but even other things become nonsense, or grossly inaccurate as a result.


This is the reason I was forced to recently rename the Kaisiris Clan as the Κλάν Καϊσίρης in Ectogreekⓖ, so yes, I was basically forced to reform Greek into Ectogreekⓖ, not just Japanese into Ectojapaneseⓙ:




It should be noted, however, that «genus» in Ectolatinⓛ always means a subdivision (apparent or biological) of humanity at large, which is otherwise more broadly viewed as a «species».


Just as there are only two genders in human nature, male and female, there should also logically be only two real human «genera» (the plural of «genus»), human races, or human... kind, so both the words MankindHumano genere») and WomankindHumana genere») are entirely rational, and rigourous social science terminology.


The term zerah [זֶרַע] in Ectohebrewⓗ [Strong's H2233], which is used in the verse of Genesis 3:15, may be an appropriate equivalent for the «genus» Ectolatinⓛ term. I have adopted the term klan [קַלָּאָן] for the Kaisiris Clan's name in Ectohebrewⓗ, which besides actually meaning 'clan' in Hebrew, can also mean 'clone'.


MT Kaisiris Tallini



Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.