Separation of Church and State became important two hundred years ago. Since then, the State has replaced the church as the dominant institution. To understand this, we have to look at the separation between biological analysis and Newtonian theory.
Physicists categorize civilizations as “Type 1” or “Type 2” based on energy consumption, but archeologists anticipate finding chicken-bones in our sedimentary future a half million years from now. The Newtonian analysis looks at energy, the biological at survival.
Humans tend to forget that Newtonian thought came from biological humans. If biology decides that religion is not important, then it can also decide Newtonian thought is unimportant. In the end, those who survive write history and exist as genetic frameworks or designs for the species.
Nicholas Sengoba writes about the clash between biology and theory in social media:
Many times, the things and issues they are talking about are topics that the government puts out in public like the claim that corruption is not a very bad thing after all. This will keep many talking away — instead of taking to the streets. Social media is a comfort zone that is inadvertently created for people to vent off some steam. That is why many will look at them and assume they are happy because their sadness has been contained in a cynical manner.
Mark Zuckerberg presents a biologically “safe space” for his customers, meaning it has nothing to do with communicating Newtonian thought. It focuses on the need of the biology to feel safe, let off steam, and keep existing within the failing social system.
A reverse sort of argument in favor of Newtonian thinking also from a local newspaper publishing a letter from Dr Barnabas Bwaniaga criticizing the Ugandan State for not completing stated projects for an Oil Refinery and a Copper Mine.
He demonstrates that Western projects work very well, and his lament is for Uganda to assume a modicum of Newtonian thought such as the idea for Uganda to (biologically) take control of its own resources.
The idea of taking control is of course not new, and a great example is how NATO countries are now going to take control of their own militaries by budgeting 2% of their respective GDPs. Being physically and biologically in control appears to be a common meme these days and can even be extrapolated to the BRICS summit planned for August.
Taking control of oneself is a therapeutic exercise because organizations and people in such positions are generally incapable of doing it. In fact, the entire theory of Dark Organizations points to the inability to solve it, meaning the organization must go kaput or a next generation must take over. However, inside a country, one may find smaller organizations able to restructure outside of current structures, instead of on the inside.
For example, the Twitter-Threads clash is currently viewed as two companies facing off in a competition, while Threads is a political construct, and Twitter is a communications construct, and may the two never meet.
Another example is the Afrikaner organizational split after Mandela. Their political party dissolved into separate political and cultural organizations. This meant that a think-tank type structure was absorbed by the Newtonian cultural organization, and not the political organization, because the politics merely go with the flow (biologically).
The current uni-party in America and much of the collective West is not so much a corrupt capture of left and right ideologies or politics, but rather a corrupt mixture of State and Politics. To separate the two has become a biological imperative if you want to remain in control, such as of your children and of your chicken.