Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2019 February 25

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 25

Book called 'New Jerusalem Protocol'

Skoptsy related work, anyone know of it? I have excerpts obtain from sites that now are gone.

It is our purpose to being about the kingdom of God.

We have amoungst us allies from every religion, sect, and political sphere.

The celibate lifestyle, as well as homeschooling, must become a prevalent trend, nursed by the conservative masses.

The definition of fetish must be changed to sexual desire caused by visualising or viewing a physical object. A significant portion of the population must grow to see these as vile fetishes to be abhorred.

Everyone will have their pituitary glands removed.

Everyone will receive knowledge of the holy language straight from the mouths of the saints raptured. It is a language without sin, pure as snow. There will be no familial terms, nor strategic rounding of the lips, no serpentine hissing. 193.148.16.199 (talk) 05:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Strategic rounding of the lips??? What is that supposed to mean? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm guessing no bilabial click sounds... Maybe Yuri Leonidovich Nesterenko would know about this work. AnonMoos (talk) 10:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

At least this bizarre Skoptsy sect wouldn't be reproducing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I do not know the meaning of strategic rounding of the lips. Also sorry for my bad English. 193.148.16.206 (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

日本？ déhanchements (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

私の部屋の中をかぎ回るのはやめなさい。193.148.16.205 (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Penance may suppress undesirable thoughts superficially, but practicing extremist penance will blur your sense of morality anyway. You'll just have to turn your cheek a few times and wait until you can think of something else. It was punishment which corrupted the beast to begin with. The body is alive and it has its own primitive form of brain. If you kill it, you'll be killing the nearest puppy to you that loves you. Learn gentle, firm viscosity, rather than extreme separation. Do not try to break out of or into the mind before studying the locks/trying the handle. ~ R.T.G 23:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

RTG you misunderstand, I do not practice penance, I try exposing cult not join them. 193.148.16.202 (talk) 00:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Recompense is good, and mostly promotes care. Endless penance is bad, and mostly evokes disturbance. ~ R.T.G 00:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Have you asked about this elsewhere? déhanchements (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Has U.S. federal government ever given free money to a state?

I don't believe the federal government has to give money equally to all states, some states profit more than others, Illinois might possibly be the most broke state. In my college economics textbook, they listed an example where the U.S. federal government gave free money to a corporation just so it wouldn't close. That company was General Motors in Michigan. But I am curious to know, have there been any cases where the federal government ever gave free money to 1 of it's states before? 67.175.224.138 (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC).

See Revenue sharing and Block grant (United States) and linked articles and categories.John Z (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

In General Motors Chapter 11 reorganization#United States, the U.S. government got an ownership share in GM, and later made a profit selling it off. The U.S. did not give "free money" in the sense of dropping briefcases stuffed with $100 dollar bills from a helicopter onto GM HQ or whatever...

In the early history of the United States, the federal government sometimes took over state government debts (see Funding Act of 1790 and Texas annexation), but I don't think that's happened in quite a while... AnonMoos (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Under the tariff acts of the 1830s, some of the revenue was passed on to the states, known as "distribution", and was a significant revenue source for the states, many of whom had trouble making ends meet. This was ended in the 1840s.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I dunno about free money per se, but it's certainly the case that if the fed govt spends money in a state (such as to build an interstate highway, or a NASA facility, or simply buys stuff from a contractor located in that state), that's a flow of money from the fed govt to the state. A lot of daily low level US politics is about legislators and others trying to attract that money to their own states and districts: see pork barrel, earmark, etc. See Federal taxation and spending by state (hmm out of date) for some spending and revenue figures. It is true that money tends to flow out of some states and into others via federal taxing and spending. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 05:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)