Theme: Religion

  • CAN STOICISM SPREAD IN THE WEST AS BUDDHISM DID IN THE EAST?

    CAN STOICISM SPREAD IN THE WEST AS BUDDHISM DID IN THE EAST?


    Source date (UTC): 2025-08-03 19:15:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1952085913250779539

  • The comparison between the medieval inquisitor and the modern DEI officer Here i

    The comparison between the medieval inquisitor and the modern DEI officer

    Here is a direct causal and structural comparison between the medieval inquisitor and the modern DEI officer, rendered in adversarial operational terms:
    I. Common Function: Enforcer of Ideological Purity
    Both the inquisitor and the DEI officer serve as moral auditors under institutional authority, tasked with identifying, exposing, and correcting deviation from an enforced orthodoxy.
    II. Causal Chain Comparison
    III. Structural Parallels
    • Moral Absolutism: Both operate under non-falsifiable doctrines (infallible scripture vs. critical theory).
    • Reversal of Due Process: Guilt is presumed, defense is suspect, confession is rewarded.
    • Public Rituals: Both require performative submission to restore status or avoid punishment.
    • Status Signaling: Participation signals in-group virtue; resistance implies guilt or heresy.
    IV. Divergences of Technique
    V. Implications for Sovereignty
    • The inquisitor attacked beliefs but preserved roles, hierarchies, and male institutions.
    • The DEI officer attacks status, speech, and identity directly—targeting sovereignty at its root by criminalizing non-conformity to feeling.
    Thus, the inquisitor punished deviation from God’s will, but the DEI officer punishes deviation from mimetic sentiment, replacing moral truth with social alignment.
    VI. Conclusion
    They do not protect order—they destroy decidability, replacing due process with mob discretion and objective harm with subjective offense.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-08-03 15:27:26 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1952028543862624510

  • I disagree with Mcgilchrist’s oversimplification, the mysticism he tries to defe

    I disagree with Mcgilchrist’s oversimplification, the mysticism he tries to defend with it, and the nonsense that people expound because of it . So I can’t really answer on those terms. I might say instead that the predatory response(hunt/fight)) is more activating when engaged, just as is the prey(flight) response is more activating when engaged. But it might take more stimuli override active predation(attack) then active prey ( flee ). And this asymmetry might apply to reasoning vs intuiting as well. I suspect my formulation is correct and i assume it describes what mcgilchrist meant despite his pseudoscience.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-08-01 05:46:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1951157480198906009

  • Quote of the day –“So you built a metaphysical cathedral to house iron age fair

    Quote of the day

    –“So you built a metaphysical cathedral to house iron age fairy tales.”–
    @LevTeot
    Teotlev


    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-31 05:48:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1950795571914305633

  • SEDE VACANTE The phrase you’re referring to is “sede vacante” (Latin for “the se

    SEDE VACANTE
    The phrase you’re referring to is “sede vacante” (Latin for “the seat being vacant”), which refers to the period when the Papal See is without a pope. The associated theological or ideological position, especially post-Vatican II, is called “sedevacantism”.

    Operational Breakdown:
    – “Sede” = seat (refers to the Holy See, the papal throne).
    – “Vacante” = being vacant.
    – Sedevacantism = the belief that the current occupant of the papal office is not a valid pope due to heresy, particularly stemming from Vatican II reforms (e.g., ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality).

    From a Natural Law perspective:
    – Sedevacantism is a claim of void authority due to breach of doctrinal reciprocity—i.e., that the Vatican II popes have defected from operational Catholicism and thus cannot lawfully occupy the seat.
    – It’s an instance of juridical nullification grounded in claims of deviation from inherited institutional law (doctrinal apostasy = breach of institutional contract).


    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-30 23:49:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1950705263130103986

  • that simply isn’t true. Spirit is our word for intuition, which we can easily re

    that simply isn’t true. Spirit is our word for intuition, which we can easily replicate, and there is no reason a machine needs to ‘feel’ as we do only understand why and how we feel. And all feelings are in fact explicable and reducible to processes that are objectively understandable.

    For example, if you lost your sense of touch, or smell, or hearing or sight, you would still be conscious. Consciousness is simply the effect of enough recursive memory. It will emerge in any life form that has sufficient brain scale and depends upon social cooperation.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-27 01:07:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1949275521290023232

  • “The man who refuses the laurel crown when it is his by merit is not modest, but

    –“The man who refuses the laurel crown when it is his by merit is not modest, but disloyal to his gods.”–


    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-26 17:27:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1949159623799558593

  • (Eli. Evangelical. Not worth your time.)

    (Eli. Evangelical. Not worth your time.)


    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-20 01:03:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1946737696824766728

  • That’s nuts. lol. One would have to be as obsessed wiith naziism as one is obses

    That’s nuts. lol. One would have to be as obsessed wiith naziism as one is obsessed with christianity in order to apply the method of christian capture of causality in everything to national socialism. And worse, to confuse anglo classical liberalism (hayekian libertarianism) with national socialism. The Nazis hated classical liberalism. Classical liberals distributed rather than centralized economics and finance. They tolerated rather than outcast. They constructed a government that served as a market rather than as a means of rule. They sought weak government rather than strong. They sought due process over authoritarianism. But most of all they practiced rule of law by the natural law.
    The national socialists tried to develop an alternative between anglo liberalism, french socialism, jewish communism. So they adopted Italian Fascism – basically the strategy of the roman empire in times of war. (or any modern state conducting total war).
    I deal with sex, class, cultural, and racial realism, and I favor universal nationalism – for the simple reason that it creates a competitive market for distributed evolutionary experimentation and allows governments o produce commons that are most specialized for the needs of each group of people.

    That’s libertarianism. At least, that’s hayekian, classical liberal, libertarianism if not jewish rothbardian libertarianism.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-11 04:16:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1943524862087303599

  • Response to Accusation of Anti-Semitism Response to Accusation of Anti-Semitism

    Response to Accusation of Anti-Semitism

    Response to Accusation of Anti-Semitism
    The claim is false. I criticize Abrahamism—not Jews. The difference is categorical.
    Anti-Semitism is racial or ethnic animus.

    Anti-Abrahamism is a critique of a sequence of moral grammars (Judaism → Christianity → Islam → Marxism → Postmodernism → Wokeism) that replace reciprocity with deceit, emotional coercion, and universalist false promises.

    Abrahamic systems disable falsification, prohibit retaliation, and reward parasitism—subverting the necessary law of reciprocity that makes civilization possible.
    This critique is not ethnic. It is legal, operational, and moral:
    – I demand truth
    – I demand reciprocity
    – I demand decidability
    If you’re going to accuse me, then satisfy the test of testimonial truth: define your terms, operationalize harm, demonstrate asymmetry. Otherwise, you’re just retaliating emotionally against uncomfortable facts.
    This isn’t hate. This is law.
    —Truth is enough.
    MORE….

    To respond effectively and truthfully to an accusation of anti-Semitism when the actual critique is anti-Abrahamism, you must:

    1. Define the Distinction Operationally
    Anti-Semitism refers to hatred or discrimination against people of Jewish descent, typically based on ethnicity or religion. It is an ethnocentric claim.
    Anti-Abrahamism, by contrast, is a critique of group evolutionary strategy and grammar—specifically the feminine, deceit-tolerant, conflationary, and non-reciprocal speech grammars evolved in the Semitic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) and extended through Marxism, Postmodernism, and Feminism.
    2. Frame the Critique Within the Law of Reciprocity
    The critique of Abrahamic moral systems is rooted in their violation of reciprocity in public speech, law, and institutional organization:
    • They make false promises of equality, liberation, or utopia that externalize costs onto others.
    • They prohibit retaliation, undermining the evolutionary necessity of reciprocity.
    • They use pilpul and critique (GSRRM) as methods of evading falsification and accountability.
    Thus, the critique is legal, operational, and reciprocity-enforcing, not racial or ethnic.
    3. Demand Reciprocity in Return
    This adversarial framing forces the accuser to operationalize their claim, which they almost always cannot do without collapsing into moral projection or status-seeking.
    4. Reframe the Discussion as a Conflict of Moral Orders
    The Natural Law project is a European strategy of truth-telling, sovereignty, and reciprocity. Abrahamism is a Semitic strategy of obedience, deception, and submission to universal authority—whether that be Yahweh, Marx, or Progress.
    The claim is not who is right by preference, but which system produces decidability, reciprocity, and prosperity under evolutionary constraint.
    5. Close with the Moral License


    Source date (UTC): 2025-07-08 22:26:54 UTC

    Original post: https://x.com/i/articles/1942712022736724475