They stripped tradition, faith, and community from their worldview and only kept universalism, turning the other cheek, and out-group charity. They constantly use their perception of Christian teachings to justify their entire socialistic, leftist, weak, and self-hating worldview.
They kept martyrdom but instead of believing Jesus died for their sins they believe their whiteness is the original sin and thus must self sacrifice their entire race on the cross of degenerate, decadent, multiracial, vain, and self absorbed consumerist modernity.
Their race has become a proxy for Jesus on the cross as if our destruction as a people is the only way to atone for their sin of being white. They do it with the same zealous fervor as the puritans and have fully traversed the puritan to woke pipeline.
This is well-said and a good illustration of how the bases of culture and language are inherent social bonds, fundamental communicative instincts. Another way to see this is the inability of so many post-Christian atheists to comprehend that other peoples from other cultures do not think the way they do. Culture and language are inherent human traits. How these inherent traits get packaged can differ greatly from one society to another. Conceit is a strong cultural trait among most humans — conceit in your own communicative network. Post-Christian atheists exhibit this trait as well. Old wine in new bottles. A great deal of the left is a narrow remnant of the Christian world it devolved out of. ABN
Generative artificial intelligence is advancing so rapidly and producing such massive, long-term disruptions to education that a committee at MIT proposed profound changes Tuesday to counter the technology’s risks.
In a message to campus sharing the committee’s report, MIT President Sally Kornbluth called the opportunities and risks of AI a “watershed for MIT — and for all of higher education.” The report found that even as AI accelerates and expands discoveries, it is also driving dramatic changes in campus culture, upending foundational experiences such as study groups, office hours and undergraduate research.
The technologies are now able to credibly complete most undergraduate assignments, wrote the committee, co-chaired by professors Eric Klopfer and Samuel Madden. Most classes at MIT should be reviewed, and many will need substantial changes, they wrote, urging instructors to consider other means of assessment — including oral exams, portfolios and in-person conversations tied to work done outside class.
…Fiamengo knows that a crucial element in feminism’s success has been the strong natural bias in favor of women that characterizes both sexes: a synergy between female in-group preference and the male protective instinct. There has been some objective research on this timeless phenomenon. In 1994, for example, psychologists Alice Eagly and Antonio Mladinic reported that both male and female research subjects were more likely to ascribe positive traits to women than to men, with the bias measurably stronger in women; they christened this the “women-are-wonderful” effect. Later studies found women’s in-group bias four and a half times stronger than men’s. In 2019 British psychologists Martin Seager and John Barry developed the concept of “Gamma bias” to describe “unconscious prejudice against men and boys,” as observed in the tendency of both men and women to sympathize more with women than men.
Such studies are valuable, but as with much of social psychology, they merely confirm something that has always been widely known: men are expected to put the needs of women and children first. As Fiamengo points out, feminists could never have achieved the success they have if men were remotely similar to the selfish brutes they depict. Even half a century of feminist fury has been unable to do away with men’s natural bias in women’s favor.
The other side of male bias in women’s favor is what the author calls “the empathy gap”—the often-shocking inability or unwillingness of many women to empathize with male suffering.
…feminism shares the Marxist mental gestalt whereby society is envisaged in terms of conflicting innocent and guilty groups. As Fiamengo observes, this leaves feminism unable to affirm any universal principles of justice: “it is incapable of extending empathy to whose it has been taught to see as oppressors” or “of demanding accountability from those it has been taught to see as victims.” Because of this inability, “one of feminism’s biggest lies has been its declared aim to overthrow traditional Western gender arrangements in order to liberate men as well as women into an equal partnership.”
Good short read. I have provided just a couple of excerpts above. Women who do not or did not fall for the bs are marvelous beings, worthy of adoration. The opposite type—man-haters—should be avoided at all costs. That there are still so many of that type around is testament to the deep fuckedupedness of this human realm. Young men and boys — avoid girls and women who demean you more than a once or twice; your deep instincts will twinge hard. Just quietly move away because you cannot fix them and there is no benefit to pissing them off. That’s good advice from me. ABN
Russell Gmirkin’s scholarship presents a radical reevaluation of the origins and composition of the Hebrew Bible, particularly the Pentateuch. His theories, which initially seemed extravagant to some, are rooted in rigorous academic investigation within the framework of “biblical minimalism,” a movement that advocates for a later dating of biblical texts than traditionally accepted. This school, exemplified by scholars like Thomas L. Thompson and Niels Peter Lemche from the Copenhagen International Seminar, has faced severe criticism for challenging the antiquity of the biblical narrative, often being branded as anti-Zionist or even anti-Semitic. However, Gmirkin’s work offers compelling arguments that suggest the Hebrew Pentateuch was conceived in the context of Hellenistic culture, particularly drawing from Greek literature and historical works available in the Library of Alexandria around 273-272 BC.
Gmirkin’s arguments hinge on the notion that the Pentateuch was significantly influenced by Greek texts, particularly works by Berossus and Manetho, who chronicled histories of Babylon and Egypt, respectively. He posits that the Hebrew authors crafted their texts not merely as translations of ancient traditions but as new compositions that cleverly disguised their Greek influences to present an ancient and authoritative Jewish narrative. This method of cultural and textual appropriation, Gmirkin suggests, was a strategic adaptation that allowed Jewish scholars to assert their identity and historical significance in a multicultural world dominated by Hellenistic thought and literature. He identifies the Elephantine papyri, dating from around 400 BC, as evidence that the Pentateuch did not exist in its current form at that time, thereby pushing the potential date of its composition further into the Hellenistic period.
In his first book, “Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus,” Gmirkin meticulously analyzes the similarities between the biblical creation narratives in Genesis and the writings of Berossus. He argues that rather than relying on ancient Mesopotamian sources directly, the authors of Genesis utilized Berossus’s compilation, which provided a cohesive Greek perspective on Babylonian creation stories. Gmirkin’s intertextual analysis reveals structural parallels that suggest the authors of Genesis were likely drawing from Berossus as a source, rather than from the fragmented cuneiform texts that precede it. This assertion simplifies the complex web of influences traditionally attributed to the creation of Genesis, suggesting a direct literary lineage from Berossus to the biblical text rather than a convoluted oral tradition.
Furthermore, Gmirkin’s work explores how the biblical narrative engages critically with Babylonian culture, notably through the depiction of the Garden of Eden and the Tower of Babel. He posits that the serpent in the Garden may reflect a Babylonian archetype, the apkallu Oannes, who represents the transmission of knowledge to humanity. This transformation of a benevolent figure into one of treachery symbolizes a broader critique of civilization itself, depicting knowledge as a source of corruption rather than enlightenment. The Tower of Babel serves as a polemical narrative against urban civilization, echoing sentiments found in other contemporary critiques of city life and cultural amalgamation. Ultimately, Gmirkin’s scholarship not only recontextualizes the origins of the Pentateuch but also sheds light on the cultural dialogues and tensions between Jewish identity and the surrounding Hellenistic world during a formative period in history.
(The above is a summary of a longer article provided by the site it is posted on.)
If true, its analysis of the Torah deeply subverts the belief systems of all of the Abrahamic religions and sects based on it. I would maintain that the vocabularies (psycholinguistics) of all religions should be considered as being mere human attempts at understanding matters which are beyond our human capacities to fully understand, and especially to write down. If we do that, an adherence to any Abrahamic tradition can be understood as valuable insofar as it yields profound spiritual experience and good behavior commensurate with human reason and good morals, granting lots of room for variety of interpretations. This same style of interpretation can and should apply to Buddhism, which it sort of already does. The deep flaw in all of the Abrahamic religions and sects is their intellectually weak and vapid need to cling to ancient texts, even to the letter of ancient texts. This has produced a menagerie of competing adamancies that are so stupid that to this day they are still fighting to the death over what was originally mythic nonsense. Buddhism has always (largely) been deep enough to escape such obvious linguistic and psycholinguistic traps. Buddhism focuses on the morality, the experiences, and the wisdom of its traditions, not the words. Freeing religious believers from legalistic credos and beliefs concerning specific entities, words and events will go a long way toward raising human consciousness while preserving that which was truly good in the past. ABN
The family of Iryna Zarutska has filed a lawsuit against the City of Charlotte for alleged ‘systemic failures’ a year after the US was rattled by her horrific murder aboard a tram.
Zarutska was fatally stabbed while riding a CATS light rail train on August 22, 2025. The nation was shocked by footage allegedly showing DeCarlos Brown Jr stabbing the 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee in the neck, leaving her bleeding and begging those on the busy tram for help before she died.
The Queen City and its private transit security contractor, Professional Security Services (PSS), were named in the suit for allegedly knowing about the dangers on or around the light rail system before her death, according to the filing cited by WBTV.
The filing, brought by Lauren Newton, an attorney representing the family, claimed that ‘systemic failures’ left the CATS system vulnerable.
Are your thought patterns valid? Are your premises true? Is your mind sound?
Buddhism further asks are your mental states wholesome? Are they conducive to enlightenment, wisdom, freedom from delusion?
There are many things we can do while alone to clean up our thought processes. And there are some things we can only do with the help of another person.
Only another person can tell us if our premises, thoughts, and conclusions (however tentative) about them are true, valid, and sound.
Buddhism has a concept of a “spiritual friend,” a “good friend,” a noble friend,” or an “admirable friend.” All of these terms are translations of the Pali Kalyāṇa-mittatā, which is well-explained at that link. (Chinese 善知識.）
From the link above and from many years of working with Buddhist literature and people, my sense is that a Buddhist “good friend” is someone who is to be admired and emulated. They are similar to what we mean today by mentors or “good role models.”
I deeply respect the concept of a Buddhist good friend, but find it lacks what I consider the preeminent virtue of philosophical psychology—real-time honesty based on a teachable technique.
Indeed, I cannot find anything anywhere in world philosophy, religion, or literature that provides a teachable technique for attaining real-time honesty with another person.
I also do not quite understand how this could be.
For many centuries human beings have thought about life but no one has come up with a technique like FIML?
How can that be?
I do not see a technique like FIML anywhere in the history of human philosophy nor anywhere in modern psychology.
The importance of a “good friend” who does FIML with you cannot be overemphasized because it is only through such a friend that you can discover where your premises about them are right or wrong, where your thoughts about them are valid or not, and through those discoveries where your mind itself is arranged soundly or not.
Extremely well-said! This is a statement all Whites should read as many times as needed for it to sink in. Those of us who have spent many years abroad in non-White countries eventually learn this truth, but it takes years for it to fully sink in. Not understanding this simple truth is a very deep moral blind-spot among Whites. It is a deeply harmful conceit because it leaves Whites with no defenses against anti-White parasites and invaders. It also causes both brain-drain in non-White countries and savages-drain (all of whom we get and pay for dearly). ABN
After studying the history of MK Ultra, Sigmund Freud, reading CHAOS, and understanding that our government alongside Dr. Jolly West were as successful as they were intentional in creating drug cocktails to drive people to murder and rape people, I have been consistent on my opinion of SSRI’s. Nothing will change until doctors are imprisoned on first degree murder charges for overprescription. The first victims of these experiments were our military men. Servicemen who woke up, had no recollection of what they had done, and had murdered children. Unbeknownst to them they were unwitting subjects in pharmaceutical experiments. I have shared this opinion consistently throughout my career. There is so much about psychiatry that is satanic. I mean that literally. You cannot walk away from studying Freud without that understanding. This is not a throwaway opinion related to any one case. This has been my consistent opinion about these drugs, regarding which I would willfully have a discussion or debate with anyone regarding.
Yes, there is evil in psychiatry and psychology, but evil is not the only reason these fields have failed so badly. The shortest most accurate reason they have failed is they are using one level of the mind to understand different and incommensurate levels of the mind. Indeed, this failure on its own virtually creates evil since it provides illusions of comprehension and control while in reality doing nothing of the sort. Using the wrong level of the mind, typically abstractions and rote abstractions, to explain the mind’s real-world functioning cannot succeed, as history has shown. The field of psychology does provide useful broad overviews of ‘mental illness’ based on categorizing data over many decades. This data comprises a kind of cartography of ‘mental illnesses’ but cures little if anything. Curing or treating ‘mental illness’ or ‘personality disorders’ can only be done successfully when the real-world, real-time functioning levels of the mind are precisely analyzed while they are functioning. This is what we do with any system we want to understand, repair, work with or improve. We observe it as it is functioning and base our corrections on those observations.
Where evil and Satanism appear in this is they exploit psychology and its treatments to do harm. MKULTRA was and is real. They are still doing it. Like so much else, a major reason mind-control can flourish is few understand what is happening to them or, worse, believe what they are being lied to about. Abuse of language, intentional or not, is a major cause of almost all human suffering. ABN
It is commonly assumed that a person’s emotional state can be readily inferred from his or her facial movements, typically called emotional expressions or facial expressions. This assumption influences legal judgments, policy decisions, national security protocols, and educational practices; guides the diagnosis and treatment of psychiatric illness, as well as the development of commercial applications; and pervades everyday social interactions as well as research in other scientific fields such as artificial intelligence, neuroscience, and computer vision. In this article, we survey examples of this widespread assumption, which we refer to as the common view, and we then examine the scientific evidence that tests this view, focusing on the six most popular emotion categories used by consumers of emotion research: anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, and surprise. The available scientific evidence suggests that people do sometimes smile when happy, frown when sad, scowl when angry, and so on, as proposed by the common view, more than what would be expected by chance. Yet how people communicate anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, and surprise varies substantially across cultures, situations, and even across people within a single situation. Furthermore, similar configurations of facial movements variably express instances of more than one emotion category. In fact, a given configuration of facial movements, such as a scowl, often communicates something other than an emotional state. Scientists agree that facial movements convey a range of information and are important for social communication, emotional or otherwise. But our review suggests an urgent need for research that examines how people actually move their faces to express emotions and other social information in the variety of contexts that make up everyday life, as well as careful study of the mechanisms by which people perceive instances of emotion in one another. We make specific research recommendations that will yield a more valid picture of how people move their faces to express emotions and how they infer emotional meaning from facial movements in situations of everyday life. This research is crucial to provide consumers of emotion research with the translational information they require.
Maybe it’s just me, but I have always thought these findings were extremely obvious. What is obvious is not just facial expressions. The same rough analysis applies to tone of voice, word choice, gesture, body language, perceived meaning, pragmatics of speaking and everything else involving interpersonal communication. For these reasons, I developed the FIML technique. FIML reduces the ‘irreducible complexity’1 of human interactions by examining small bits of interpersonal communications in real-time, real-world situations. Perfect communication between two humans (the smallest unit) is not possible. BUT, much better communication IS. FIML is not hard to do if you have a good partner who can understand why it is necessary. The world is a lonely place and good partners are rare mainly because interpersonal human understanding is really bad, frightfully so. If you do FIML, everything will be better for you. ABN
Basing our understanding of human “psychology” on signaling and signaling systems—essentially seeing people as complex signaling systems—can make many aspects of being human clearer.
For example, rather than analyze “introversion” versus “extroversion,” we can use terms that work better with the signaling model—introspection versus extrospection.
Extrospection is a made up word. In this context it means someone who looks (spec, specere) outwardly for the establishment, maintenance, and validation of their identity.
In the signaling model, identity can be defined as “the (somewhat) complex nexuses of meaning/signaling that ’embodies’ our comprehension of the semiotics of our cultures and experiences.”
An extrovert is normally seen as someone who likes people and wants to spend time with them, as opposed to an introvert who prefers spending time alone.
There is probably some value in this distinction. But all introverts know that we also like people and want to spend time with them; the problem is spending time with strongly “extroverted” types is not fully satisfying.
Similarly, extroverts are generally not as satisfied with the company of introverts as they are with other extroverts.
It may be hard to see why this is until we use the terms “introspection” and “extrospection.”
A person whose identity depends heavily on the opinions of others—one who favors extrospection—will tend to spend more time with other people than alone. They will be good at getting along with other people of their type because “extrospectors” value the mutual validation they offer each other.
To a person whose identity depends heavily on introspection, the “extrospector” may be fun to be around for a while, but will probably become tiring because the “introspector” does not want the same sort of validation required by the “extrospector.”
In terms of signaling, the introspector relies on internal signaling while the extrospector relies on external signaling. The introspector can and does enjoy other people, but they are far more likely to be satisfied with other people who share their tendency for internal signaling.
The signaling systems of introspectors with introspectors and extrospectors with extrospectors mirror each other much better than when the two types are mixed.
Extrospectors tend to form groups and have a much easier time finding each other than introspectors do. This is why extrospectors control so much of what happens in the world.
Moreover, extrospectors also tend to base their opinions of themselves and each other on external, measurable things—property, money, status symbols. To the introspector, these things are not as valuable to their identity as depth of analysis, depth of internal signals, depth of communication.
Extrospectors are great and we need them. But if you are not one, it might be good to realize that it is not people per se that you want to avoid, but rather the tedium of extrospectional values, aims, and beliefs.
Find another introspector with compatible interests and there is a good chance you will become highly “extroverted” toward each other.
Since introspection produces an identity that is grounded more on internal signals, self-generated or discovered signals, introspectors tend to be more different from each other than extrospectors within the same culture.
Inner child is a widely recognized term that implies the presence in adults of unresolved problems or underdeveloped traits rooted in childhood.
Inner child further implies that full development of the adult requires “reparenting” or “retraining” the inner child as a way of resolving juvenile problems and advancing to full adulthood.
My FIML partner has been studying dog training and last night told me how much she thought effective dog training resembled FIML practice.
In a nutshell, FIML practice trains your inner dog, not your inner child.
For example, to stop bad behavior in a dog—say, barking at cars going by—its human trainer has to know how to intervene as quickly and as calmly as possible the moment that behavior arises. Quick intervention ensures that the dog knows what the trainer wants them to do. If you wait too long (as little as a few seconds), the dog won’t know what you want them to do. They will have forgotten the precise source of their behavior and thus any corrections they try to make will not address the root problem, which is they have interpreted a signal in the world (cars going by) as something they must react to.
When the trainer is calm and friendly as well as quick to intervene, they will prevent the dog from reacting to their (the trainer’s) excessive emotion, be it anger, panic, or an unskilled flustered state of mind.
The same sort of thing happens in FIML practice. When one FIML partner queries the other, the first thing they are doing is stopping their (own) inner dog before it starts behaving badly. They are intervening as soon as they feel their inner dog stir and start to rise from the floor (but before it starts barking).
The second thing they are doing is calmly asking their FIML partner a question about a very specific and precisely identified moment. They are gathering good data on that moment from their partner and will compare it to what their inner dog thought it saw or heard.
A FIML partner is in essence asking, should I be reacting right now as my inner dog is telling me or has my inner dog misinterpreted a signal coming from you?
The dog for much of its life has barked at cars going by, while the person for much of their life has reacted with sadness or anger to their interpretation of certain signs or signals (semiotics) coming from other people.
When you query your FIML partner about a sign that you have been reacting to for much of your life and discover that the sign you received was not the sign they sent, you will be like the dog who comes to understand that there is no reason to bark at cars going by, no reason to rise from the floor at all.
People are semiotic animals more than dogs, so we react very strongly to social semiotics. But we are just like dogs in that most of our reactions to semiotics can be changed without much effort as long as we arrest those reactions quickly and replace them with a more reasonable response.
My partner remarked last night especially on how easily a great deal of bad dog behavior can be corrected if the intervention of the trainer is quick and the dog is shown a more appropriate response. Oftentimes, just a few good interventions will correct the bad behavior.
What are some classic mistakes bad dog trainers make? They try to comfort or calm the barking dog by holding it and telling it everything is OK. That is, they treat it like a child. But all that actually does is reward the dog for the behavior they want to stop.
So if you reward yourself (your inner child) by indulging in childish feelings of abandonment when you misinterpret or over-interpret a sign of rejection, you are actually rewarding yourself for being wrong, for having an erroneous (or neurotic) interpretation of communicative signs.
It is better to treat your rapid and unthinking “limbic” responsivity like a dog than like a child. And rather than reparent your inner child, it is better to use good dog training techniques to retrain the actual semiotic responses that are the real roots of unwanted behaviors.
