Neofugue @neofugue@merovingian.club

Given Israel is losing its global prestige, legitimacy, and backing from its reluctant allies, the question arises as to why it continues to destabilize the Middle East instead of declaring victory and salvaging its tenuous position and dwindling support.

This is because the leadership of Israel understands the main weakness of the Jewish state—that the Jews have no serious martial culture—and as such cannot maintain balance-of-power politics. If Israel does not maintain regional hegemony, that is, if Israel cannot divide all of its neighbors into insignificant petty states, Israel risks annihilation.

In most countries, the conservative, religious rural population serves as the bedrock for military service, but in Israel, the conservative Ultra-Orthodox Haredim actively refuse to serve in the military, leaving the socially liberal and dwindling (low TFR) urban population to do most of the fighting. Therefore, Israel cannot sustain heavy casualties in its wars, forcing its military to rely on subterfuge, surprise attacks, overwhelming air power and Western munitions to win regional conflicts—Israel cannot sustain the casualties required to take out Hamas’ tunnels through conventional means, instead focusing on slaughtering as much of the civilian population as politically possible.

The politically correct position is that Israel must maintain offensive capability at all times because of its small geographic size, but this is merely a cover for Israel's true weakness. Because Israel lacks a martial, conservative base to draw soldiers from, it cannot survive defensive wars.

As such, if Israel is ever forced to fight a regional conflict with peer adversary, Israel cannot survive a Rorke’s-Drift-type scenario, a possibility that becomes ever more likely as the United States continues to decline. Thus, the only hope Israel has of surviving is to use Orange Man to destroy Iran and divide it into several small petty states. If not, Iran can bide its time, wait for the United States to decline, wait for Israel’s urban progressive population to dwindle, and strike when the time is right.

All of this is because the Jews understand they cannot compete with peer adversaries. Perhaps this should be taken into consideration regarding other matters...

@KingOfWhiteAmerica Men make unprincipled exceptions to their thinking, but civilizations always end up down the slippery slope. I have always maintained that the slippery slope is and never was a fallacy if all modus ponens are correct (given X ∴ Y, Y ∴ Z, Z ∴ A, A ∴ B, if all true, X ∴ B). Thomism and later Roman Catholic/Protestant systems fail because all assume some form of Materialism which eventually leads down the slippery slope to atheism.

Regarding politics, on one side, assuming all men are created equal, then women, then negroes, then homosexuals, then transvestites, and so on and so forth. Conversely, men such as William Luther Pierce and Revilo P. Oliver never gained traction despite their brilliance not only because of repression, but also because without accountability from God one’s only obligations are to himself and his immediate interests.

Of all the people who I have debated with, I have known only one Roman Catholic who in fact understood the implications of my position on Uniformitarianism, let alone Modern Science and Panentheism, so these posts are mostly for like-minded travelers.

My position has always been that any path to victory requires a restoration of true belief in God and a rejection of all other systems. Since Western theology and philosophy for the last millennia is poison, and since Orthodox theology and metaphysics provide a working alternative, Orthodoxy works as the only counter to the current regime despite its current position as of writing.

RT: https://poa.st/objects/f4287df5-527d-408b-b6d2-b59ba365bf3c

@KingOfWhiteAmerica This is a brief and extreme oversimplification of the Absolute Divine Simplicity (ADS) debate for laymen without basic understanding of theological definitions in terms as simple as I can make them (with some academic terms):

Catholicism goes with Aristotle, Orthodoxy goes with Plato.

With Western Christianity (correct terms are Thomism, later Protestantism), God created the natural world with matter as fundamental (academic term is hylomorphic dualism). In Eastern Christianity, God sustains the universe through his energies with information or consciousness as fundamental (academic term is panentheism). In other words, in Western Christianity, the material world is fundamental, whereas in Eastern Christianity, the world operates more as God’s quantum computer.

If ADS is true, then Western Christianity’s position of matter being fundamental is true, and Orthodoxy is false. If ADS is false, then Orthodoxy’s position of consciousness being fundamental is true, and Western Christianity is false.

If matter is fundamental, and thus matter has fundamental rules, Christianity is proven false by modern science (academic term is Uniformitarian Science). If consciousness is fundamental, and thus matter can be altered through changing information, most models of Uniformitarian Science can be rejected as scientific myths.

So, is it possible to view the universe as in fact a quantum computer?

To answer this question, it all depends on pulling away the film before the photons hit the wall in the double slit experiment.

And what do you know!
https:// youtube .com/watch?v= 6xKUass7G8w

The referenced paper in question:
https:// arxiv .org/pdf/quant-ph/9903047

As an important and critical disclaimer, I am not saying that the information in the above video and experiments means that one must by necessity accept Christianity as a matter of fact against his willing. Instead, I am saying is that by adopting the Orthodox model, it allows me to reject the entirety of Uniformitarian Science, itself the basis for the destruction of Christianity since the Enlightenment.

I cannot simplify the above any further.

However, there is another important point that must be discussed—competing worldviews are more about whether or not the claims they make and the system itself are “coherent” and resistant to outside systems, and less about whether or not the system itself can account for its propositions. Anyone can make statements and assert them as "truth," the key element is whether or not these systems can work if "evidence" contrary to those statements falsify the "truth" statements. If an Orthodox Christian can look at Uniformitarian Science and spit on it in disgust the same way he spits on the Pagan idols, it is proof that the system works and can eventually be adopted as a complete unitary political and ideological system (academic term is weltanschauung).

The destruction of Democracy on the basis of the Open Society, and the implementation of Orthodox Christianity on the basis of Canon Law (the Nomocanon), are the stated purposes of this account.

RT: https://poa.st/objects/6d1979e2-f188-422d-81b7-9915ad46941c

There has been much discussion centered on the subject of Darwin and Christianity, but I would like to briefly clarify the position I hold as it can sometimes get lost in the noise of hellthreads.

My main point is that any successful dissident political movement must possess a justification for self-sacrifice to inspire others to take the risk of martyrdom, and that pure atheistic materialism is by its nature incapable of this. This is not about false framing my metaphor of charging into certain death as me calling for us to sacrifice ourselves to achieve victory, but rather it is a reflection on the inherent danger and sacrifice inherent in revolution. This distinction matters because all good systems believe in the act of service to a higher cause—without such belief, those in power simply create chaos for immediate personal benefit. This problem of betrayal, is it happens, was why we lost in the first place.

It should be clarified that I am a traditional Orthodox Christian Monarchist, not a National Socialist, and that my positions reflect those of Imperial Russia. Below are two books, “The Story of the Russian Land” by Alexander Dimitrevich Nechvolodov, and “Reflections of a Russian Statesman” by Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev, both of whom were influential figures in late Imperial Russia.

Consistent within the framework of traditional Eastern Orthodox theology, my writing upholds the traditional panentheistc worldview where God is both immanent and transcendent, God is not bound by natural processes, God may intervene directly in creation without being restricted by secondary causes, and that the natural order is contingent, not autonomous, and thus miracles and divine interventions are not violations of “laws” but expressions of God’s will within a created and upheld order. God is not dependent on mechanistic or uniformitarian processes, the world is not a closed causal system, there is no need for metaphysical naturalism—one can take St. Basil’s “Hexaemeron” literally or analogically—and that creation possesses logoi (divine ideas) rooted in the Logos (Christ).

In short, the world has divine intentionality, and the processes of the world are not self-sufficient but depend on God from moment-to-moment. I do not espouse metaphysical Enlightenment-based foundational myths for modern secular ideologies promoting a universe devoid of inherent purpose or divine order.

I will leave it here for those interested in thinking it through on their own terms.

@plotinus_enjoyer Your concern for safeguarding divine unity is fine, but the problem is assuming simplicity means every divine name must refer to one indivisible act or content. Assuming a Thomistic definition of simplicity, that “all God’s attributes are really identical,” and then restating it as if we somehow agree on this definition, is the problem, because that is precisely what Palamas, the Cappadocians Fathers and Dionysius rejected—it is Neoplatonic fatalism dressed in Latin terminology.

Regarding Dionysius and the Cappadocians, in DN 1.6-1.9 he refers to the divine names as the divine processions, not the essence itself, unified in their source, plural in manifestation. Translations of the Cappadocians into English vary by the perspective of the translator, but the word used by the Fathers is “energeia.” Other translations from a non-Orthodox standpoint generally use the word “operations” to uphold Thomism.

Barlaam’s error is separating creation from God by reducing divine action to created effects, whereas the Fathers taught that God is really present in His energies without the essence undergoing division or change. If you collapse everything into the essence, you remove real communion and turn God into a static monad. Names like “merciful,” “just,” and “creator” describe not simply concepts of the essence but real uncreated energies, ways in which God is present and acts in the world without compromising His transcendent essence. Barlaam’s mistake is him separating creation from God because he reduced divine action to create effects while the Fathers taught that God is really present in His energies without the essence undergoing division or change.

RT: https://poa.st/objects/c97a6d45-9247-43ea-9729-4237e5bf5ab2

@plotinus_enjoyer To reduce divine simplicity to mere inseparability would be insufficient as reducing divine personhood to function, but Thomist actus purus is not what Orthodoxy teaches. Orthodoxy teaches simplicity without confusion or fusion, without collapsing distinctions, that protects apophaticism and personal communion.

We uphold divine simplicity; God has no composition or created parts, but we reject the Thomist model that all divine attributes are identified with the essence. Real distinctions between the divine energies are necessary for coherent theology, liturgical worship, and the theophanies in Scripture.

Western models confuse metaphysical simplicity with metaphysical identity, collapsing God's acts into the divine essence. Regarding Dionysius, and later Maximos and Palamas, these names are not merely conceptual descriptions but real manifestations—energies—of God. These are uncreated and truly God, yet distinct from the essence which remains absolutely unknowable.

The names do not refer to the exact same content because that would collapse God's love, justice, power, et cetera, into a monadic simplicity devoid of actual distinctions—which ironically enough—this is rooted in Neoplatonism, not Orthodox theosis, where the divine names are merely conceptual "aspects" of the essence, reducing the names to mental constructs rather than affirming them as real divine activities.

To put this into layman's terms, God's divine providence and love are not identical to God's wrath and judgment, God's eternal nature is not identical to His act of creation (the former example distinct uncreated energies, in the latter example His will is an uncreated energy).

RT: https://poa.st/objects/928a00c0-55c4-4fe7-8f0b-7100005b6235

@plotinus_enjoyer On the subject of simplicity, and in particular the Western Thomistic view of absolute divine simplicity:

In response to the analogy comparing God’s simplicity to the inseparability of a circle’s radius and circumference, this analogy falls short when applied to divine simplicity. God’s simplicity is not analogous to physical or geometric simplicity, rather Orthodox tradition upholds that God is simple in essence but reveals Himself through uncreated energies which are distinct yet not separate from His essence, allowing for real communion with God without compromising His transcendence.

The problem with ADS is that it conflates God’s essence with His actions and attributes, resulting in a form of modalism (God creating the world is not synonymous with the Divine Essence, as it would mean God is eternally creating the world). Regarding Dionysius the Areopagite, while Dionysius emphasizes God’s simplicity, he also acknowledges the multiplicity of divine names and energies, which supports the idea that God’s essence remains transcendent and unknowable while His energies are the means by which He manifests.

Within the Orthodox framework, the divine logoi (forms) are understood as uncreated energies that exist within the divine mind—this aligns with the Eastern Fathers who saw the logoi as the principles through which God creates and sustains the world, allowing for a participatory relationship between the Creator and Creation.

Side note unrelated to what @plotinus_enjoyer mentioned, “uniformitarianism” is not one of the logoi, so all unjustified sciences can be rejected a priori of their false claims.

You were partially correct in sensing that Dyer sees the Platonic forms as having a participatory relationship with a higher essence—but in Dyer’s reading (following St. Maximos), the forms exist within the divine Logos—Plato approximated the Orthodox understanding albeit lacking full revelation. Dyer’s interpretation of Plato points towards a metaphysical Logos that finds its fulfillment in Orthodox Christian theology, not that he endorses autonomous philosophical systems. Plato anticipates elements of the Logos—that the logoi are not abstracted impersonal principles but are rooted in a higher unifying reality akin to the Logos of St. John and the Cappadocians.

To say Dyer is a secular coherentist is a category error as he rejects the autonomy of human reason, the Enlightenment project—the false idea that man's gifts are independent of God's beneficence. Plato gestures towards an intelligible world structured by logoi but lacks the full light of revelation, which the Orthodox Church uniquely preserves through the essence-energies distinction. Plato approximates a participatory metaphysic where the many are rooted in the One, alter fulfilled in Christ the Logos. The Orthodox reading of the logoi with the divine energies preserves divine simplicity without collapsing God’s will and essence into indistinct identity as we see in the West.

Regarding Plato’s sun metaphor from the Republic Book VI, the “absence” of the One from the divided line is deliberate, showing its radical transcendence—something that Orthodox theology preserves by distinguishing between the the One or Good and in this case truth, beauty, justice et cetera. Thus Plato’s Good prefigures the Orthodox doctrine that we partake in God without ever comprehending the divine essence.

RT: https://poa.st/objects/d970294b-0f8d-40ab-8406-35b398817743