Is this article actually about how Catholicism is failing in Latin
America? It kind of sneaks in there halfway through.
Is there any reason, possibly one named Pope Francis, why a
conservative leaning writer would be interested in talking about how
Catholicism has failed Latin America?
What would Dorothy Day think about this exciting new concept of
political communities built on religious principles? Should we just call
them temporary autonomous zones? (No. Fun concept, but we should not use
Bey’s name for them.)
Am I about to be sympathetic to integralists?
I dunno, I’m just asking questions. I think the story he’s
copy-pasting is pretty neat, regardless.
Advocating conversions to religions associated with industriousness and incorruptibility (Judaism, Mormonism) - a "model religious minority" effect if you will for the sake of higher social status and not actual belief is amusing
Also, smaller religions tend to be ethnic in nature: [Ethnic religion - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_religion)
People on the right either really love Catholicism, really hate it, or think other people are doing it incorrectly.
It feels gross to acknowledge that I loved Bey's sparkling wordplay when I was a teenager. I guess that was what he was going for.
People doing Catholicism right:
* English Anglican converts who wrote novels (Anthony Burgess didn’t like these people)
* European ultramontanes
* Catholic Supreme Court justices
* Sedevacantists
People doing Catholicism wrong:
* brown people
I think Bey’s prose is generally quite good, I just can’t ever quite strip away what’s behind it. I read Michael Muhammad Knight’s *William S. Burroughs vs. the Qur’an* last year and found it quite helpful in reconciling my teenage fondness for Bey (and RAW) with my current take on life.
There are two kinds of classical liberals: the "I bring guns at BLM protests" and "I refuse to pay taxes because they feed the military-industrial complex" type, which are basically just very sane people that fell for bitcoin, and the "I am socially conservative, but capturing the state right now is impossible, so let's just exploit the fact that white male control all the wealth, and advocate for a social system where wealth control all society, so nothing changes! *Nobody* will ever notice this devious but genial trick! Also, I don't want people to think I am a redneck, poor people stink". Now, a guy who believes in scientific racism, in NIMBYsm, goes to great length to "steel-man" every conservative bullshit like Chesterton's fence and feels the need to insert "meritocracy" in any conversation whatsoever, which kind is more likely to be?
Yup. If the steel-mans always go in one direction, with his supposed "opposition" on the Right getting the kid-gloves high-brow-intellectual treatment, while his opponents on the Left always casually dismissed as dumb/evil "Marxists" or "Statists", at some point the "steel mans" become indistinguishable from advocacy.
> but Scott isn't a scientific racist?
Oh [yes he is](https://twitter.com/ArsonAtDennys/status/1362153191102677001). But I understand the confusion, he always went ot great length to deny any symphaty to racism in public, why in private he was *fucking proselitizing his friends toward it*
Scott may not be conservative in the orthodox GOP sense, but he is absolutely more conservative than he attempts to portray himself in his online persona. For example, he is on record as deliberately obfuscating his public vs. private position on race science and neoreactionaries
I wonder why the rationalists haven’t created a “Universal Scientific
Religion” that leans towards the materialist side of things but actively
attempts to syncretize universal practices like the title “Lord” in
major religions, meditation, the Mother Goddess/Sub-God etc. Like a
hybrid between the Zen-sunni of Dune and the Temple of Reason
What universal practices/beliefs could actually be used to construct
one?
No, seriously, what would an reasonably designed syncretism look like?
It's theology could actually be a superposition - A Lord with subordinates who may or may not be avatars of Them, conceptualized as deliberately unreachable except for Their Conduits, who may or may not actually exist
Some liberal Quakers don’t need Friends to be Christian and readily take atheists/agnostics or even people from other religions, but they still tend to be very spiritual people and it’s not so much a syncretism as an extension of how some Quakers already thought the “light within” was more important than scripture. The Universalist Unitarians as far as I know are also just people who want to go to church and don’t particularly care what religion everyone else practices there, but they’re descended from Puritan churches so it’s still modeled after Christianity to some extent.
>why the rationalists haven't created a "Universal Scientific Religion" that leans towards the materialist side of things but actively attempts to syncretize universal practices
All attempts to do so have resulted in schisms and failure. Partly because of all the We Are Not A Cult PR, partly because the central epistemological claim of the community is orthopraxically opposed to religious practice.
Did Scott, "False Rape" Freddie, and the other Substack Pro recruits mention that they're making a *very generous* amount of money? Because it's really *quite* a lot of money they're making. A lot more that the lamestream media people they hate. In case you were wondering. It's a lot. Lots of money. 💰 🤑
The break down:
total words: 3345
direct quotes: 1875 (56%)
summary of other articles: 620 (18.5%) [I was very conservative in what I counted as summary]
original "content": 850 (25%)
People are citing this as an example of a “voluntary community” like
the phyles in the Diamond Age that you can join and leave regardless of
your parent’s/country’s culture
And they say blogs are dead!
Is this article actually about how Catholicism is failing in Latin America? It kind of sneaks in there halfway through.
Is there any reason, possibly one named Pope Francis, why a conservative leaning writer would be interested in talking about how Catholicism has failed Latin America?
What would Dorothy Day think about this exciting new concept of political communities built on religious principles? Should we just call them temporary autonomous zones? (No. Fun concept, but we should not use Bey’s name for them.)
Am I about to be sympathetic to integralists?
I dunno, I’m just asking questions. I think the story he’s copy-pasting is pretty neat, regardless.
I wonder why the rationalists haven’t created a “Universal Scientific Religion” that leans towards the materialist side of things but actively attempts to syncretize universal practices like the title “Lord” in major religions, meditation, the Mother Goddess/Sub-God etc. Like a hybrid between the Zen-sunni of Dune and the Temple of Reason
What universal practices/beliefs could actually be used to construct one?
This is honestly the most relatable thing he’s done in months (format-wise, not content-wise).
Back in my day, we had SEO spam in the comments.
I wonder how long it takes for all the joy to be sucked out of blogging once you become a “pro” (lol) and depend upon it as a primary income source?
You gotta pump those numbers up!
Yes, I know this isn’t a new phenomenon by Scott, but it’s just so blatant in this one.
People are citing this as an example of a “voluntary community” like the phyles in the Diamond Age that you can join and leave regardless of your parent’s/country’s culture
“He’s not the Messiah, he’s a very naughty boy!”