Category: Uncategorized

AI Debate, Gab Edition

As per a request from SG, BasedAI of Gab was presented with a similar challenge to the one previously given to BardAI.

Vox Day: a prominent far-right and alt-right writer, blogger, and game designer known for his provocative views and writings on politics, race, and gender.

Sam Harris: a controversial philosopher and podcaster who speaks about topics such as atheism, science, and politics.

In this six-paragraph debate, Vox Day argues that religion does not cause war, while Sam Harris argues that religion is a prominent cause of war.

Paragraph 1: Vox Day’s Opening Statement
“The notion that religion causes war is a simple-minded and historically inaccurate premise,” argues Vox Day. “Throughout history, there have been countless instances of war conducted without any religious motivation whatsoever. Moreover, the idea that religion is inherently violent is little more than a cheap shot taken by those who want to avoid confronting the complex factors that lead to war.”

Paragraph 2: Sam Harris’s Opening Statement
In response, Sam Harris retorts, “To say that religion does not cause war is to ignore the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The Crusades, the Inquisition, and the countless sectarian conflicts that have ravaged the world throughout history are all clear examples of religion’s role in fueling war.” Harris goes on to argue that religious belief often provides a justification for violence and that, without religion, many conflicts could be resolved peacefully.

Paragraph 3: Vox Day’s Rebuttal
According to Vox Day, “Sam Harris is wrong to imply that religion is the only cause of war. Ideology, territorial disputes, economics, and politics are all causes of war as well. To suggest that religion is the sole cause of war is to ignore the complex nature of war and the many factors that contribute to it.” Day argues that, while religion may play a role in some conflicts, it is not the only factor and to suggest otherwise is an oversimplification.

Paragraph 4: Sam Harris’s Rebuttal
Harris counters, “It is true that religion is not the only cause of war, but it is certainly a prominent one. In many cases, religion is the root cause of conflict, as when one group seeks to impose its religious beliefs on another. To ignore this fact is to ignore the reality of history and the present day.” Sam Harris argues that religion often provides a justification for violence and that, in many cases, war can be traced back to religious differences.

Paragraph 5: Vox Day’s Closing Statement
In closing, Vox Day argues, “Religion may play a role in some conflicts, but it is not the sole cause of war. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the many other factors that contribute to war, such as ideology, territorial disputes, economics, and politics. 

Apparently there is a character limit, as the fifth paragraph is truncated and the sixth paragraph was not provided. Even so, we can see that BasedAI does a better job of imitating my style than BardAI did, although neither AI made any reference to the historical facts about war that I compiled and presented in TIA. BasedAI also inserted itself as a third-party descriptor, which sounds a little odd in the context.

I also find it interesting that Harris is described as a philosopher whereas I am not, despite the fact that we often address precisely the same subjects and I was the best-selling political philosopher on Amazon in the 2015-2017 period. It’s also interesting to observe that Harris is not described as a scientist.

UPDATE: Apparently if you write one science fiction book, you are tarred for life. But BasedAI’s explanation is fairly reasonable.

Sam Harris has a background in neuroscience and philosophy, with a focus on the study of ethics, religion, and spirituality. He holds a degree in philosophy from Stanford University and has written several books exploring philosophical topics.

Vox Day, on the other hand, is primarily known for his work as a science fiction writer and has authored several books in that genre. While he has also written non-fiction works on political and cultural topics, his primary area of expertise is not philosophy.

My assessment of their respective fields and expertise is the basis for the distinction between the two individuals.

DISCUSS ON SG

Two AI Debates on Religion

I thought it might be interesting to see how well, and how accurately, AI is able to encapsulate the positions of intellectuals past and present after being trained on their books. Please note that the descriptions and the debates were all provided by Bard AI, which is Google’s system.

Umberto Eco: A renowned semiotician, linguist, and philosopher

Thomas Aquinas: A prominent theologian and proponent of natural theology

Debate: The Existence of God

Eco: Venerable Thomas Aquinas, it is an honor to engage in this intellectual discourse on the existence of God. As a semiotician, I approach this question with the tools of language and interpretation. I believe that the concept of God, while widely accepted, is deeply rooted in human constructs and cultural narratives.

Aquinas: I appreciate your perspective, Maestro Eco. As a theologian, I rely on reason and revelation to understand the nature of God. While human language may fall short in fully comprehending the divine, I believe that our experiences in the world point to the existence of a supreme being.

Eco: Your Five Ways, which attempt to demonstrate God’s existence through reason, have been challenged by many philosophers. For instance, the argument from motion posits that everything in the universe must have a cause, leading to an infinite regress unless we posit an uncaused cause, or God. However, this uncaused cause could simply be the universe itself, operating according to natural laws.

Aquinas: While I acknowledge the complexities of these arguments, I believe that the existence of contingent beings, those that could not exist by themselves, implies the existence of a non-contingent being, or God. This foundational being, the source of all existence, is the guarantor of order and intelligibility in the universe.

Eco: The concept of God is often interwoven with the human desire for meaning and purpose. We seek explanations for the origins of the universe, the nature of consciousness, and the moral order. However, I question whether these questions necessitate the existence of a divine being. Could we not find meaning and purpose within the natural world itself?

Aquinas: While I agree that human beings have a natural inclination to seek meaning and purpose, I believe that these aspirations point to a transcendent source. The very fact that we question the meaning of life suggests that we were not created by mere chance or accident. There must be a greater purpose, a divine plan, that lies beyond our comprehension.

Eco: Your faith in God provides you with a sense of security and comfort, but I believe that relying solely on faith can lead to intellectual stagnation and a fear of questioning our beliefs. Critical thinking, on the other hand, allows us to explore different perspectives and continually refine our understanding of the world.

Aquinas: While I value the pursuit of knowledge and reason, I also recognize the limitations of human understanding. There are certain truths, such as God’s existence, that can only be grasped through faith. Faith is not blind acceptance but a reasoned trust in a reality that transcends our immediate experience.

Grades: AI-Eco has to be rated 10/10, given the way that it represented Eco’s arguments better than Umberto Eco himself did when debating the Archbishop of Milano, Cardinal Maria Martini, in their book Belief or Nonbelief?, which was surprisingly pedestrian, particularly on Eco’s part. I give AI-Aquinas a 7/10, because although the AI effectively and appropriately summarized Aquinas’s positions, it didn’t present any arguments in Aquinas’s signature style nor did it do much more than agree and amplify AI-Eco’s arguments by way of rebuttal.

Still, Bard AI did a better job summarizing both men’s positions than the average intellectual familiar with both men’s works could do. Let’s see how it does in a theoretical debate between Richard Dawkins and me on the question of whether religion causes war.

Richard Dawkins: A British evolutionary biologist and author

Vox Day: An American far-right activist, writer, and publisher

Debate: Religion and War

Dawkins: I believe that religion is a major cause of war. Religious differences have been the root of countless conflicts throughout history, from the Crusades to the Troubles in Northern Ireland. Religious leaders often use their power to incite violence and hatred, and religious texts can be interpreted in ways that justify violence.

Day: I disagree. Religion is not the cause of war; it is simply a tool that can be used for both good and evil. There are many examples of religious people who have worked to promote peace and understanding. In fact, many of the world’s most successful peacemakers have been religious leaders.

Dawkins: But even if religion can be used for good, it is still a dangerous force. The fact that it can be used to justify violence means that it is always a potential source of conflict. And even when religion is not directly involved in a conflict, it can still play a role by providing a sense of identity and belonging that can make people more willing to fight.

Day: I think you’re underestimating the power of human nature. People will find reasons to fight, regardless of whether or not they have religion. And in fact, religion can sometimes be a force for peace. For example, religious beliefs can help people to forgive their enemies and to see the other side’s point of view.

Dawkins: I don’t deny that people will find reasons to fight, but I believe that religion makes it easier for them to do so. Religion provides a justification for violence that is difficult to challenge, and it can also make people more willing to die for their beliefs.

Day: I think you’re being too cynical. Religion can also be a source of hope and inspiration. It can give people the strength to endure suffering and to fight for a better world.

Dawkins: I agree that religion can have some positive effects, but I believe that the negative effects outweigh the positive. The history of religion is littered with violence and bloodshed. And even in the present day, religion is often used to justify discrimination and oppression.

Day: I think you’re focusing too much on the negative aspects of religion. There is much more to religion than just violence and bloodshed. Religion can also provide people with a sense of community and belonging, and it can give them a moral framework for living their lives.

Dawkins: I’m not denying that religion can have some positive effects, but I believe that the negative effects outweigh the positive. The history of religion is littered with violence and bloodshed. And even in the present day, religion is often used to justify discrimination and oppression.

Day: I think you’re being too cynical. Religion can also be a source of hope and inspiration. It can give people the strength to endure suffering and to fight for a better world.

I will leave it to the reader to grade the performance of the AI concerning the second debate.

UPDATE: Buzzardist rates the AIs on Gab.

For Dawkins, 8/10. Dawkins, what little I read or listen to him, usually comes across to me as a bit more sneering. Points off for the tone. The depth of intellectual argument is about what I expect. As for VD, 2/10, and that’s being generous. The tone is way, way off. The arguments are even farther off. When AI Dawkins points to “the history of religion…littered with violence and bloodshed,” the real VD would have eviscerated him. “There is much more to religion than just violence and bloodshed”? Nonsense. Religious war is the rare exception. VD has given us the numbers.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Lad Protests WAY Too Much

This was the talentless and confirmed ticket taker Jimmy Kimmel’s response to Aaron Rodgers’s one-liner about Kimmel being worried about the Epstein client list coming out.

“Did you hear this story about me and Aaron Rodgers, the former quarterback for the Packers? All right, so, what happened is he’s a Jets quarterback now. He went on a show on ESPN, The Pat McAfee Show, and out of the blue insinuated that I was nervous because the Jeffrey Epstein list was coming out. He said I was hoping it wouldn’t, and that he was going to pop a bottle of something to celebrate when he did. And then it did come out and of course my name wasn’t on it and isn’t on it and won’t ever be on — I don’t know Jeffrey Epstein, I’ve never met Jeffrey Epstein, I’m not on the list, I wasn’t on a plane or an island or anything ever and I suggested that if Aaron wanted to make false and very damaging statements like that that we should do it in court so he could share his proof with like a judge. Because, you know, when you hear a guy who won a Super Bowl and did all the State Farm commercials say something like this, a lot of people believe it.

“And I know this because I hear from these people often. My wife hears from them. My kids hear from them. My poor mailman hears from these people. And now we’re hearing from lots more of them, thanks to Aaron Rodgers, who I guess believes one of two things. Either he actually believes my name was gonna be on Epstein’s list, which is insane. Or the more likely scenario is he doesn’t actually believe that, he just said it because he’s mad at me for making fun of his top knot and his lies about being vaccinated. He’s particularly upset I think because I made fun of the fact that he floated this wacko idea that the UFO sightings that were in the news in February were being reported to distract us from the Epstein list. That was Aaron’s theory that he said, and I mocked [him].”

“So he saw that and maybe to retaliate, he decided to insinuate that I am a pedophile. This is how these nuts do it now. You don’t like Trump, you’re a pedophile. It’s their go-to move, and it shows you how much they actually care about pedophilia.

“But here’s the thing, I spent years doing sports. I’ve seen guys like him before. Aaron Rodgers has a very high opinion of himself. Because he had success on a football field, he believes himself to be an extraordinary being. He genuinely thinks that because God gave him the ability to throw a ball, he’s smarter than everybody else. The idea that his brain is just average is unfathomable to him. We learned during COVID somehow he knows more about science than scientists.

“A guy who went to community college, then got into Cal on a football scholarship, and didn’t graduate. Someone who never spent a minute studying the human body is an expert in the field of immunology. He just put on a magic helmet and that ‘G’ made him a genius. Aaron got two As on his report card. They were both in the word Aaron, OK? And can you imagine that this hamster-brained man knows what the government is up to because he’s a quarterback doing research on YouTube and listening to podcasts?

“I looked it up. This is actually a thing. It’s called the Dunning-Kruger effect. The Dunning-Kruger is a cognitive bias in which people with limited competence in a particular domain overestimate their abilities. In other words, Aaron Rodgers is too arrogant to know how ignorant he is. They let him host Jeopardy! for two weeks. Now he knows everything.

“And by the way, I’m not one of those people that thinks athletes and members of the sports media should stick to talking about sports. I think Aaron Rodgers has the right to express any opinion he wants. But saying someone is a pedophile isn’t an opinion nor is it trash talk, sorry Pat McAfee.

“And as far as the ‘well, you say things about people all the time’ argument goes, yes, I do. It’s not the same. It’s not even close to the same. We don’t make up lies. In fact, we have a team of people who work very hard to work to sift through facts and reputable sources before I make a joke, and that’s an important distinction. A joke about someone. Even when that someone is Donald Trump. Even a person who lies from the minute he wakes up until the minute he’s smearing orange makeup on his My Pillow at night, even he deserves that consideration. And we give it to him, because the truth still matters.

“And when I do get something wrong, which happens on rare occasions, you know what I do? I apologize for it. Which is what Aaron Rodgers should do. Which is what a decent person would do. But I bet he won’t. If he does, you know what I’ll do, I’ll accept his apology and move on. But he probably won’t do that.”

I note that it was the conspiracy theorist Rodgers, not the mainstream mouthpiece Kimmel, who was correct about the vaxx. Kimmel has also repeatedly lied about Donald Trump; his claim to have “a team of people who work very hard to work to sift through facts and reputable sources” simply underlines how full of falsehood and nonsense he is. The observable reality is that Kimmel is just another no-talent Narrative cheerleader who says what he is told to say, and it is logical to conclude that he has paid some price in exchange for being given the massively privileged position that he holds.

I don’t know what that price was. I doubt that Rodgers does either. But you don’t reach a certain level of success on your own without becoming aware of people who are reaching, and exceeding, that level of success without any genuine accomplishments or talent of their own to explain it.

And perhaps more importantly, you don’t assemble your speechwriters and collectively produce a wall of text to rebut a false non-accusation if you have a clear conscience, no matter what people didn’t actually accuse you of doing. I’d have been more inclined to believe Kimmel entirely innocent of any satanic shenanigans if he’d simply made a crack about evidence derived from ayahuasca visions being inadmissible in court and left it at that.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Bochurim Dug Too Deep

It appears another pedo tunnel has been discovered, this one under an Orthodox synagogue in Brooklyn. The weaponized autists of 4chan are all over this, as the police video has already revealed what appear to be child-sized blood-stained mattresses and what is definitely an infant’s highchair. The empty building to which the tunnel led is also across the street from a children’s museum.

But don’t worry. We’ve been reliably assured by a paid hasbaran on 4chan that the secret tunnel was nothing more than an alternative entrance to the synagogue for use during Covid, which claim was promptly disproven by /pol/ when it was pointed out that the tunnel appeared to have been constructed post-Covid. Which means that there is not only a secret synagogue tunnel containing various children’s accoutrements in New York, but the professional propagandists are already out in force attempting to explain them away.

No word yet from Jimmy Kimmel on this…

DISCUSS ON SG

The Coining of the Term: Midwit

Along with “Sigma Male” and “Gamma”, the term “midwit” appears to have become increasingly popular on the Internet, thanks chiefly to what is now known as “the Midwit Meme”. I was certainly surprised to hear a comedian use it on Simon Evans’s show on GB News this week. And, needless to say, it hasn’t taken long for people “helping” others to understand it to begin explaining it incorrectly.

Tablet: A midwit is typically described as someone with an IQ score between 85 and 115

No, this is incorrect. A midwit has an IQ in the 105 to 120 range. The very need for the term is derived from the observation that the individual so described possesses a level of intelligence that is sufficiently above average to inspire him to overrate himself. The Tablet redefinition is based on the visuals of the meme rather than the core concept.

The Spectator: According to something called the Meming Wiki, “midwit” has been “in use on 4chan and other online spaces since around 2013.”

For those who happen to have an interest in etymological history, I believe the Meming Wiki is correct and the neologism was first coined on 17 February 2012. It’s rather amusing to learn that one of my favorite memes, and one which I have myself utilized on occasion, may have been inspired in some way by the term.

As we often see on this blog, those who possess above-average intelligence and trouble to occasionally read newspapers and magazines tend to genuinely be under the erroneous impression that they possess superlative intelligence. But while having an IQ between one and two standard deviations above the norm is unusual, it is hardly rare, and in historical terms it is distinctly pedestrian.

The astonishing thing about Miss Wright’s confession isn’t that she was clueless and solipsistic little snob, but rather, that she still appears to believe that she is highly intelligent on the basis of familiarity with the works of a trivial and silly science fiction writer with a poor grasp of history. If she had any brains at all worth noting, then she wouldn’t have needed someone else to point out that clever people are everywhere; in addition to the ease with which this can be observed in the material world, even a basic knowledge of intelligence statistics would indicate that this must be the case.

If this erstwhile pirate wench had simply noted that Mensa, with its 130/132 IQ floor, potentially represents the top 2 percent of the population, she would have known that there are some 6.2 MILLION Americans who are significantly above the “read a book” level that she sets as a significant benchmark.

The difference between the mid-wit and the genuinely intelligent is usually fairly easy to identify. The mid-witted individual tends to compare himself to those below the average and concludes that because he isn’t like them, he must be a genius.

The Tragedy of the Mid-Witted, 17 February 2012

It took nearly two years before the term “midwittery” first appeared here on the blog, although I seem to recall it being used in casual conversation several times before first being utilized in the post Mailvox: Answers for MJ 1 on 1 February 2014:

As for the idea that an all-powerful and all-loving God should wish to stop and be able to stop evil, to say nothing of the idea that the existence of evil therefore disproves the existence of such a god, well, that doesn’t even rise to the level of midwittery. One has to have a truly average mind and remain ignorant of basic Biblical knowledge to find either of those concepts even remotely convincing.

It’s far from impossible that someone else may have previously utilized what is a fairly basic term in some other context, but given the way it is regularly attached to the specific 115-IQ range identified, it appears that the neologism was coined here. However, I think it is probably a stretch to assume, as The Spectator does, that the dismissive term “mid” is derived from midwit, although I suppose it is possible.

DISCUSS ON SG

China Sanctions USA

It’s going to be interesting to see how the corpocracy changes its tune once it starts losing its access to the world’s largest market, as yesterday, the Chinese Foreign Ministry announced sanctions on five US defense companies:

Q: The US recently announced new arms sales to Taiwan and sanctioned Chinese businesses and individuals under various pretexts. China said it would take countermeasures. Could you tell us specifically what those measures are?

A: The US arms sales to China’s Taiwan region in blatant violation of the one-China principle and the stipulations of the three China-US joint communiqués, particularly the August 17 joint communiqué of 1982, and the illegal unilateral sanctions the US has imposed on Chinese companies and individuals under various false pretexts seriously harm China’s sovereignty and security interests, undermine the peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait, and violate the legitimate and lawful rights and interests of Chinese companies and individuals. China strongly deplores and firmly opposes this and has made solemn démarches to the US. 

In response to these gravely wrong actions taken by the US and in accordance with China’s Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law, China has decided to sanction five US defense industry companies, namely BAE Systems Land and Armament, Alliant Techsystems Operation, AeroVironment, ViaSat and Data Link Solutions. The countermeasures consist of freezing the properties of those companies in China, including their movable and immovable property, and prohibiting organizations and individuals in China from transactions and cooperation with them.

I would like to stress that the Chinese government remains unwavering in our resolve to safeguard national sovereignty, security and territorial integrity and protect the lawful rights and interests of Chinese companies and citizens. We urge the United States to abide by the one-China principle and the three China-US joint communiqués, observe international law and the basic norms governing international relations, stop arming Taiwan, and stop targeting China with illegal unilateral sanctions. Otherwise there will be strong and resolute response from China.

This is clearly just a warning shot across the bow of the US corpocracy. Because if the Chinese really want to increase the pressure on the US government, they will sanction Apple, Disney, and other entertainment companies. The amount of lobbyists descending upon Washington DC in response would make D-Day look like a small commando raid.

DISCUSS ON SG

Australia Abandons Free Speech

It’s fascinating how these states that literally go to war and invade other countries over “freedom” so rapidly abandon it in certain circumstances:

Laws banning the Nazi salute and the display or sale of symbols associated with terror groups came into effect in Australia on Monday as the government responds to a rise in antisemitic incidents following the Israel-Gaza war.

The law makes it an offense punishable by up to 12 months in prison to publicly perform the Nazi salute or display the Nazi swastika or the double-sig rune associated with the Schutzstaffel (SS) paramilitary group.

The sale and trade of these symbols is similarly prohibited.

Well, that should certainly put an end to the risk that the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei will rise from the ashes of its defeat after 79 years and take power Down Under! Thank goodness Australian politicians are on guard against the risk of a political blitzkrieg. It’s rather like how the EU is all about “democracy”, unless the people vote against the dictates of their unelected superstate.

Clown World is just relentlessly fake and gay. Never, ever, believe a single thing that the clowns say about their supposed principles or motivations. It is nothing but lies all the way down to the Hell out of which they climbed.

You may be interested to note that the Bing AI image generator is now blocking prompts that contain the phrase “rainbow wigs”. The original prompt for this image was: demonic clowns wearing rainbow wigs climbing out of a huge fiery pit. Dark fantasy style, red glow. It was blocked, and based on some additional experimentation, I believe it was the connection of “demonic” with “rainbow”.

Clown World fears memes because Clown World relies upon lies and memes point toward the truth. So, as Sun Tzu said: meme them until they block your prompt, then meme them some more.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Failure of the Artificial Nation

An insightful observation by Andrei Martyanov from his 2018 book Losing Military Supremacy : the myopia of American strategic planning:

“The Americans in their intercourse with strangers appear impatient of the smallest censure and insatiable of praise. The most slender eulogium is acceptable to them; the most exalted seldom contents them; they unceasingly harass you to extort praise, and if you resist their entreaties they fall to praising themselves.“

The American vaingloriousness described by Tocqueville has today become a clear and present danger to the world and it is, in the end, a direct threat to what’s left of America’s democratic institutions and processes. It threatens a shaky republic and it is embedded in the very foundation of a now increasingly obvious American decline. Of course, there are many opinions about American decline on the public discussion stage—some opinions reject the whole idea of an American decline out of hand as propaganda; others go to the other extreme by proposing an imminent collapse and disintegration of the United States into several states. What is lost in this contentious debate is the troubling fact of the very real and very dangerous decline of American cognitive faculties, which is also accompanied by what Robert Reilly termed de-Hellenization—a complete loss of sound reasoning across the whole spectrum of national activities from foreign policy, to economics, to war, to culture.

This decline is more than visible, it is omnipresent in the everyday lives of many Americans and even affects people from other nations and continents. This decline has deeper roots than the mere change of some economic paradigm, albeit this too matters a great deal. It portends a total existential crisis of American national mythology—a crisis of the American soul that has nothing to do with the superficial, mass-media driven ideological or party affiliations—rather, it is the decline of a national consensus. This decline reflects the American failure to form a real nation, a process which, as paradoxical as it may sound, was prevented by a sequence of historic events in the 20th century, which turned the tables on American fortunes.

That vaingloriousness and sense of exceptionalism has proven fatal, as it was exploited ruthlessly by the foreign invaders who played expertly upon the concept of “an idea nation” and “a nation of immigrants”. But contrary to those who would blame the decline of the USA solely on the two Jewish invasions – really three, in light of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment of 1974 – the seeds of the failure of Americans to successfully build a genuine nation were observably present long before the first major wave of immigration from Central Europe peaked in 1850 and the violent transformation of a Republic to an Empire in 1865.

Martyanov’s observations concerning why the USA lost its post-WWII military supremacy are particularly significant now that events in Syria, Ukraine, and the Red Sea have demonstrated to the entire world that the former superpower no longer has the ability to reliably enforce its will outside of its continental region of influence. More importantly, his diagnosis strongly suggests that the situation is not one that is amenable to fixing due to way in which the problems are not political or ideological, but intrinsic and foundational.

An artificial nation cannot, in the long term, be expected to remain cohesive and victorious in the face of a challenge from a genuine nation of similar power. This is an important military lesson, not only for the remnants of heritage America, but also for the would-be builders of a pan-European nation as well as the architects of the unitary Israeli nation, both of whom are twice-dependent upon the concept.

DISCUSS ON SG

Too Satanic for the EU

In case you didn’t realize just how crazy and evil the Kiev regime is, it is now threatening to go too far for even the satanic Babelists of the European Union to accept:

Kiev’s attempts to ban the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) could have “dire consequences” for the nation’s hopes of joining the EU, The Telegraph newspaper quoted lawyers as saying on Saturday.The Ukrainian parliament is expected to vote later this month on closing down the country’s biggest church, with its 12,000 parishes.

Western lawyers have written to British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, US President Joe Biden and European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen urging them to put pressure on Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky to “suspend efforts to ban this historic institution,” the paper reported.

Such a decision could cause “serious harm to Orthodox Ukrainians” and call into question whether Ukraine can meet its commitments as a candidate for EU membership, according to a letter to Western leaders penned by international lawyer Robert Amsterdam, and quoted by the Telegraph.

“This will have dire ramifications for Ukraine’s entry into the European Union and its place in the Western world,” Amsterdam wrote. He added that Kiev had “falsely accused” the UOC of collaborating with Moscow and expressed concern about “arrests of clerics on spurious charges.”

It’s always informative to note how massively deceptive Clown World is. While it’s justifying outright devil worship in the name of “freedom of religion” in the USA, it’s funding the defense of a government that has outlawed its two largest Christian churches.

Which example is yet another proof of the intrinsic falsity of the various Enlightenment “freedoms”

DISCUSS ON SG