THE VOICE OF REASON Solon, (born c. 630 BCE—died c. 560 BCE), Athenian statesman, known as one of the Seven Wise Men of Greece (the others were Chilon of Sparta, Thales of Miletus, Bias of Priene, Cleobulus of Lindos, Pittacus of Mytilene, and Periander of Corinth). Solon ended exclusive aristocratic control of the government, substituted a system of control by the wealthy, and introduced a new and more humane law code. He was also a noted poet.
Friday, 15 May 2026
My motives are repeatedly questioned but I feel I have made progress in our pre-revolutionary times
— Rob Cēmpa (@CempaBrecht) May 15, 2026
5:00 Space begins.
6:00 Logic and Imagination
Greek mathematicians: Euclid and Pythagoras
12:00 Competence and imagination
13:00 The Greek Pantheon were departmental gods.
14:00 The Abrahamic God is the one-stop shopping of prayers.
15:00 The purpose of codified principles is to facilitate compliance.
16:00 The West lacks an official moral system.
17:00 The Bacchae
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bacchae
18:00 Shake them up with Secular Koranism!
19:00 The Elephant in the Room is nihilism, the meaning crisis, atheism, feminism, modernism.
21:00 Feminism is a luxury belief.
22:00 Rob Henderson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_belief
Men need dragons to slay and principles to defend.
23:00 Fight Club
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fight_Club
24:00 Gender roles
27:00 Loki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki
28:00 Pagans choosing a pagan deity?
29:00 A one-party theocracy
30:00 Morgoth
31:00 Iran's Lego movie
33:00 Aubrey
34:00 Organised religions
35:00 Colonel Wilkerson on Tucker Carlson
https://singjupost.com/tucker-carlson-show-w-colonel-lawrence-wilkerson-on-iran-update-transcript/
36:00 Chinese Ancestor Worship
38:00 Worshiped Ancestor > Hungry Ghost
39:00 An heir and a spare
40:00 One-child policy
Mao
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong
44:00 Chiang Kai Shek
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiang_Kai-shek
47:00 Communism
51:00 "Divinely inspired"
52:00 Lebensraum
53:00 God is the past, present and future.
The Hegelian Dialectic
56:00 "God interacting with us"
Marx predicted a workers' paradise.
57:00 NPC
59:00 Marxism is materialism.
Sabbath
1:01:00 Free of obligation
1:02:00 Consider the lilies of the field.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_6:28
1:03:00 Welfare State, welfarism and nihilism
1:04:00 Marriage
1:05:00 Blah blah blah
1:06:00 People who know us well confirm our identity
1:07:00 Being provider and protector
Sublimation
1:08:00 Collective Dismal
Excess Males
1:09:00 Sperm egg ratio
Fulfilling your potential
1:11:00 Trying your best to get the best
1:12:00 Just run your mouths.
1:13:00 Religion was created to protect marriage.
1:14:00 The Abrahamic God is the Supreme Thought Police.
1:15:00 The role of the wedding ceremony
1:17:00 A young man with prospects
1:19:00 I am a Chinese dictator?
1:22:00 A footnote in history
1:23:00 Restoring the patriarchy and curing the social disease of bastardy
1:24:00 Crooked picture
1:25:00 The global hegemon
1:26:00 Islam is a synthesis of Judaism and Christianity.
1:28:00 Going West
1:29:00 Maps
Necessity is the mother of invention.
1:30:00 I have a "divine mission"!
1:31:00 I am the most knowledgeable theologian in the whole wide world and understand white people better than they understand themselves.
1:32:00 Jehovah's Witnesses
1:33:00 I am not being mysterious about my knowledge.
1:34:00 The Classical Theory of the Abrahamic God
1:35:00 Claire Khaw on Tucker Carlson
1:36:00 Secular Koranism has something for everyone, even the plutocrats.
1:37:00 Vincent Bruno understands my ideas.
https://radicalisedrabbi.blogspot.com/2026/05/refusal-of-vincent-bruno-to-gather.html
1:41:00 I am like a "novelty bot".
1:42:00 We are characters in a soap opera.
1:43:00 My "mission to conquer the West"!
1:44:00 RAKE joins.
Collective Dismal
1:45:00 I am a product of the Industrial Revolution.
1:47:00 Stalingrad
1:48:00 Richard Spencer
1:52:00 TIM joins to ask about Nick Land.
1:53:00 Shylock's speech about being a Jew
https://www.folger.edu/explore/shakespeares-works/the-merchant-of-venice/read/3/1/
1:54:00 Vincent Bruno
1:57:00 Facts and logic are a survival strategy.
1:58:00 The category of a married father with adult children who are a credit to him
2:01:00 Proper adults are parents.
2:02:00 We all have immortal souls.
Free will and predestination
2:03:00 The nature and purpose of the immortal soul
2:04:00 Necromancy
2:08:00 Crazy/courageous/divinely inspired
[I leave.]
2:10:00 Nick Land on time
2:13:00 Tesla
2:14:00 Idolater
Genetic fallacy
2:20:00 The Trinity
2:22:00 Catholic Church
Genetic fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
2:34:00 Collective Dismal
2:35:00 Catholics
2:36:00 Bronze Age Collapse
2:37:00 Housewives
2:38:00 Matriarchy in Crete
2:40:00 We are in pre-revolutionary times.
Thursday, 14 May 2026
Refusal of Vincent Bruno to gather evidence in support of his claim that his kind of parenting ie gay and polygamous parenting is better than traditional married parenting
— Real Vincent Bruno (@RealVinBruno) May 14, 2026
2:00 Space begins.
3:00 Vincent refuses to ask after the son of this gay father he has known for 20 years is doing and thinks he requires a statistician!
4:00 Grade Point Average
5:00 Columbia Study
6:00 Not testing his theory
Seven years ago
8:00 Surrogacy
9:00 Exhibitionism
11:00 You are more likely to be a married parent if your parents were married parents.
12:00 Statisticians
13:00 The product of a gay father
15:00 Alternative to surrogacy
16:00 Gay resort
DR DARIA joins.
17:00 Turkey baster
Gay holiday resort
21:00 Back in the closet
22:00 Married gay men
23:00 Why was Vincent the only gay man at the Fort Lauderdale gay resort who did not have offspring?
24:00 Gay men married to women
25:00 Lies and Natty
Natty's grandfather was an anarchist, not a musician.
26:00 Communism
27:00 Maintenance person fixing the fan
28:00 Private property, God's laws and norms
29:00 Vincent asking about the son of gay father
30:00 GPA
31:00 Child abuse
Mother of the child
32:00 TIM joins.
College professor
33:00 Woman in her 20s
36:00 "Wife or whatever she was"
36:00 Artificial insemination
37:00 "They're going to think I am weird!"
Penetrating question
39:00 "She was over 18."
40:00 "He took care of her."
41:00 Student mother
42:00 Baptised
Hasn't spoken to him in 7 years
43:00 "Espionage"
44:00 "He treated her like a wife."
Not kidnapped
45:00 Not homeless
Columbia Study
46:00 Not showing an interest
"Paedophiles"
47:00 18
[Shriek]
Putting your money where your mouth is https://t.co/3grV2kc6mV
— OOOTLAM/Operating Only On Truth, Logic & Morality (@Book_of_Rules) May 14, 2026
1:00 Summary of previous stream
2:00 Flabbergasted
3:00 Vincent knew so little about the boy.
4:00 Gay adoption heralded by New Labour
5:00 Gay holiday
6:00 TIM joins to report Vincent's message.
7:00 Vincent refuses to collate evidence to support his "eugenic" theories.
8:00 Vincent is more aggressive and hysterical these days.
Secular Koranism
10:00 Vincent point black refuses to contact his gay father friend.
11:00 Tommy Robinson Rally
UK Tommy Robinson Rally
12:00 A million people there
15:00 Andrew Bridgen
— Real Vincent Bruno (@RealVinBruno) May 14, 2026
1:00 Space begins with Vincent complaining about the three of us.
3:00 "Sick to my stomach"
4:00 Urdu
6:00 In shock
7:00 Age of boy
9:00 Met 5/6 times over 20 years
10:00 SIGMA joins.
21:00 Gay surrogacy
24:00 DON joins.
31:00 "Horrid and disgusting"
36:00 "Amazing drama"
37:00 Pakistani culture
41:00 Normal conversation
42:00 Tim and Dr Dariya
43:00 Anti-gay
44:00 "Borderline paedophilia"
VB to CK
Im very upset where you led the space today
CK to VB
Yes, I understand.
I’m taken aback that you are accusing Daria, Tim and I of being “paedophiles” just for asking you for evidence of the viability of your “gay eugenics”.
You were implying that we were inciting you to commit a sexual offence when all we asked for was basic information about the son of the only gay father you knew!
Obviously, the son would pass the test if you found him attractive while he would only pass our test if we thought he is marriageable.
To pass our test, he would have to be heterosexual, marriageable and not be a NEET.
We are not forcing you to go and meet him and find him attractive, just give us the most basic information about him, and you had a meltdown!
My test is that he would have to produce legitimate offspring who would be a credit to his parents, but you have a lower standard. You would only have to find him attractive as a gay man.
We both know that we don’t have the same definition of eugenics.
I define eugenic as marriageable ie capable of getting married in order to produce legitimate offspring.
Your definition is “capable of being attractive to a gay man”.
You had to pretend that we were inciting you to commit a sexual offence when all we want is some basic information that would enable both parties to decide whether he fulfilled either of our criteria
You point blank refused to even obtain any information about the boy to test your theory. You won’t even find out how old he is ie over 17 or how he was parented or conceived.
You were basically admitting that you were not prepared to obtain the bare minimum of information even to test your own theory!
My ideal is that women of childbearing age marry men of fighting age.
Presumably, your ideal is that gay fathers produce male offspring that would be found attractive by other gay men.
Your criterion sounds much "creepier" than mine.
There’s just no way that your method is going to produce more marriageable offspring than the traditional method.
Your hysterical reaction to our mere suggestion that you investigate whether your claim is arguably true ie that gay eugenics works ie that a gay father has produced a son that satisfies either of our minimum standards of eugenics means that you already know that it doesn’t.
You have basically admitted that you refuse to test your idea which means you admit that your arguments have been defeated.
So just admit it and move on to SK USA where all the premises are true and all the arguments are sound.
It’s time to grow up and help your fellow Americans become married parents without having to do it yourself.
And stop being a sore loser!
DR DARIYA M KHAN
I have known @RealVinBruno for many years. We have had many debates, disagreements, and heated discussions over time. Disagreement itself has never been the issue.
— Dr Dariya M Khan (@DrDariyaMKhan) May 15, 2026
What happened last night was something entirely different.
I have known @RealVinBruno for many years. We have had many debates, disagreements, and heated discussions over time. Disagreement itself has never been the issue.
What happened last night was something entirely different.
I entered the space and was immediately subjected to a relentless and deeply personal attack. Rather than engage with the substance of the discussion, Vincent became aggressive, hostile, and increasingly unrestrained. There were repeated insults, ad hominem attacks, foul language obscene insinuations, and attempts to construct bizarre fictional scenarios about my character and even hypothetical future children in order to morally discredit me.
Anyone who listens to the recording will hear the contrast clearly. Throughout the exchange, I remained composed, polite, and measured. I repeatedly attempted to clarify the discussion and keep it focused on evidence and principles. Vincent, meanwhile, appeared emotionally volatile and unable to maintain a calm or rational tone.
At no point did anyone encourage criminal conduct, predatory behavior, or anything inappropriate involving minors. That accusation is absurd and completely unsupported by what was actually said. The discussion was about evidence and outcomes regarding claims he himself introduced concerning non-heterosexual parenting and so-called “gay eugenics.”
Vincent repeatedly advanced broad theoretical assertions while refusing even the most basic attempt to explain how those claimsu could ever be meaningfully evaluated in reality. He insists that studies and evidence are required, yet simultaneously refuses even basic real-world observation when examples are directly available to him. That contradiction was the core issue being discussed.
He himself introduced the example of a gay father raising a biological son. The obvious follow-up question was whether the outcome of that parenting arrangement could be evaluated in any meaningful way. That is not “disgusting”; it is the natural consequence of making empirical claims and then being asked for empirical evidence.
His attempt to transform this into an accusation about “collecting data on a child” is rhetorical inflation. Nobody asked him to harass, exploit, or investigate a minor. The point was much simpler: if he personally knows a gay father whose son is now grown or near adulthood, then that example is more relevant than endlessly demanding some hypothetical institutional study while simultaneously refusing to examine real-world cases already available to him.
He also shifts positions throughout his statement. At one moment he says he did not know the age of the son “seven years ago”; at another he insists everyone should have interpreted that uncertainty exactly the way he intended. But even by his own account, the uncertainty about age was openly acknowledged during the discussion. That completely undermines the idea that anyone was intentionally encouraging wrongdoing.
More importantly, his outrage obscures the central issue: he advocates a theory about reproductive and social outcomes while refusing to define clear criteria for success or failure beyond abstractions. When pressed, his framework ultimately reduces outcomes to traits such as intelligence, attractiveness, functionality, and social competence. If those are the standards by which he evaluates heterosexual parenting outcomes, then logically they would also apply to homosexual parenting outcomes. Refusing to examine any concrete example while continuing to defend the theory simply makes the theory unfalsifiable.
He cannot simultaneously:
1. Claim homosexual parenting could produce superior outcomes,
2. Demand evidence standards nobody currently possesses,
3. Reject anecdotal or observable cases outright,
4. And accuse critics of moral depravity for asking how his claims could be tested.
That is not a serious evidentiary standard; it is a rhetorical escape hatch.
The irony is that nobody treated the example with the emotional panic he is now projecting onto it. The discomfort appears to come from his own interpretation of what evaluating the son would imply.
Observing whether someone became intelligent, functional, healthy, attractive, socially competent, or successful is not inherently sexual. He is the one reframing ordinary outcome evaluation into something sinister because he could not defend the inconsistency in his own position.
What stood out most during the exchange was not intellectual seriousness, but the level of anger and instability he displayed. The reaction came across less like reasoned disagreement and more like someone spiraling emotionally in public. Frankly, he seems to need anger management, serious self-reflection, or some form of personal intervention before engaging in discussions of this nature again.
I will also say this carefully: his conduct did not resemble sober, disciplined debate. The aggression, volatility, inability to regulate himself, and repeated emotional outbursts led many listeners to question whether alcohol may have been influencing his behavior. Whether that is true or not, the performance reflected someone deeply lacking in self-control.
Ultimately, the recording speaks for itself. One side remained calm and focused on argumentation. The other relied on insults, emotional outbursts, fabricated implications, moral smears, increasingly hysterical accusations to avoid defending the substance of his own claims.
Listen to @RealVinBruno and @DrDariyaMKhan kiss and make up! https://t.co/GF89QLHk1U
— OOOTLAM/Operating Only On Truth, Logic & Morality (@Book_of_Rules) May 15, 2026
Explaining the nature and purpose of Secular Koranism to @HelpfulAhmadi in restoring the patriarchy
The Quran explicitly forbids dividing religion into sects, identifying such actions as a severe deviation from true faith. It commands unity and instructs Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) to dissociate from those who create factions, stating that true Muslims are defined by their submission, not sectarian labels.Key Quranic Verses Against SectarianismSurah Al-An'am (6:159): "Indeed, those who have divided their religion and become sects—you, [O Muhammad], are not [associated] with them in anything. Their affair is only left to Allah; then He will inform them about what they used to do".Surah Ar-Rum (30:31-32): Warns against being among those who split their religion into sects, "each faction rejoicing in what it has".Surah Al-Mu'minun (23:52-54): Highlights the "single brotherhood" and condemns breaking the religion into sects.Surah Al-Imran (3:103): Commands Muslims to hold fast to the rope of Allah and not be divided.Core PrinciplesDisassociation: The Quran states that forming sects is an act of disobedience that distances a community from God.Universal Identity: The Quran calls believers simply "Muslims" (22:78), which transcends sectarian labels like Sunni or Shia.Prohibition of Factions: Sectarian behavior is characterized by arrogance and fragmentation, which the Quran condemns, urging that all matters be returned to the Quran and authentic teachings.Scholars emphasize that while schools of law (Madhhab) exist, "sectarianism" that breaks the unity of the community is forbidden.
In Arabic, Sharia (شريعة) literally means "the clear, well-trodden path to water" or "a path to a watering place". Metaphorically, it refers to a "way" or "path" to be followed, representing the divine, moral, and ethical framework that guides Muslims in all aspects of life according to God's will.Key Aspects of the Meaning:Literal Meaning: The phrase evokes the crucial image of a path leading to a water source in a desert, symbolizing a life-giving source.Context: It is derived from the Arabic root š-r-ʕ, often denoting a path or road.Religious Significance: In Islam, it is not merely a legal code but a comprehensive way of life that includes moral, ethical, and spiritual guidelines (prayers, charity, and daily conduct).Source: It is derived from the Quran and the Sunnah (practices of Prophet Muhammad).Distinction from Fiqh: While Sharia is seen as divine and unchanging, the human interpretation and application of these principles, known as fiqh, can change.
"Church OF England as Newbigin Battleground 40 years later: Angela Tilby and Tom Holland"
In the Netherlands, filicide (the killing of a child by a parent) is a rare occurrence, averaging 8 to 9 cases per year historically, though trends have fluctuated over recent decades. Research indicates a steady increase in filicide rates from the early 1990s to a peak during 2007–2011, followed by a significant drop between 2012 and 2016, with only two recorded cases in 2016.Key characteristics and trends include:Causes and Motives: Most filicides in the Netherlands are the result of physical abuse leading to the child’s death, distinct from other European countries where strangulation or suffocation may be more common.Contributing Factors: The rise in filicide during the late 2000s is speculated to be linked to economic strain and unemployment following the financial crisis, although researchers emphasize that such broad explanations should be viewed with skepticism due to the low sample sizes.Recent Statistics: According to Statistics Netherlands (CBS), in the period 2018–2022, 32 children under the age of 10 were murdered, with 88% killed by their own father or mother. In the same period, 41 children and young adults aged 10–20 were killed.Prevention and Research: Due to the infrequency and multifactorial nature of these crimes, predictive models are difficult to establish. Studies utilize the European Homicide Monitor (EHM) to compare Dutch filicide with data from countries like Sweden and Finland, where declines have been attributed to factors such as increased antidepressant prescription or urbanization.
Wednesday, 13 May 2026
"The Blessing for the Righteous"
Weak men lacking conviction pretending to be Christian to hold on to their failed ancestral religion
-
Key: CK = Claire Khaw CD = Claudia Dalgleish EB = Eddy Butler MC = Mark Collet TC = Tess Culnane CD on Facebook This past month... -
Beta males will never get female attention if it is OK for women to have premarital sex. If you want beta males to have a reasonable ...
-
Why do Christians not follow the morality of the Bible? Because the Church itself does not follow Biblical principles and is only interes...
