AI fun with Secular Koranism and Vincent Bruno #22 Rob Cobb/Jord Alternative forms of child-rearing

1:00  End of life care pamphlet

2:00  Letter to Modi encouraging him to adopt Secular Koranism

9:00  [Reading begins.]

25:00  Vincent's month long spiritual and political visit to India

28:00  Communal harmony laws in India

29:00  Indian policing methods

30:00  Cultural Revolution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution

32:00  ROBERT COBB joins.

33:00  Being American

34:00  Americans are the product of victors.

35:00  Robert Cobb is a drunk.

How are the mighty fallen

36:00  Empires become victims of their own success.

37:00  Imperial decline

Warhammer 40,000

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warhammer_40,000

Dungeons and Dragos

John Glubb

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bagot_Glubb

https://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf

41:00  Laws and legalism is the solution

43:00  Aspects of society that control our world - religion/moral system

44:00  Paganism is a rejection of the Abrahamic God.

45:00  The Chinese gave up Ancient Chinese ideas to adopt Marxist Leninism and Democratic Centralism.

Secular Koranism is a one party theocracy.

JORDAN joins.

46:00  Legalism > stories, poem, music

48:00  Waffle from Jordan

49:00  Vincent on a legal system embedded in ideology 

50:00  "Heritage-based legal system"

51:00  Two-tier system

52:00  Hoovering

53:00  Nigel Farage pandering to Muslims

54:00  Rupert Lowe

55:00  Mass deportations

Pogroms can only be conducted by governments.

56:00  Enoch Powell and the NF

57:00  Jonathan Bowden

Ed Dutton's potboiler

59:00  Nietzsche died syphilitic and mad.

1:00:00  Things will have to get worse before they get better.

1:01:00  Nepotism is only possible with families and communities.

1:02:00  White Flight

Revolutions only happen in cities. 

1:03:00  Military coup

Civil War by 2029

https://www.militarystrategymagazine.com/article/civil-war-comes-to-the-west/

1:04:00  Revolutions don't happen in the countryside.

1:05:00  Proposing a solution

1:06:00  Hitler had policies.

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-party-platform

1:07:00  Waiting for the Messiah

1:08:00  Fairy Godmother and Superman

1:09:00  Never write anything down.

Post-Christians still think like Christians with their mind-rot.

1:11:00  Deductive reasoning

Even Jews have got this disease.

1:12:00  "How dare you propose a solution!! This means you must think you are better than us!"

1:13:00  Theorising is problem-solving. Infantilised men wish upon a star and dream of their knight in shining armour.

1:14:00  Female soldiers will undermine military discipline.

The importance of making men and women perform their gender roles

1:15:00  Vincent's hope and dreams

1:16:00  Clones

Clones are preferred in agriculture for several practical and economic reasons, primarily because they allow farmers to replicate desirable traits consistently and efficiently. Here’s why they’re so valuable:

1. Uniformity and Predictability: Clones are genetically identical to the parent plant, meaning they inherit the exact same characteristics—like high yield, disease resistance, or specific fruit size and flavor. This eliminates the variability you get with sexual reproduction (seeds from cross-pollination), where traits can mix unpredictably. For example, every Granny Smith apple tree clone produces the same tart green apples, ensuring a consistent product for markets.
2. Speed to Production: Cloning techniques, such as grafting, cuttings, or tissue culture, often bypass the long juvenile phase that seed-grown plants require before bearing fruit or reaching maturity. A cloned fruit tree can start producing in a few years, while a seed-grown tree might take a decade. This is critical for crops like apples, olives, or grapes, where farmers can’t afford to wait.
3. Preservation of Superior Traits: Many plants don’t "breed true" from seeds—meaning the offspring might not retain the parent’s best qualities due to genetic recombination. Cloning ensures that a high-performing variety, say a drought-tolerant grapevine or a pest-resistant potato, can be propagated indefinitely without losing those traits. Seedless oranges, for instance, can only be reproduced through cloning since they don’t produce viable seeds.
4. Economic Efficiency: Once a winning cultivar is identified—like the Cavendish banana, which dominates the global market—cloning allows mass production without the cost and effort of breeding new varieties. It’s cheaper and faster to propagate clones than to develop and test new seed lines, especially for perennial crops that take years to evaluate.
5. Adaptation to Specific Conditions: Farmers can select clones that thrive in their local climate or soil, then replicate them exactly. This is why you see certain cloned varieties dominate specific regions, like the cloned Pinot Noir vines in Burgundy tailored to that terroir.

There are downsides, though—clones lack genetic diversity, making them vulnerable to diseases or environmental shifts that wipe out a single genotype (e.g., the Irish Potato Famine or threats to the Cavendish banana from Panama disease). Still, the benefits of control, speed, and reliability make cloning a go-to method for crops like bananas, apples, potatoes, and sugarcane, where consistency is king.

1:18:00  Cloning humans

1:19:00  Eugenics: Francis Galton and Herbert Spencer

1:21:00  Getting a woman and children to raise one's status 

1:22:00  Patriarchy had to be maintained by the Abrahamic God.

1:24:00  People will pretend to believe in order to enjoy privileges.

1:25:00  Nationalism supports patriarchy.

1:26:00  Whites get demoralised and give up.

1:28:00  Social conservatism can be extracted from Islam.

1:29:00  Eight children per married Russian couple

Vladimir Putin has expressed varying expectations for the number of children Russian couples should have, reflecting his concerns about Russia's demographic challenges. In a notable speech on November 28, 2023, at the World Russian People's Council, he urged Russian women to have "seven, eight, or even more children," emphasizing that large families should become the norm to boost the country's population. He reiterated this push for very large families in other statements, such as during a video conference in May 2024, where he praised families with ten or more children, suggesting this as an ideal to revive traditional family sizes. However, he has also acknowledged a more modest baseline, stating in February 2024 that families need at least two children for ethnic survival and three or more for the population to grow and thrive. Thus, while Putin has consistently encouraged having multiple children, his most ambitious public statements point to eight or more as a goal for Russian couples, though he has adjusted this rhetoric at times to a minimum of three for practical population growth.

Three child policy in China

1:30:00  Feminism has disrupted married parenting.

1:31:00  Women still coo over babies.

1:32:00  Competition between men and men, women and women

1:34:00  U turns

1:35:00  Book of Common Prayer

The Book of Common Prayer (BCP), particularly in its traditional forms such as the 1662 English edition widely used in the Anglican tradition, includes a well-known exhortation in its marriage service that emphasizes the seriousness of the institution. The specific phrasing you’re referring to comes from the introduction to the "Form of Solemnization of Matrimony." Here’s the relevant passage from the 1662 BCP:

"Dearly beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this congregation, to join together this Man and this Woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man's innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church; which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence, and first miracle that he wrought, in Cana of Galilee; and is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men: and therefore is not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men's carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained."

This exhortation underscores that marriage is not to be entered into "unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly"—terms that warn against treating it as a frivolous or impulsive act driven by fleeting desires. Instead, it calls for a deliberate, thoughtful approach, rooted in reverence and a recognition of marriage’s divine purpose. The text lists three reasons for which marriage was ordained: the procreation of children, a remedy against sin (to avoid fornication), and mutual support and comfort between spouses.

The language reflects the BCP’s theological view of marriage as a sacred covenant, not a casual contract, aligning with its historical context in 17th-century England, where social and religious stability were intertwined. Later revisions, like the 1928 American BCP or modern adaptations, retain similar sentiments, though the wording might soften slightly to suit contemporary sensibilities. For instance, the 1979 American BCP keeps the caution but frames it more positively, focusing on love and commitment rather than admonitions against "carnal lusts."

This passage has become iconic, often quoted or echoed in wedding ceremonies beyond Anglicanism, emphasizing that marriage demands serious intent and reflection.

1:35:00  Immigrants then robots

1:36:00  Humans are a better source of labour than robots.

1:37:00  Monks and nuns forced to marry each other and run creches. 

The question of whether monks and nuns were considered parasitic depends heavily on the historical context, culture, and perspective being examined. In general, opinions about monastic communities have varied widely across time and place.

In medieval Europe, for example, monks and nuns were often seen as vital spiritual and social contributors. They prayed for the souls of the living and the dead, preserved knowledge through manuscript copying, and provided charity, education, and healthcare in their communities. Monasteries could also be economic hubs, managing land and resources. From this view, they were far from parasitic—many saw them as essential to society’s well-being.

However, there were critics. During the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, reformers like Martin Luther argued that monastic life was unproductive and parasitic. They claimed monks and nuns withdrew from worldly responsibilities, lived off the labor of others through tithes and donations, and contributed little of tangible value. This perspective framed them as a drain on resources, especially as some monasteries grew wealthy while preaching poverty.

In other cultures, perceptions differed. In Buddhist traditions, monks and nuns often relied on alms from laypeople, but this was seen as a symbiotic relationship: the laity gained spiritual merit by supporting them, while the monastics offered teachings and maintained religious practices. Calling them parasitic here would clash with the cultural understanding of their role.

So, were they considered parasitic? It’s not a universal yes or no—some saw them as leeches, others as linchpins. It hinges on who’s judging and when. What specific time or place are you curious about? That could narrow it down.

1:45:00  Eunuchs

Eunuchs, historically, were castrated men who served various roles in different cultures and societies. Their purpose largely depended on the time period and region, but here are the main reasons they existed:

1. Service in Royal or Elite Households: Eunuchs were often employed in palaces or harems, particularly in ancient empires like China, Persia, Byzantium, and the Ottoman Empire. Because they were castrated, they couldn’t impregnate women or start dynasties of their own, making them "safe" to guard or manage female quarters and concubines without threatening the ruler’s lineage.
2. Trusted Administrators: Their inability to produce heirs also meant they were less likely to harbor ambitions of overthrowing a ruler to establish their own family’s power. This made them loyal servants in bureaucratic or political roles, as seen in the Chinese imperial courts where eunuchs sometimes rose to significant influence.
3. Religious or Cultural Roles: In some societies, castration was tied to religious devotion or ritual purity. For example, in ancient India, the Hijra community (often eunuchs or intersex individuals) held spiritual significance. In the Roman Empire, priests of the goddess Cybele, known as Galli, were sometimes castrated as an act of devotion.
4. Slavery and Labor: In certain slave-owning societies, castration was a way to control and commodify male slaves, ensuring docility or suitability for specific tasks. The Arab slave trade, for instance, produced eunuchs for domestic service across the Middle East and beyond.
5. Entertainment: In medieval Europe and later in Italy, castrati—boys castrated before puberty to preserve their high-pitched voices—became celebrated singers in operas and church choirs, where their unique vocal range was prized.

The practice of creating eunuchs was often brutal, involving forced castration, and was rooted in power dynamics, control, and societal norms of the time. While their roles varied, the common thread was that castration altered their social function, often elevating their status in specific contexts while stripping them of traditional male roles like fatherhood or military leadership.

Wouldn't a combination of gay men and polygamous men be enough to keep society going?

Your question seems to explore whether a society could function with a mix of gay men and polygamous men instead of relying on eunuchs or other historical arrangements. Let’s break it down logically.

Gay men, by definition, are attracted to other men and typically wouldn’t contribute to reproduction in a heterosexual framework. Polygamous men—assuming you mean men with multiple wives or partners—could, in theory, handle the reproductive side of things, producing children with multiple women to sustain a population. So, yes, purely from a biological standpoint, a society could "keep going" in terms of population growth with polygamous men doing the heavy lifting on reproduction, while gay men opt out of that role.

Historically, though, eunuchs weren’t just about population control or reproduction—they filled specific social and political niches. Gay men, even if loyal or trusted, wouldn’t necessarily fit the same roles as eunuchs (like guarding harems or serving as neutral administrators) because their sexual orientation doesn’t inherently remove their ability to reproduce or challenge power structures. Polygamous men, meanwhile, might be too busy with their own families or too invested in their lineage to serve as impartial functionaries.

Functionally, a society could survive with this combo if the polygamous men were prolific enough to offset the non-reproductive gay men, and if other societal needs (labor, governance, defense) were met. But eunuchs existed for more than just keeping society "going"—they were tools of control, trust, and specialization. Gay and polygamous men together wouldn’t automatically replicate that dynamic; you’d need additional mechanisms to cover those gaps.

It’s an interesting thought experiment—society could adapt, but the structure would look very different from what eunuchs enabled in the past.

1:50:00  Shaming, carrot and stick

1:53:00  John Glubb

1:54:00  Fall of Empires, Christians stealing from Jews, Muslims stealing from Christians is Beyondism

1:58:00  Respecting our elders and honouring our parents

2:00:00  Average age and the national character

2:01:00  Reversing the situation as soon as possible