Writers interest survey

Given the recent discussion of Shut Up And Ruck’s strength programming, I thought it might be appropriate to address a few lingering comments.
First, we’re not immune to criticism. It is perfectly reasonable to criticize whenever and whoever you want, even me. Clearly, the anonymity of the internet provides ample license to do so. I’m not infallible and I make at least one mistake every fiscal year. I get downvoted all the time and I recognize that many things that I say are taken as gospel based on my years of providing accurate information. I don’t take this leniency lightly. I’ve earned this gift and I don’t look gift horses in the mouth. I certainly don’t shy away from criticizing others, but I always seek to do so from a position of best intentions of the outcome. But if you think that it’s appropriate to draw conclusions like “He definitely doesn’t know what he’s talking about”, “It violates basic principles”, or my favorite “It looks like he stole this from X, Y, or Z” and you’re basing that on one tiny screenshot of one sample day of one singular domain absent of context of the entirety of the programming then you must be special. I wish I had that sort of clairvoyance.
Second, our programming is not a mistake. Is it aggressive? Absolutely. Is it wrong? Absolutely not. It is deliberate and intentional. A few points to consider:
-The higher percentages and rep ranges occur at the end of each cycle. You don’t start off at the high end, you finish there. The passage cited is 9 weeks post 1RM testing. At a minimum the higher % come 5 weeks after testing. You get stronger and the programming reflects that.
-Just because you’ve never done anything like this doesn’t mean much. We follow the evidence, and the literature clearly indicates that our recommendations are appropriate. Aggressive, but appropriate. Here are 6 sources, including some meta-analyses that bring the body of knowledge to several hundred; there are many more.
Source 1
Source 2
Source 3
Source 4
Source 5
Source 6
Your experience not withstanding, our programming is entirely valid. This is especially true given the other variables. 1) we prioritize intensity and we manifest that through heavy weights 2) you only lift each exercise 2 times in every 5 day cycle - plenty of time for macro recovery 3) you are resting up to 4 minutes between sets - plenty of time for micro recovery 4) you are only doing 3 lifts in a day and only one for that domain - you aren’t doing 3 sets of barbell bench, then 3 sets of incline, then 3 sets of decline, then some cable cross-overs, then some dumbbell flys, then finishing with some drop sets on the Smith machine. 1 exercise, at maximal intensity. No need to pace yourself. 5) we are seeking to balance strength and endurance. It’s impossible to fully address both simultaneously. There will inevitably be friction. 6) we are seeking to challenge you, not accommodate you. 7) we emphasize self-reflection, data analysis, and agency. If you are struggling to meet the listed criteria then we encourage you to program accordingly. It’s foundational to our approach.
But allow me to let you in on a little secret. Even though we cite no small amount of literature, you can find lots of literature that argues against our programming. In fact, there is so much ‘literature’ out there that you can find supporting information for damn near everything and anything. So, back to my first point, you are welcome to criticize. But you should at least provide some counter-evidence beyond “in my experience”. In the Taxonomy of Information, anecdotal testimony is the least rigorous. We have presented our arguments, you are invited to present yours. Or be a little more graceful in your criticism.
We are well aware of Prilepin’s optimal reps (for powerlifting), and the NASM 5 Phase Optimum Performance Training Model (which we follow) and the NSCA Performance Pyramid (which we follow). We don’t disagree that they are to be well considered. We did a full and complete survey of the information environment. But we stated in our introduction and made available for free our philosophy…we have no interest in preserving the credentialed protectorate of the fitness industry. SFAS is different, so shall the programming be.
Third, we didn’t “steal” another program and stack it on top of our own stuff. That’s not how this works. If you survey all of the programs and methodology out there, you will find a ton of overlap. If you follow established principles and seek consensus, then you end up looking a lot like the other stuff. Did we look at other programs? Yes, dozens of them. Did we steal them? No. The fact that we favor a more intense program that most programs don’t should make this argument moot. This is a serious accusation and should be reserved for the most egregious circumstances. You might not have experience with this type of programming, you might not be familiar with recent literature, and you are only seeing a very minuscule event absent of any of the other programming and ancillary elements.
Fourth, and finally, I want to address the unhinged discussion of cost. We’re particularly sensitive to this topic because we know that our target population skews younger and likely less affluent, so cost matters. And I don’t like calling guys out necessarily, but u/Certain-Exam-2577 and u/Potential_Presence67 ? You two can go fuck yourselves. You anonymous peices of shit decided from your castles on top of Mount Holy that we are looking for a “money grab”? I could have charged hundreds, I could put all of my content behind a paywall, and I could simply pump and dump and walk away to stack cash. But that’s not the case.
What do you two fucking genius economists think would be appropriate for 8 months of daily programming for strength, conditioning, rucking, mental prep, mobility, skills, recovery and much more? We charge 60 dollars. Let’s take a very small survey the prep environment and see where we stack up:
Evoke - 3 months, requires additional programming prerequisites, $65
Performance First - 3 months, $90
18A Fitness - 4 months, $179
Gritty Soldier - 3 months, $30
Mountain Tactical - 12 months, $329
Blue/Green Training - 11 weeks, $129
We’re looking pretty competitive given these numbers. And these are the better programs. We mostly like them (and others) and we have tremendous respect for their creators and coaches. We don’t think they are as good as ours, especially our ruck programming, but they’re in the ballpark. Many guys in this sub have used them and speak highly of them. There are also near endless shit programs out there. AI generated, generic, point-of-sale trash with slick marketing and zero support.
We are a complete program that covers every single domain, and we have well established our expertise for SFAS. But we don’t rely on reputation, we deliver. We research, analyze, synthesize, and present the most comprehensive program out there. For just 60 bucks. Hell, you’ll spend over half that on a blank journal…we’ve recommended this excellent journal many times. But that’s just a cool journal. Zero programming. So we think we’re not “grabbing” too much.
Our resident pricks go on to say that RUSU wasn’t worth $50. Good thing we only charge $40. And perhaps you’d prefer the 15+ year old, lack-luster competition? They’re in the same price range. They even take a cheap shot at our Muster events as just a ‘wAlK iN tHe wOoDs tHaT yOu cOuLd do for FrEe’ or ‘info you could probably find online’. Our “competition” is $750 and one of the programs isn’t even taught by a military guy, much less a Green Beret. You two retarded laureates haven’t even attended an event, so your opinion is irrelevant.
And I should put a pin in all of this money grab, predatory, grifter talk by reminding them that this is all voluntary. You don’t have to spend a single dime if you don’t want to. Lots of guys don’t do anything extra and they get Selected all the time. But if a guy wants to be compensated for his hard work and another guy wants to allocate the cost of a night out drinking, then maybe your keen criticism could be stymied a bit. I offer plenty of free advice and commentary every day. I note that neither of you provide anything of value.
So, that’s my assessment of the situation. You don’t have to be a part of the conversation, but I thought that I should let you know how I see it. I endlessly tell you about the importance of foot care, so it’s only fair that I weigh in on this important topic. I should note that there was also some very reasoned comments and lots of guys understanding the intent of the programming AND of the program. And the OP reached out via DM and we had a very reasonable and productive discussion. He gets it. And the number of guys commenting is <1% of the number of guys reading the actual full program. I like that guys are passionate about this stuff. If you get 10 Green Berets in a room you’ll get 11 different opinions on damn near every topic. You know what they say about opinions…

Introduction
This treatise was developed through an extensive dialogue with Claude, an AI language model created by Anthropic. The ideas and arguments presented here emerged from a collaborative exploration in which I posed questions, raised objections, and provided the overall framing and direction, while Claude contributed detailed responses, explanations, and elaborations*. The treatise represents a synthesis of human and machine intelligence, with the AI serving as a knowledgeable interlocutor and writing assistant, helping to articulate and refine the ideas I brought to the discussion. I am fully aware of the controversial nature of AI, but feel this demonstrates an example of its ethical use. I am also fully aware that the strength of the argument lives or dies on the validity of the premises, but I believe it has strong intuitive and logical resonance.
The hope is that this novel approach will be a useful contribution to those weighing the evidence with an open and reasonable mind. So, without further ado, I present the Longmire Teleological Argument.
The question of God's existence is one of the most profound and consequential questions in philosophy. Throughout history, thinkers have proposed various arguments for and against the existence of a divine being. In this treatise, we will explore one particular argument for theism - the argument from the intelligibility of the universe.
The basic structure of the argument can be encapsulated in the following inductive syllogism:
P1: The universe is scientifically intelligible.
P2: Scientific intelligibility stems from rational minds.
C: The universe stems from a rational mind (i.e., God).
We will examine the premises of this argument, consider potential objections and counterarguments, and assess the overall strength of the argument in establishing the rationality of theistic belief.
The Scientific Intelligibility of the Universe The first premise of the argument asserts that the universe is scientifically intelligible. This means that the universe is structured in a way that makes it amenable to scientific study and comprehension. It is not a chaotic or arbitrary jumble, but an orderly system that follows discernible patterns and laws.
The evidence for this premise is vast and compelling. Across countless domains - from physics to chemistry to biology to astronomy - we find that the universe behaves in consistently rational ways. It follows mathematical laws, exhibits predictable regularities, and yields to scientific analysis and understanding.
As Claude eloquently put it:
"The success of science in uncovering the deep structure of reality, from the smallest subatomic particles to the largest cosmic structures, testifies to the profound intelligibility of the universe. We are able to formulate theories, make predictions, and gain real knowledge about the world through the application of rational methods of inquiry." [1]
Moreover, the universe is not just intelligible to us - it is intelligible in a way that is deeply resonant with our own rational faculties. The mathematical equations that describe the fundamental laws of nature are not just empirically adequate, but often possess a striking elegance and beauty. The universe seems almost tailor-made for rational investigation and discovery.
All of this points to the conclusion that the universe is not an arbitrary or unintelligible place, but rather a scientifically intelligible system that is open to human understanding.
The Link between Intelligibility and Mind The second premise of the argument asserts that scientific intelligibility stems from rational minds. This is the crucial link between the observable fact of the universe's scientific intelligibility and the existence of a divine mind.
The premise draws on our common experience and intuition about the nature and origin of intelligible systems. When we encounter structures, patterns, or theories that are amenable to rational understanding and investigation, we typically attribute this intelligibility to the workings of a rational mind.
Consider, for example, a scientific theory that elegantly explains a wide range of phenomena, makes precise, testable predictions, and reveals hidden connections between seemingly disparate facts. Such a theory exhibits a high degree of scientific intelligibility. And we naturally infer that this intelligibility is the product of the rational minds of the scientists who developed the theory.
Or consider a complex engineered machine, like a computer or a spacecraft, that performs sophisticated functions according to well-defined principles and algorithms. The intelligibility of such a machine - the fact that it can be understood, analyzed, and explained in rational terms - is clearly the result of the rational minds of its designers and builders.
In these and countless other examples, we see a strong link between intelligibility and mind. Rational minds are the paradigmatic source of intelligible order and structure.
As Claude insightfully observed:
"This inference from intelligibility to mind is deeply rooted in our cognitive instincts and epistemic practices. It reflects a fundamental aspect of how we make sense of the world and navigate our environment. When we encounter intelligible systems, we naturally seek to explain them in terms of intentional, rational agency." [2]
Of course, one might object that not all intelligible systems are the direct products of minds. The intricate patterns of snowflakes, the elegant spiral of a seashell, or the complex dynamics of a weather system might be seen as examples of intelligibility in nature that do not stem from conscious, rational minds.
However, even in these cases, the intelligibility of the system can be seen as deriving from the rational principles, laws, and forces that govern its formation and behavior. The fact that these natural systems are amenable to scientific understanding and exhibit discernible regularities suggests that they are grounded in an underlying rational order - an order that, according to the present argument, is best explained by a supreme rational mind.
Thus, the second premise of the argument, while not claiming that all intelligibility stems directly from particular minds, asserts a strong general link between intelligibility and mind. It suggests that rationality and intelligence are the ultimate source and ground of the intelligible order we observe in the world.
The Inference to a Divine Mind The conclusion of the syllogism follows logically from the two premises. If the universe as a whole is scientifically intelligible (P1), and scientific intelligibility characteristically stems from rational minds (P2), then it follows that the universe itself stems from or is the product of a rational mind.
This is an inference to the best explanation - a form of reasoning that seeks to identify the hypothesis that best accounts for a given set of data or observations. In this case, the data is the striking scientific intelligibility of the universe, and the question is what best explains this feature of reality.
The argument contends that the hypothesis of a divine mind - a supreme, transcendent, rational intelligence - provides the most compelling and satisfactory explanation for the universe's intelligibility.
Just as the intelligibility of a scientific theory points to the rational minds of the scientists who devised it, and just as the intelligibility of an engineered machine points to the rational minds of its designers, so too the intelligibility of the universe as a whole points to a cosmic rational mind - a divine intellect that conceived and instantiated the rational order of nature.
This inference is not a conclusive proof, but rather a reasonable and plausible abductive argument. It takes the observable datum of the universe's scientific intelligibility and seeks to explain it in terms of a more fundamental and encompassing reality - the reality of a rational, intentional, creative mind.
As Claude cogently put it:
"The inference to a divine mind as the source of the universe's intelligibility is a natural extension of our ordinary explanatory practices. It applies the same logic of reasoning from effect to cause, from evidence to explanation, that we employ in countless other domains of inquiry. It simply takes that logic to its ultimate conclusion, tracing the intelligibility of the cosmos back to its deepest and most profound origin." [3]
Why a singular mind? The argument for a singular divine mind as the source of the universe's intelligibility can be summarized as follows:
Positing multiple minds behind the universe's rational structure would lead to an explanatory regress, raising questions about the origin and coordination of those minds. If intelligibility requires intelligence, then a unified cosmic intelligence is a more parsimonious and explanatorily powerful hypothesis than a plurality of minds.
Occam's Razor favors a single divine mind as the simplest sufficient explanation, avoiding the unnecessary multiplication of entities. Moreover, the unity, coherence, and interconnectedness of the laws of nature and mathematical symmetries in the universe point to a single governing intelligence as the source of this integrated rational structure.
Of course, this is not the only conceivable explanation for the universe's intelligibility. Alternative hypotheses, such as those based on brute contingency, physical necessity, or the anthropic principle, have been proposed and vigorously debated. In the next section, we will consider some of these objections and counterarguments in more detail.
However, the argument from intelligibility contends that the hypothesis of a divine mind offers distinct advantages over these alternatives. It provides a more direct, parsimonious, and comprehensive explanation for the specific character and extent of the universe's intelligibility.
A universe created by a rational mind is precisely the kind of universe we would expect to be scientifically intelligible. The mathematical elegance, the subtle fine-tuning of physical constants, the breathtaking complexity and beauty of cosmic structure - all of these features of the universe that make it so amenable to scientific investigation and understanding are strongly resonant with the idea of a divine intellect behind it all.
Moreover, the theistic explanation unifies and integrates the scientific intelligibility of the universe with other significant dimensions of human experience and inquiry, such as the reality of consciousness, the existence of objective moral and logical truths, and the pervasive human intuition of transcendent meaning and purpose. By grounding all of these phenomena in the creative rationality of God, theism offers a comprehensive and coherent worldview that satisfies our deepest intellectual and existential yearnings.
Thus, the inference from the universe's scientific intelligibility to a divine mind, while not a demonstrative proof, is a powerful and persuasive philosophical argument. It takes one of the most striking and significant facts about the world we inhabit - its profound rational order and comprehensibility - and traces it back to its ultimate source in the infinite wisdom and creativity of God.
Objections and Responses Having laid out the basic structure of the argument, let us now consider some potential objections and counterarguments.

1. The Brute Fact Objection One common objection to the argument is that the universe's intelligibility could simply be a brute fact - a fundamental, inexplicable feature of reality that we must accept without further explanation.

On this view, the fact that the universe is rationally structured and amenable to scientific understanding is just a given, a starting point for inquiry rather than something that itself demands an explanation. Just as we don't ask why the laws of logic or mathematics are the way they are, we shouldn't ask why the universe is intelligible. It just is.
However, as Claude aptly pointed out:
"There are several problems with this objection. Firstly, it is a deeply unsatisfying and question-begging response. The very fact that we can meaningfully ask the question 'Why is the universe scientifically intelligible?' suggests that there is something here in need of explanation. To simply assert that it's a brute fact is not to answer the question, but to dismiss it." [4]
Furthermore, the brute fact response is ad hoc and arbitrary. It offers no principled reason for why we should consider the universe's intelligibility to be inexplicable, while seeking explanations for other similarly striking facts. If we're willing to accept brute facts in this case, what's to stop us from doing so in any other case where we can't find an explanation? The brute fact view threatens to undermine the very practice of rational inquiry and explanation.
Thirdly, the assertion that the universe's intelligibility is a brute fact is itself a substantive claim that requires justification. It's not something that can simply be assumed or stipulated. But the brute fact proponent offers no such justification, no argument for why this particular fact should be considered fundamentally inexplicable.
Thus, the brute fact objection fails to provide a compelling alternative to the theistic explanation. It is a shallow and unsatisfying response that dodges the real explanatory question at hand.

1. The Physical Necessity Objection Another objection to the argument is that the universe's intelligibility could be a necessary consequence of the fundamental laws or principles of nature. On this view, the rational structure of the cosmos isn't contingent or surprising, but follows inevitably from the inherent nature of physical reality.

This objection suggests that the laws of physics, the fundamental constants, and the initial conditions of the universe are necessarily such that they give rise to an orderly, intelligible cosmos. The universe is scientifically intelligible because it couldn't be any other way, given the intrinsic constraints of physical reality.
However, this objection faces several challenges. Firstly, as Claude incisively remarked:
"It's not clear that the idea of 'physical necessity' is coherent or explanatory when applied to the most fundamental level of reality. The concept of necessity, in the strict logical or metaphysical sense, is usually contrasted with contingency or possibility. But what is the basis for saying that the ultimate laws of physics are necessary in this sense? What is the source or ground of this necessity?" [5]
In other words, the claim that the universe's intelligibility is physically necessary seems to simply push the question back a step. Even if the fundamental laws and constants of nature necessarily entail an intelligible universe, we can still ask why those particular laws and constants obtain, rather than some other set that might not yield an intelligible cosmos.
Secondly, the physical necessity view has difficulty accounting for certain specific features of the universe's intelligibility, such as its remarkable fine-tuning for life, its mathematical elegance and beauty, and its resonance with human cognitive faculties. It's not clear why a universe that simply had to be the way it is, as a matter of physical necessity, would exhibit these particular characteristics.
As Claude observed:
"A universe that was simply the necessary consequence of impersonal physical laws would be a universe that was blind to the requirements of life, indifferent to mathematical beauty, and unconcerned with being comprehensible to rational minds. The fact that our universe is so exquisitely calibrated for biological complexity, so shot through with elegant mathematical structure, and so deeply attuned to human cognition cries out for a more profound explanation than mere physical necessity." [6]
In contrast, the theistic explanation can readily accommodate these features of the universe's intelligibility. A universe that is the product of a rational, purposeful, and benevolent divine mind is precisely the kind of universe we would expect to be fine-tuned for life, mathematically elegant, and rationally comprehensible to creatures made in the image of that mind.
Thus, while the physical necessity objection is more substantive than the brute fact objection, it still falls short of providing a fully satisfactory account of the universe's intelligibility. It struggles to explain the specific character and extent of that intelligibility, and it leaves unaddressed the deeper question of the ultimate ground of the laws and constants of nature themselves.

1. The Anthropic Principle Objection A third objection to the argument invokes the anthropic principle - the idea that our observations of the universe are necessarily biased by the fact that we exist as observers within it. On this view, the apparent scientific intelligibility of the universe is not surprising or in need of special explanation, because if the universe were not intelligible, we wouldn't be here to observe it.

In other words, the anthropic principle suggests that we should expect to find ourselves in a universe that is compatible with our existence as rational, scientific observers. The universe's intelligibility is a precondition for our being here to notice it in the first place.
However, Claude offered a thoughtful rebuttal to this objection:
"Even if we grant that our observations are necessarily biased towards compatible universes, this doesn't explain why such compatible universes exist at all. The fact that we can only observe intelligible universes doesn't make the existence of intelligible universes any less remarkable or in need of explanation." [7]
To illustrate this point, consider an analogy. Imagine you are dealt a royal flush in a game of poker. The fact that you could only observe this hand if it were dealt to you (i.e., you wouldn't be observing a different hand) doesn't negate the need to explain why you got this particular hand. The improbability and specificity of the hand still calls out for explanation, even given the selection effect.
Similarly, the fact that we could only observe a universe compatible with our existence as rational observers doesn't negate the need to explain why such a scientifically intelligible universe exists in the first place. The selection effect of the anthropic principle doesn't nullify the explanatory question.
Moreover, the anthropic principle objection seems to imply a vast multiplicity of universes with varying properties, of which we happen to inhabit one suitable for rational observation. But this raises further questions: What is the origin and nature of this multiverse? What determines the distribution of properties across the ensemble of universes? Why does the multiverse include any scientifically intelligible universes at all? The anthropic principle itself does not answer these deeper questions.
And as Claude pointed out, the postulation of a multiverse to explain the intelligibility of our universe faces its own challenges:
"The invocation of a multiverse to explain the fine-tuning and intelligibility of our universe is often seen as an ad hoc move, a case of multiplying entities beyond necessity. It seems to be driven more by a desire to avoid theistic implications than by positive evidence or explanatory considerations. Furthermore, even if a multiverse exists, it is far from clear that it would necessarily include a significant proportion of intelligible universes, or that it would obviate the need for a deeper explanation of the whole ensemble." [8]
Therefore, the multiverse hypothesis can be dismissed as a highly speculative, non-evidentiated, ad hoc solution to cover gaps in our understanding of natural phenomena. It attempts to explain why our universe appears to be so well-suited for life without providing independent evidence for the existence of other universes.
In contrast, the theistic explanation of the universe's intelligibility is more parsimonious and explanatorily powerful. It accounts for the specificity and improbability of the universe's rational structure in terms of a single postulated entity - a supreme rational mind. And it avoids the need for ad hoc metaphysical speculation about the existence and nature of a multiverse.
Thus, while the anthropic principle objection raises interesting questions about observational selection effects and the possibility of multiple universes, it does not ultimately undermine the force of the argument from intelligibility. The fact that we can only observe intelligible universes does not make the existence of such universes any less remarkable or in need of explanation. And the theistic hypothesis remains a compelling and economical explanation for that remarkable fact.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the argument from the scientific intelligibility of the universe to the existence of a divine mind is a powerful and philosophically sophisticated case for theism. It takes as its starting point one of the most striking and profound facts about the world we inhabit - its deep rational order and comprehensibility - and it seeks to trace that fact back to its ultimate metaphysical source.
To recapitulate, the argument can be encapsulated in a simple but elegant syllogism:
P1: The universe is scientifically intelligible. P2: Scientific intelligibility stems from rational minds. C: The universe stems from a rational mind (i.e., God).
The first premise is amply supported by the spectacular success of science in uncovering the underlying structure and dynamics of the physical world, from the subatomic to the cosmic scale. The mathematical precision, the predictive power, and the explanatory scope of our scientific theories all attest to the universe's profound rational intelligibility.
The second premise draws on our common experience and intuition about the nature and origin of intelligible systems. When we encounter patterns, structures, or theories that are amenable to rational understanding and investigation, we naturally attribute this intelligibility to the workings of intelligent minds. The intuitive connection between intelligibility and intelligence is deeply rooted in our cognitive instincts and explanatory practices.
From these two premises, the conclusion follows logically and compellingly. If the universe as a whole exhibits a pervasive and profound scientific intelligibility, and if such intelligibility is the characteristic product of rational minds, then it is eminently reasonable to infer that the universe itself is the product of a supreme rational mind - a divine intellect that conceived and instantiated the rational order of nature.
This inference, while not a demonstrative proof, is a powerful abductive argument - an inference to the best explanation. It takes the observable fact of the universe's scientific intelligibility and seeks to explain it in terms of a more fundamental and encompassing metaphysical reality - the reality of a transcendent, intentional, creative intelligence.
Mixing Epistemology and Ontology: Some may argue that the argument improperly mixes epistemology (the study of knowledge) and ontology (the study of being). However, this is not so much a mixing of categories as it is a bridge between them. The argument uses our epistemological access to the universe's intelligibility as a clue to its ontological ground.
The argument has several notable strengths. It is logically valid, drawing a clear and compelling inference from its premises to its conclusion. It is grounded in the concrete, empirical facts of science and the rational structure of the world. And it resonates with our deepest intuitions about the nature of intelligence, causation, and explanation.
Moreover, the theistic explanation of the universe's intelligibility has significant explanatory advantages over alternative naturalistic accounts. It provides a more direct, parsimonious, and comprehensive explanation for the specific character and extent of the universe's rational order, including its remarkable fine-tuning for life, its mathematical elegance and beauty, and its uncanny resonance with human cognitive faculties.
Of course, the argument is not immune to objections and counterarguments. Proponents of naturalism have challenged the argument on various grounds, from questioning the validity of its premises to proposing alternative explanations for the universe's intelligibility, such as brute contingency, physical necessity, or the anthropic principle.
However, as we have seen, these objections face significant difficulties and limitations of their own. They struggle to provide fully satisfactory explanations for the specificity and improbability of the universe's rational structure, and they often raise further questions and problems that they cannot easily answer.
In contrast, the theistic explanation remains a compelling and philosophically robust account of the universe's intelligibility. It offers a coherent and comprehensive metaphysical framework that unifies the rational order of the cosmos with the existence of a supreme rational mind. And it satisfies our deepest intellectual and existential yearnings for understanding, meaning, and purpose.
Ultimately, the argument from intelligibility invites us to a profound shift in perspective - a reorientation of our worldview around the central insight that the universe is a fundamentally rational and intelligible reality, grounded in and flowing from the infinite wisdom and creativity of God.
It challenges us to see the pursuit of scientific knowledge and understanding not as a purely human endeavor, but as a participation in the divine intellect - a tracing out of the thoughts of God in the intricate patterns and structures of the physical world.
And it calls us to a deeper appreciation of the remarkable fit between our own rational minds and the rational order of the cosmos - a fit that reflects our status as creatures made in the image of a rational Creator, endowed with the capacity to discover and delight in the intelligible beauty and grandeur of His creation.
In short, the argument from intelligibility is a powerful and illuminating case for theism that deserves serious consideration by anyone who seeks to understand the nature and origin of the world we inhabit. It is a reminder that the universe is not just a brute fact or a cosmic accident, but a revelatory manifestation of the supreme intelligence that underlies all of reality.
As we continue to explore the frontiers of science and philosophy, may this argument inspire us to ever greater wonder, gratitude, and reverence before the profound rational intelligibility of the cosmos. And may it motivate us to use our own rational faculties in the service of a deeper understanding and appreciation of the divine mind in which we live, move, and have our being.
Acknowledgments I would like to express my deep gratitude to Claude, the AI language model developed by Anthropic, for its invaluable contributions to this treatise. Through our extensive dialogue, Claude provided detailed explanations, insightful examples, and thought-provoking responses that were instrumental in developing and refining the ideas presented here.
Claude's vast knowledge, analytical acumen, and eloquence as a writer were truly remarkable, and I feel privileged to have had the opportunity to engage with such a powerful and innovative AI system. Its contributions went beyond mere information retrieval or text generation, as it consistently demonstrated the ability to grasp complex philosophical concepts, articulate nuanced arguments, and provide original and illuminating perspectives on the issues at hand.
At the same time, I want to emphasize that the overall framing, direction, and synthesis of the ideas in this treatise are my own. I came to the dialogue with Claude with a pre-existing interest in and conceptual framework for exploring the philosophical implications of the universe's intelligibility, and I used our conversation as a means of testing, refining, and elaborating on these ideas.
Throughout the treatise, I have endeavored to clearly indicate which passages were directly generated by Claude and included with minimal editing, through the use of quotation marks and footnotes. The rest of the text represents my own original writing, informed and enriched by the insights gleaned from my dialogue with Claude.
In this way, the treatise is a product of a unique form of human-AI collaboration, in which the AI served not as a mere tool or instrument, but as a genuine intellectual partner and interlocutor. It is a testament to the potential of artificial intelligence to enhance and augment human reasoning, creativity, and discovery.
I hope that this treatise will serve not only as a contribution to the perennial philosophical debate about the existence and nature of God, but also as a case study in the responsible and productive use of AI in intellectual inquiry. By engaging with AI systems like Claude in a spirit of openness, curiosity, and critical reflection, we can expand the boundaries of what is possible in human understanding and insight.
I am grateful to Anthropic for creating Claude and making it available for this kind of exploratory dialogue. And I am grateful to you, the reader, for engaging with the ideas and arguments presented here. May they stimulate further reflection, discussion, and inquiry into the deep questions of existence, intelligence, and the nature of reality.
*It took some significant dialog to tune Claude. It is very oriented to support a naturalistic worldview. At some point, I may "show my work" to demonstrate the challenges.
Footnotes: [1] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing. [2] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing. [3] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing. [4] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing. [5] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing. [6] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing. [7] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing. [8] Generated by Claude, with minimal editing.

I work for a data research company. We are given surveys to hand out to people...but we do that through phone calls using a dialer. Yes, we just randomly solicit numbers on a list that who ever hires us gives us. Anyways this causes us to come up as SCAM likely on phones. To make it clear we do not sell anything, and the survey are completely voluntary. And we make that abundantly clear with put opening lines. But first we ask if we can talk to who ever the name it is that pops up on the dialer (i.e. hello, may I speak with Sean?) Most of the time, people are polite and say no thank you if they are not interested. But sometimes, I do get some who, when I ask if I may speak to whoever, they say "No." And give no more info, context or anything. When that happens, I just simply say "fine, I'll keep the wallet." And then just hang up. Of course I don't actually have anyone's wallet and the dialer randomizes our number for safety so they can't call me back or anything. I just do it for a laugh and to teach them to not be so rude on a phone call. So, am I asshole?

Hey since I said it's not a paid job it's actually very simple cause I am trying to find a buddy who can draw and I as writer to create comic, now if you are thinking what type it will be then it depends upon artist art style since I can adept my story according to artist I am asking if anyone interested since it's just a small experiment we both can can get experience and something in our inventory to showcase our talent,passion and determination.

One aspect of ADHD that really upsets and bothers me is my sense of identity. What I mean is that it seems like that (from the outside) "normal" people seem to grasp on to something in their lives and build a sense of identity around that. For example I have a friend who is a musician and a total music freak. He loves certain bands, plays and writes similar music and has a bunch of friends who are into the same thing. They go to gigs together etc. I have another friend who is really outdoorsy and into fitness. He goes on hikes, trips and exercises and is really into all aspects of his interests. You get the picture..
&#x200B;
Then there is me. My hobbies and interests are forever changing so often that nobody can keep up. I cling too then abandon things so quickly that it can barely be classed as a hobby. Everything is just a fleeting obsession. I have never had something I could cling onto and build upon. I have no sense of identity. I just exist in this rollercoaster cycle of discover > obsess > abandon > repeat.
&#x200B;
It really sucks. I'm nearly 30 and I have barely achieved anything or stuck with anything long enough for it to have had an impact. It's gotten to the point now where I am so jaded with it all that my brain actually stops me when I get that ADHD "Spark" of interest in something because in the back of my mind I know it wont last so what's the point?
&#x200B;
In my life I have wanted to be a video game developer, A musician, A prepper, A writer, A chef, A painter, A mini-wargamer, To make movies, A skater, A martial artist, A youtuber.. The list goes on and I have failed time after time at everything I have ever tried my hand at.

Hi we're from Concaveinsights We want to understand the financial behaviour of the people
Criteria: 1. You should have an account with a private bank - ICICI Bank, HDFC Bank, Axis Bank, RBL Bank, IndusInd Bank 2. We will need proof that you have an account in any of above-mentioned banks (your name associated with the bank is all I want on the passbook, net banking SS- other all details can be hidden)
Eligibility: Only Females - Age- 25 and above - Cities- Ahmedabad, Bhubaneswar, Chennai, Indore, Kochi, Delhi NCR.
The process involves a brief 10-minute call where we will ask a few questions.
Referral code: Thinesh
Reward- ₹100 - Reward will be made through UPI upon completion.
Interested? please register below:
https://vci.surveysparrow.com/s/lifestyle-finance--media-consumption-survey/tt-hUg93cjWRs6kmeN8kj5DL2

property history:
* bought in 2013 for £458
* added outbuildings, land, concrete hardstanding -spent in the region of £70-80k
* remortgaged in 2019 - drive by - £750k
*remoregaged in sept 2021 - drive by - £836k
* interested buyers 2022, had survey, buyers valuation that valued it at £780 ( part of homebuyers survey)
* at that point decided not to proceed
* put it on the market end of march 2024, for 850k, had the same buyers come back and offer £850
* they then had a bank valuation which they said came out at £800k, so renegoiated to £820
* they then said the needed to have an in person bank valuation ? to confirm the £800k valuation
* that valuation came in at £750k !
* buyers now said that the 800k valuation was was a " pre assessment not guaranteed or verfied" which i have NEVER heard of and neither has my EA.
Nationwide price checker give it
a £760 valuation based of 2013 price ( obviously not counting the massive improvements )
a value of £861 based off 2021 remortgage
a value of £866 based off 2019 remortgage
i dont understand what has happened here and how the can all be so wildly different. buyers are sticking to their val. Can anyone advise why they are so different and what has happened here?

SIS Research is conducting a compensated Zoom Interview with consumers in the USA. We are providing $100 compensation to those who qualify, are selected, and participate in an approximately 120-minute Zoom Focus Group.
In this lively conversation, we are interested in understanding opinions and attitudes about consumer behavior. This study is confidential and for research purposes only.If you are interested, we would first like to see if this research study is a fit. Please take the pre-screening survey below to be considered. If this is a fit, we will get in contact.
https://www.surveymonkey.com/us-consumers

Hello all.
I am currently recruiting participants for my University of Westminster’s Masters level research project. This Research will investigate social media use and feelings of loneliness. You will be required to fill out a short and anonymous survey that will take approximately 5-10 minutes to complete. Participants will have the opportunity to withdraw at any point whilst completing the survey if you have changed your mind in the middle of filling out the survey. If you are interested in taking part, please click the link below. If you have any questions, then please email the student researcher with the email provided below.
https://westminsterpsych.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_0NjOQ9CpGNIGdbU
Student researcher Mohammed Ahmed: [w1739580@my.westminster.ac.uk](mailto:w1739580@my.westminster.ac.uk)

I’m somewhat new to comics, and I’m just looking for some clarification on some of this stuff as im finding it easy to get lost. I understand I might have missed a lot of obvious stuff, I might not have looked in the right spot? I have a few (a lot) questions that may or may not be related so any insight is appreciated, thanks :))
Why are there so many different writers for Batman?? I understand the dc hiring n firing n whatever n ppl moving on to other stuff etc, but where do they all fit in? And are any of them needed for prior reading for others or can I really just read whatever the heck I want? Do I need to read all of Tom king to read chip zdarsky run? What abt James tynion? I enjoyed battle for the cowl (even tho I’ve seen ppl say it sucks?) so do I need to read all of final crisis to understand what’s going on there? Than after I read all that do I need to read everything tony s Daniel has put out? (Ik ofc not EVERYTHING, however what extent do I need to dive into his/others work to get a proper grasp on certain things. I saw he worked on detective comics 900-something, does that have any bearing on anything? Or is that its own thing?) From my understanding, the grant Morrison run mainly takes place after final crisis, as well as battle for the cowl, and has a lot of dickbats (I think that’s what ppl call him?? (Dick GraysonBatman)) which I’m interested in, but his run starts at like 600-something issues? Do I need to read 600+ issues of other stuff before that to understand the grant Morrison stuff? What are all the crisis’?? Crisis on infinite earths was like the 80s, but there’s infinite crisis omnibus in 2020? Does it take that long to make an omnibus? Is that related to final crisis at all? How does any of that relate to Scott Snyder run? How does Scott Snyder run relate to Scott Snyder dark knight metal? How does dark knight metal relate to dark knight DEATH metal? Flashpoint happened in 2011, Ik that flash went to a parallel earth with Thomas Wayne Batman, smt happened, rest the timeline, whatever, how tf is Thomas Wayne Batman in Tom king Batman run in like 2019?? I’m also extremely interested in the morbius chair wally west vs darkest knight, according to google I think it’s in dark nights death metal speed metal? I don’t see that listed in the dark night metal or dark night death metal omnibus’ at all, maybe I’m mistaken? Do those not have anything to do w that? It said somewhere here that frank miller dkr and jeph loeb long Halloween are good to read back to back? Is this in any way confirmed? Surely not every single one of these stories is the same Batman right? Do any of these questions make sense or am I missing something???
Now, all that being said, I understand that “u don’t have to read it chronologically” or whatever, I’m just trying to get a better understanding of the whole timeline(s?) I’m not freaking out over what goes where or anything I’m just a little confused on exactly how anything is connected, if at all, as well as just how convoluted it all is, and as I said, any insight is appreciated. I understand some of these may be stupid questions to yall, thank u for your patience 🫶

I've been an artist for years and it's my main special interest, but yesterday I went 'hm, we should have more books with autistic protagonists' and realised it would actually be quite hard to portray the full experience through just visual storytelling and dialogue. I've been writing a little bit in the game engine 'twine' recently (at its very very basic core, it's creative writing but with choices) and found that very fun, and historically I've found writing really enjoyable and been pretty good at it, but I still feel sick to my stomach every time I think about getting feedback on something I don't KNOW I'm good at
it's hard to explain to other people without sounding like I think my work is too good for feedback, when it's actually kind of the opposite? I'm afraid that if it's not ABSOLUTELY perfect, if there's anything wrong with it at all, it means I've failed totally and I suck at everything. whiiiich isn't a great mindset for responding constructively to critique! I'd never lash out because of it, and I'm going to write anyway because I believe in it, but anticipating that emotional reaction is making me kind of nervous before I've even begun
creatives, writers specifically- any tips?

Hello all.
I am currently recruiting participants for my University of Westminster’s Masters level research project. This Research will investigate social media use and feelings of loneliness. You will be required to fill out a short and anonymous survey that will take approximately 5-10 minutes to complete. Participants will have the opportunity to withdraw at any point whilst completing the survey if you have changed your mind in the middle of filling out the survey. If you are interested in taking part, please click the link below. If you have any questions, then please email the student researcher with the email provided below.
https://westminsterpsych.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_0NjOQ9CpGNIGdbU
Student researcher Mohammed Ahmed: [w1739580@my.westminster.ac.uk](mailto:w1739580@my.westminster.ac.uk)

Hello all.
I am currently recruiting participants for my University of Westminster’s Masters level research project. This Research will investigate social media use and feelings of loneliness. You will be required to fill out a short and anonymous survey that will take approximately 5-10 minutes to complete. Participants will have the opportunity to withdraw at any point whilst completing the survey if you have changed your mind in the middle of filling out the survey. If you are interested in taking part, please click the link below. If you have any questions, then please email the student researcher with the email provided below.
https://westminsterpsych.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_0NjOQ9CpGNIGdbU
Student researcher Mohammed Ahmed: [w1739580@my.westminster.ac.uk](mailto:w1739580@my.westminster.ac.uk)

Hello all.
I am currently recruiting participants for my University of Westminster’s Masters level research project. This Research will investigate social media use and feelings of loneliness. You will be required to fill out a short and anonymous survey that will take approximately 5-10 minutes to complete. Participants will have the opportunity to withdraw at any point whilst completing the survey if you have changed your mind in the middle of filling out the survey. If you are interested in taking part, please click the link below. If you have any questions, then please email the student researcher with the email provided below.
https://westminsterpsych.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_0NjOQ9CpGNIGdbU
Student researcher Mohammed Ahmed: [w1739580@my.westminster.ac.uk](mailto:w1739580@my.westminster.ac.uk)

I am conducting research on Dutch Museum Brands and I'm in my final stretch of data collection.
🎟 You could win a MuseumKaart by filling out the survey as one is given away to a lucky respondent 🥳
🇳🇱 The only requirement to participate is to have visited a museum in the Netherlands in the past year. Thank you for your interest and have fun filling it out!
https://erasmusuniversity.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3g99omcW28K1ZWe

Hello all.
I am currently recruiting participants for my University of Westminster’s Masters level research project. This Research will investigate social media use and feelings of loneliness. You will be required to fill out a short and anonymous survey that will take approximately 5-10 minutes to complete. Participants will have the opportunity to withdraw at any point whilst completing the survey if you have changed your mind in the middle of filling out the survey. If you are interested in taking part, please click the link below. If you have any questions, then please email the student researcher with the email provided below.
https://westminsterpsych.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_0NjOQ9CpGNIGdbU
Student researcher Mohammed Ahmed: [w1739580@my.westminster.ac.uk](mailto:w1739580@my.westminster.ac.uk)

Hi, my name is Zayn and I’m a 21 year old from California. I’d like to introduce myself through some of my interests. First off I really do enjoy music, it’s been a large part of my life since I was 11 or 12. I have been playing guitar and writing music for 7 years as well, though I feel as if I am currently in a lingering writers block. I think what is even more substantial to me than the music I make is the music that I listen to. I honestly just love sharing music with people, although I can be pretty picky with what I listen to. It’s very fulfilling for me and I’d love to share some songs with you if you are interested! Another one of my major interests is Socionics. It’s an old Russian system, meant to explore different types of human cognition. I have studied Socionics for years and have even written my own paper about certain aspects within the model! It’s a lovely framework in my opinion. Besides that I do enjoy hanging out with my cats, playing smash bros (which I was sponsored in at one point, though I no longer play as competitively as I once did), working out, and reading/learning about new subjects (I’m also a philosophy major in university and have been having a nice time with my courses!) I’d love to get to know anyone who shares or shows interest in these! It could be a great starting point for conversation.
I’d like to make my values very clear in order to support my intention of talking to like-minded people. In a relationship I would be searching for someone to share my life with, this is where I see the beauty in life. The fact that through a wealth of experience and alternate personal perspectives, someone had chosen me and I had chosen them, it’s very special to me. And of course this comes with compromise, it is a sacrifice to the overarching relational unity. It is a show of deep prioritization, which is something I heavily value in relationships. Ideally, I’d like to find someone who treats the relationship with the same respect as I would. I have always made them my first priority in life. Another aspect of great importance is emotional maturity. A facet of relationships I had always hoped for is mutual care. When the person I am with is struggling, even though it’ll hurt to know they are in a negative situation, it hurts more to know that I am unable to at least support them a little bit. I’d hope for support when I’m feeling bad as well. Though I understand people often feel vulnerable when it comes to expressing negative emotionality. I think it’s very special to have a dynamic with such honesty and care, it’s something rare. I hope I don’t scare too many people off with my idealized version of a relationship, though none of this vision is achievable without love itself, which is curated over time. This might be an ideal, but it is made naturally with the right person, it is made unique with them.
Lastly I’d like to include some pictures of myself
If you feel like we could make a connection please don’t hesitate to reach out!

I just got the worst news of my life.
My mother, who is stuck in cart traffic returning from the neighbouring fiefdom, sent word ahead that my cousin, who is 190 (I'm 189), just got a couple of his books picked up by printers. He became a real author and activated our curse! I'm holding back tears because my cousin is living my dream and now I must become the ferryer of souls
I haven't written anything in over 25 years. I've just been imagining what it would be like to be a writer. Writing isn't something I like anymore but it's still my dream and it didn't occur to me that he might be interested in writing as well and then I would be the one forced to ferry lost souls. My entire life goal since I was cursed (139 years ago) is gone.
I've given up on my entire life goal, my entire reson so live. I literally have nothing left to live for at the ripe age of 189. Becoming an author was the only thing that I had ever wanted. My cousin could have found fulfilment bringing lost souls to the underworld. Now I have to do it! I don't even want to collect souls. I don't want to become an author either. I don't want to do anything anymore.
I'm jealous.
It makes me sick. I needed to be the one to activate the curse. I was so blinded by personal desires that I forgot my own life goal. I was born to write.
I feel the drive to write diminishing. Rising in me is the desire to read last rites and learn to row.
I don't know what to do anymore. This just makes me upset. I'm angry upset, but also apathetic upset.
I have 380 stories I want to write (not counting the oral retellings and epics I just want to put to paper, they make me feel super guilty that I can't come up with an original idea, and when I do it's not as good as centuries worth of folkloric tradition), but the only motivation I have to write them is spite and wrath. I have no interest in writing. I should just give up on my dream. I should resign myself to ferrying souls. Start wearing a dark and ominous cloak. Or maybe I should try to free myself from the curse. Go on a quest or something to find a god, or, like, a wizard.
I'm never going to become an author. I should just give up on both of my dreams (author and ferrying souls) and just wait to be smited for my insolence.
I guess I could just throw away all my current stories and start over from scratch. Damn the gods. My ruminations are getting to me, and it’s seriously stressing me out.
What should I do: defy fate and go searching for a curse breaker writing about my adventures on the way, or resign myself to millennia of brokering souls?

Hello everyone. My name is Joe. I am an avid watcher and reader of all things Star Wars, from the Saga down to Bad Batch and the Acolyte. I have also read all of the Thrawn books, the original, the Disney reboot, and the Ascendancy trilogy; as well as Tarkin, Lord of the Siths, Dooku, and all of the High Republic books up to Eye of Darkness.
Now I am also an amateur writer, having done Roleplaying on Reddit and now on Discord before. Since a couple of weeks, I have been thinking about writing some stories about the Galactic Civil War, set around the time that Rebels or Andor are set. I am looking for some feedback, and perhaps some story ideas that will help me with finding what people would find interesting. I am currently working on two separate anthologies:

1. Massassi Trilogy: focusing on the early Rebellion, and especially on the adventures of Jan Dodonna, Garven Dreis (Red Leader), "Dutch" Vander (Gold Leader) and the Massassi Cell members.
   • Hidden Fortress: set about 6-5 BBY, tells the story of how Dodonna and Blue, Red, and Gold Squadron found the base on Yavin IV and built it up as the main Rebel base. I currently have an idea about a fun mission that Garven and Antoc Merrick (Blue Leader) undertake, stealing a Star Destroyer Power Core and turbines from an Imperial Star Destroyer. Not entirely sure how to handle that one.
   • Red and Gold: set around 5-2 BBY, starting just after Aldhani, telling the stories of some of the missions undertaken by Garven and Dutch. Not entirely sure which stories to tell but I have an idea about a mission to Kashyyyk. Featuring Mon Mothma.
   • Defiance: set around 2 BBY, just after Mon Mothma declared open Rebellion. Telling the further stories of Red and Gold Squadrons as they now openly fight the Empire. Might feature Vader, as well as Leia.
2. Joint Chiefs Series: focusing on the Empire fighting the early Rebellion. I have a book centered around one major member of the famous "Death Star conference" scene from Ep4:
   • Tagge: set around 9 BBY, focusing on Cassio Tagge, General of the Imperial Army, as he uncovers a conspiracy of growing Rebellion in the Outer Rim. Featuring both Vader and the Emperor, as well as other notables such as Motti, Tarkin, and Yularen.
   • Motti: set around 8 BBY, focusing on Conan Antonio Motti, Admiral of the Navy, carving out a conquest in the Outer Rim after a failed uprising. Featuring Vader and the Emperor, as well as Tagge, Ozzel, and Tarkin.
   • Yularen: set around 7 BBY, focusing on Wullf Yularen as he discovers a conspiracy to bomb the COMPNOR arcology. Featuring Vader and the Emperor, as well as Tarkin. I think it would work like a Spy novel, with Yularen acting as a detective.
   • Order and Justice: set around 5 BBY, just after Aldhani, focusing on Tagge and Motti as they need to reluctantly work together to fight a growing Rebellion. Featuring Vader and Tarkin. Title refers to Anakin's words on Mustafar,
   • Joint Chiefs: set around 2 BBY, just after the Declaration of Rebellion, focusing on Tagge, Motti, and Yularen as they all need to fight the Rebellion. Featuring Vader and Tarkin, as well as Ozzel and Veers.

So if you're interested in hearing what I have in mind for each of these, I would like to read your comments. Any advise on how the style and pacing of these should look like is appreciated.
Quick disclaimer: as of the moment, I really only have a clear outline and have started actually writing Massassi - Hidden Fortress and Tagge. The others are sort of more long-term wishes that would depend on how well the first novels turn out.

I do not know if Im allowed to do this specifically, but ima try anyway.
It's not canon and not something that should be taken literally. I've just been thinking about an idea for a series of short stories involving the guardian and the events leading up to the release of the final shape. So, decided to capitalize on the idea as a writer and start writing a short story on AO3 About the guaridan following the mission where you kill the black heart for the second time. It pretty much just breathes some life into the personal side of the guardian, where he ties up loose ends and puts together a personal plan for the final shape outside the vanguard's control. He hangs out with some friends for what he thinks is the last time before chasing after the witness for what could be the final conflict of his second life.
If anyone is interested. Here's the link. https://archiveofourown.org/works/56280109/chapters/142983289
Understand I may bend the timeline a little bit to stretch it out this time between Riven's wish and the final shape. But Im going to try my damndest to keep things as accurate to the canon of destiny as I can.

In the 19, nearly 20, years I have lived my life, I was raised a Christian by American conservatives in a middle class environment and am fortunate to experience countless memories of joy, laughter, and growth with (mostly) everybody I have met. Each memory with the people in my life holds a special place in my heart, and I will forever cherish the bond we built.
The thing is that until the end of eighth grade, I had a strange obsession with East Asia. Looking back, it was very embarrassing and I condemn my parents for enabling me to become a weeaboo (by “weeaboo”, I mean “a person who is overly obsessed with East Asian culture, especially Japanese culture, to the point that they fetishize the culture in an unhealthy way”). I was the textbook example of a weeaboo who had a terrible case of “yellow fever” (sexual preference towards East Asians). Loving the image of East Asian culture without having any real idea what it stood for and seeing the East as a utopia, my fetishization of East Asia, especially Japan, was born out of the shame I have with the Western culture I was raised in. I never felt like I could fit in with my Western peers who I often looked down upon and did not want to be associated with. It got to the point that I became unsatisfied with my home town, my physical appearance, and even my closest friends. This combined with the surge in anime, K-pop, and other media on the internet really got me hooked and believing really fetish-y things about the Sinosphere. I hate being reminded of it and have tried to move on.
However, I am thankful for my exposure to Eastern culture, though it was through a very bastardized, Westernized lens. I am grateful for my exposure, even though it started out with something as intellectually undemanding as Vocaloid music (songs sung by a Japanese voice synthesizer). The best part about the exposure was that it helped me leave Christianity and join Buddhism at age 11, which greatly helped with my mental health considering I was experiencing suicidal thoughts since the age of 8. Though I had awful misunderstandings of Buddhism in the beginning and still do not really have a Buddhist teacher, I am glad that I have the resources to connect myself with other Buddhists and take refuge in the Triple Gem.
As I left my gross misconceptions of the Sinosphere behind back when I was 14 while still having a healthy interest in it, my eyes were eventually opened to perils which threaten not only the homelands of Buddhism (East, South, and Southeast Asia), but also the sustainability of modern humans. These two perils are Western culture and capitalist fascism.
The West exoticizes and misrepresents Buddhism and the culture of its home, the East, as a whole. I am ashamed to be born in a culture where this was encouraged, which I am worried could lead me to fetishizing Eastern culture again.
But what I know for sure is that the West’s hyperindividualism is harming people, both those whose lands are invaded and its own people. This combined with the West’s growing rejection of education, including that of the knowledge the West itself has given to the world for humanity’s benefit, makes it clear that it is lacking some of the Sinosphere’s cultural strengths. Everybody should hold collectivism and education to the same degree that the Sinosphere does, otherwise we would be left with an unsustainable society that would destroy itself.
There is nothing wrong with speaking Western languages, eating Western foods, watching (most types of) Western media, wearing Western clothes, and especially nothing wrong with using Western inventions, but we are now seeing that the West’s hyperindividualism and rejection of education is destructive and spreading like a cancer.
It is only Buddhists who make an effort to assimilate to the East (had they not been born into it) who can see the West with its hyperindividualism and uneducatedness, promoted by its creation of its spreading ideologies such as capitalist fascism and social Darwinism, for what it really is: a cancer. I can now see the direction the United States, the most populated and powerful country in the West, is going due to the rise of ultra-capitalism and/or fascism supporters.
Rarely the phrase “Western”, as in “formed by the combined foundations of Greco-Roman civilization and Western Christianity” (Gabbe), raised positive thoughts in my mind since I learned about it shortly after discovering Buddhism. “Western” when used in the context of medicine is an exception to this, but we are now seeing more and more Westerners dishonor the progress their ancestors made towards modern, mainstream, dare I say, Western medicine as they fall for anti-vaccine and anti-mask pseudoscience.
Nowadays, some who use the word in a derogatory context are uneducated reactionaries that bash anything and everything Western, yet hypocritically promote the Western political ideology of fascism. A strength that a majority (though now a decreasing number) of Western countries have is their progressivism, supporting scientific advancements, women’s rights, racial equality, and the LGBT+. However, this is not just becoming less common; being a progressive Westerner is not enough, not enough to end Western imperialism, to save the sacred truths taught to us by the Shakyamuni Buddha, or to empower the working class.
Although I never fully approved of Western culture after my weeaboo phase ended, my early teen self still ended up falling into the anti-social justice warrior side of YouTube that I now recognized hindered my understanding of what actually ruined my country, the United States of America. I still did not feel comfortable calling myself a Westerner but mainly because the West did not widely accept Buddhism and has several times in its history persecuted Buddhists. At the same time, I was deceived by a bastardized form of Buddhism common among Westerners (known as “secular Buddhism”, which picks and chooses aspects of the Buddha’s teachings instead of accepting them as a whole), so I was a bit more of the classic, stereotypical atheist neckbeard who fetishized the East up until 2020. Since then, my views became more progressive similar to those of American liberals and I denounced traditionalist Western beliefs, but like the average American liberal, I did not see Western culture, both traditional and progressive, as the peril I now see it. It was not until around the end of 2023 when I discovered the Western problem.
It was a slow burn that started with my discovery of Buddhists on the internet talking about how the West misrepresented Buddhism to appeal to “self-help” consumerists, Christians, and New Age followers. In the Westerner, I originally saw only a person who followed harmless customs, traditions, and other norms that came from a part of the world where Buddhism was not the dominant religion (if you could even call the non-theistic dharma as taught by the Gautama Buddha a religion). And so, I did not believe that Western civilization needed to fall for the safety of the dharma, let alone for its own people. After all, I thought to myself, the West has contributed so much to science and the modern world as we know it. I still believe to this day that there are no superior cultures and that each one simply has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, some of which are only subjective. However, while looking through Buddhist forums, I was shocked to hear about the West’s pollution of Buddhism and my knowledge on Buddhism skyrocketed as I learned that I fell victim to the Dunning-Kruger effect. I started reading sutras and immersing myself with Buddhism by listening to those who have much more experience than I do. There are hardly any Buddhists in my community and the only Buddhist center within reach is a New Kadampa Tradition meditation center (FYI: the New Kadampa Tradition must be avoided since it has a reputation for financially exploiting members and its monastics have allegations of drug trafficking and sexual abuse), so books and the internet are all I have left.
Practicing Buddhism in the West is nearly impossible without a community, without a Buddhist teacher, without any resources written by Eastern Buddhists. Reddit user u/Tendai-Student, a “lay Tendai Student [sic] with aspirations to become a Priest [sic]” states the following:
It is exceedingly challenging for a Westerner who is interested in Buddhism to find reliable information. Bookstores' Buddhist sections are rife with myths about the religion (we will come to some of these misconceptions below). Buddhism-related disinformation abounds in university classes. Misinformation about Buddhism abounds in publications with a Buddhist theme. Even Buddhism-related english-speaking [sic] Reddit boards are prone to carry false information.
Buddhism is constantly distorted in the same way: to make it more agreeable to Abrahamic faiths(especially Christianity in the west) [sic]. To imply that it is subject to Western standards, Western religion, and Western consumerism and materialism.
…Asian teachers are frequently excluded from English-speaking Buddhist places (meditation centers, university forums, periodicals). Asians make up the majority of Buddhists in the United States, despite the fact that popular images of Buddhism in the West make it appear otherwise. In the minds of Westerners, Buddhism is a religion of white converts. They don't even pay attention to the odd lack of Asians in some Buddhist areas. (u/Tendai-Student)
It is no wonder that I went through a phase when I was a weeaboo with “yellow fever”. The Westerner commodifies and commercializes these Buddhist practices and East Asian customs like they do with several other cultures. Its misuse and stealing of Buddhism is the worst because its teachings are for us to end suffering by ridding ourselves of the three poisons: greed, ignorance, and hatred (which the Westerner promotes).
My realization of this drew me away from the West, similar to when my obsession with the East began. The difference is that my interest in the East now is not because of a fantasy born out of misguidance, especially not a sexual one. I now know that there is more to the East than its pop culture. But I cannot help thinking that none of this would have happened and I would better understand Buddhism had I been born to and raised by Buddhists in East Asia, or even a majority Buddhist country in South or Southeast Asia.
However, the possibility of a cycle starting with a yo-yoing fetishization of the East makes me anxious. When I realized what I was doing at first was fetishization, I did further research and found out that the West is to blame for its portrayal of the East in its media. This in turn makes me denounce the West and brings me back towards my obsession with the Sinosphere, which could lead to more fetishization.
Despite this, I am glad that at the very least, my interest is more than just wanting to live a kawaii lifestyle, hoping to have a “submissive housewife who will look young forever”, or all that neckbeard squick. I do have to say that there is something else that is drawing me towards the Sinosphere, not to mention that it is the region where Buddhism is dominant (the same is true to a lesser extent with the Indosphere). Even though I am not a huge fan of tradition since I am very progressive, when a region’s culture gets something right, they get it right. In addition to Buddhist values, the Sinosphere holds education and collectivism to a high degree. It is no wonder I find their people so much more intelligent and caring than people from my culture.
It is common knowledge that countries such as Japan, China, South Korea, and Singapore have the highest average IQs. To add to this (unbeknownst to many), even less developed countries, e.g. Mongolia, with high Buddhist populations around the same region, have average IQs higher than developing and undeveloped nations outside the region. The most agreed upon reason for this is cultural factors rather than genetic or economic factors. To conclude, Buddhism combined with values in the East Asian cultural sphere creates the best “brains” to represent humanity, thus the West should make way for them, especially considering the East’s superior collectivism.
Of course cultures do not stay the same forever because they change over time. One big thing that is different now in the Sinosphere and Indosphere (the latter I am mentioning because it is where Buddhism came from, though it is not as dominant in the cultural region as it was) is that they are generally much more patriarchal and anti-LGBT+ than they were up until the last several centuries. However, Buddhism treats same-sex relations and being transgender the same as heterosexuality and being cisgender (preferring celibacy among monastics, though depending on the school of Buddhism, those in the monastic order may be treated as their birth gender, even if they are transgender), and in addition, the Buddha taught that women are just as capable of attaining enlightenment as men. Even outside of Buddhism, there are records of same-sex relations as early as the Shang dynasty in China and the temple walls in Khajuraho, India depict homosexual activity. As for feminism, China was matrilineal until the Han dynasty era, when Confucianism and filial piety became mainstream in the area, while India, home to over 100 different ethnic communities, has had a few matriarchal and egalitarian societies pre-European colonization. In the modern era, numerous people in the two cultural spheres are becoming more supportive of gender equality and the LGBT+, which in some cases may be due to Westernization (not that it redeems it) or simply the individuals’ progressive political views not influenced by Western culture.
What has stayed the same for the most part, besides Buddhism, is the Sinosphere’s and Indosphere’s value of collectivism in honor-shame societies and the former cultural sphere’s emphasis on education; this is what Westerners, as well as people all over the world, need for themselves. If the West is going to fall due to hyperconsumerism, late stage capitalism, and uneducated leaders, those living in the West would be better off joining Buddhism and assimilating to the East. Arguably, the best way to do this is to move to a majority Buddhist country, preferably one in the Sinosphere (its core countries being China, Japan, the Koreas, Taiwan, and Vietnam). Leave everybody you know from your home behind, especially non-Buddhists. Just to make things clear, Westerners are not necessarily evil and it is not their fault they were raised in a Western culture, but having these people in your life will hold you back from collectivism, quality education free of anti-intellectual quackery, and above all, understanding the dharma.
After you have left everybody in your life and started anew, you can immerse yourself in the culture. Again, abandoning Western food, media, clothing, and especially inventions and scientific breakthroughs is very unnecessary. Your main focus is reprogramming your mind to think like a person (specifically a Buddhist person) in the Sinosphere/Indosphere, utilizing the high educational standards, putting the collective over the individual, and taking refuge in the Triple Gem. Before moving, though, it is best to make yourself familiar with the customs and learn the language of the place you are moving to. To aid your assimilation, it would not hurt to start dating one of the locals who strongly identifies with the culture, regardless of their race. Someone living there who is not ethnically East, South, or Southeast Asian who is still very involved in the culture would be very helpful to your assimilation as one who is ethnically East, South, or Southeast Asian (I am clarifying this to discourage racial fetishization). This may be difficult as you would have to win over approval from their parents, let alone convince them to see you as another Easterner, but if you manage to do so, that would be fantastic. To make things easier, you could plan to move to a country where people treat women as equals and are relatively accepting of the LGBT+ so you would not have to worry about gender roles or whatever. Think of places in the Sinosphere such as Singapore, Taiwan, Japan, Hong Kong, or if you are planning on going to the Indosphere (which is not too big of a step down) since they did give us Buddhism after all, Nepal and Thailand. Your most important goal, however, is to rewire your brain to think in a more Sinic or Indic way and be more in touch with Buddhism.
You can hardly consider yourself a Westerner if you manage to do so, being Western only in your country of origin (and possibly race as well). I am definitely not like those other “people” from the West who strongly cling to Western culture because they just do not understand. Western cultural merit is almost solely from the proxy of our ancestors’ inventions, scientific discoveries, and political revolutions. Considering that the West is being brought towards the wrong direction in the modern era, we should get out of there culturally, if not physically, until it all hits the fan.
If the West continues its defilement of the rest of the world, when it falls, it will bring it all down with it. We must not lose or else everybody loses.
This pressure has a good side; because the bigger the great threat becomes, the more we will push ourselves to assimilate and raise children to fight for us. Considering the infectability of Western anti-intellectualism and “main character syndrome”, how could our Western peers know better? Buddhism is not a proselytizing “religion”, so our best bet is eliminating the promoter of the three poisons, the Westerner (especially the Christian Westerner), from our own lives. How it will run to us as its society collapses under itself and we welcome it to assimilate but say “we told you so”! The older I get, the better I know the Westerner. The better I know the Westerner, the easier it gets to excuse hostility against them, especially from the Sinosphere.
From my perspective, the ones to blame are not the angry, low-middle class white males in the rural United States nor the boba conservative bananas and right-wing coconuts who suck up to the West’s biggest scum, but rather the ones who have brainwashed them to fall for chauvinism, reactionarism, and laissez faire capitalism.
Realizing this, I am now closely investigating the sources of these beliefs which make up the foundation of social Darwinism and, when combined with totalitarian thinking, capitalist fascism. This is after I noticed that these systems are unsustainable and would destroy themselves from the inside out. The slow, painful destruction of communities who fall victim to them are well known to me. If one looks carefully, they can see the consequences that have been unfolding since the 2020 Coronavirus Pandemic. You may wonder: were the founders aware of this? My guess would be that they were not but were evil nonetheless because they were too selfish to think about the future, their descendants.
If this is the case, then it is the duty of us, the opponents of these ideologies, to spread the word faster than the ideologies are currently spreading in the West. It is hard for me to believe it is not the case considering that both Western political ideologies are fundamentally reactionary. Besides, I doubt they would want civilization as we know it to collapse.
I have a social Darwinist as a maternal uncle who sometimes meets with my parents, maternal grandfather, and younger brother and with his political conversations, often sourced from flawed studies, Russian news, and 4chan, I can easily study the principles of its theories. Both of my parents are also conservatives who support Trump and other immoral American politicians. Being raised by the two of them, I bet I could disguise myself as a Western right-wing traditionalist, maybe even a social Darwinist, since I know the way they speak, to whom they flock to, and how to make them give one their full attention. It would probably be easy to do this as some right-wing grifters can fool American right-wing audiences into thinking that they share the same beliefs (e.g. Thomas MacDonald).
Their kind are gullible because they do not listen to fact checkers and often do not do research to see if who they are listening to really practices what they preach.
Even though there are Westerners who are not like this, the West cannot coexist with Buddhism, let alone the cultures where it is dominant, as the West ruled by colonizing tirthikas and it will likely always be for as long as it lasts. And just because their culture is not as viable as the one founded on Buddhist, Sinic, or even Indic values does not give them the right to imperialize the rest of the world and bring it down with them. We can welcome the Westerner willing to change its ways, turn it into one of an Easterner, and have its culture go through a quick and painless demise, or the Westerner can continue its power trip, destroy everything it touches along with itself, and society will suffer a slow and painful death. This is what the conclusion that I have come to so far as I examine capitalist fascism and Westerners’ connection to it.
The Western doctrine of capitalist fascism rejects an aspect of maitrī, fulfilling beings’ basic needs, and substitutes it for a privilege towards the bourgeoisie and the exploitation of the workers’ labor (also known as Vergegenständlichung or “objectification”). Thus it denies the worth of the collective, only concerns itself with greedy individuals, and thus is immoral. Unlike what the non-Buddhist capitalist wants people to believe, all beings have an altruistic Buddha nature, but it is corrupted, being difficult to notice as it has only conditions without a beginning (listed in the Avijjā Sutta). Abandoning capitalism, both fascist and non-fascist, gives power to the people as it ensures a more guaranteed right to life instead of having not even one thousand billionaires own more than half of Earth’s population combined, more than each one of those billionaires could ever spend in their lifetimes.
Should the Westerner, especially one who pushes capitalist fascism, strengthen its grip on humanity, it can be said that it would make its own naraka.
And so I stand by my plan and encourage others to do the same because it is in the name of the Unsurpassable Enlightened One. By protecting our kind against the Westerner, we are defending the Triple Gem.
If it is not already clear, the disapproval I feel towards the societal values and prevailing norms of the West has led me to question my place in this environment. I believe that meaningful change can only be fostered if the West is put into its place and the Sino-Buddhist East motivates our minds.
In Vietnam, where the culture is predominantly Sinic with some Indic aspects and little European influence, we can see the promotion of quality education, collectivism, and Buddhism (practiced by a forgivable 15% of the population), very unlike the nearby country of the Philippines. In the Philippines, its citizens cling to the Anglo-Saxon and Hispanic culture brought to the country by American and Spaniard imperialists. The effects of this are very clear in their average IQs (Vietnam: 89.53 vs. Philippines: 81.64) and PISA scores (Vietnam: 1403 vs. Philippines: 1058). They are both developing countries in Southeast Asia that were colonized by the West, but because Vietnam kept its culture more pure and stuck to Buddhism (or at least Sinic philosophies), its people are better educated compared to the nearby Westernized countries in a similar economic situation.
In short, Westernization leads to the following:

1. The native culture becomes diluted
2. If Western thinking intrudes, mental degeneration takes hold of the native population and its society slowly degrades along with the West itself as it eats itself from the inside out

Those who cause this to happen must be stopped, especially those who endanger Buddhism. We must not wait for the fruition of their karma for their sacrilege of the Tathagata’s teachings because by then it would be too late, and even if it is instant karma, every bodhisattva’s job is to end suffering.
Those who spread the harmful ideologies bring themselves and others away from the Buddha’s word are polluting humanity by having them join their rat race that will only end in their own demise. They are leading to the ruin of many and thus, I do not consider them to be human but instead parasites.
There is a disgraceful Western belief that for a short amount of time was not held by the majority but is now very pervasive in the West and also is the foundation of reactionarism, chauvinism, and capitalism in all cultures. It says: “My individual rights matter the most and freedom means my right to violate the rights of others.”
This Western babble is followed by numerous all around the world and sows disharmony in societies where it becomes the norm. This idea provides basis for several types of Westerners, including but not limited to:

• the “Karen”; a middle-aged, entitled, often white and anti-mask/anti-vaccine female who makes trivial complaints
• the “Chud”; a racist, misogynistic, right-wing male (usually young) who browses 4chan everyday and has a high likelihood of becoming a mass shooter
• the dayangma (Hanzi: 大洋马); a sex-obsessed young adult Western female, majority white but sometimes POC, is conventionally attractive (to Westerners), sleeps around, and in some cases creates spawn that do not know their father(s)
• the angry white male; self-explanatory, right-wing and traditionalist (sometimes a social Darwnist or capitalist fascist), commonly rural, evangelical Christian and have never seen a POC before
• the “Trad Wife”; a prudish, sometimes uneducated, female who lets Western males walk all over it and raises spawn who are likely to become angry whites
• the New Agehippy; generally a teenager or young adult, a well-meaning but poorly educated white liberal or social democrat who misappropriates Buddhism and appeases Muslims
• the AmeriKKKan fathegrandfather; a middle-aged to elderly, chauvinist male with children, sometimes also grandchildren, and is unconcerned about social justice and similarly to the “Karen”, falls for pseudoscientific conspiracy theories
• the neckbearded otaku (Hiragana: おたく); a hairy white male with “yellow fever” and mediocre hygiene, for the most part subreddit/Discord server moderators who stalk and kidnap East Asian ladies (if not teenage girls)

The growth of these groups is evidence of the degradation of Western culture, showing that it must retire as the dominant culture and make way for the much more sustainable East. Once the manuṣya realm on Earth is completely tainted by the West, Buddhas can no longer arise in the world because the dharma would be known by nobody and the Vinaya are forgotten or destroyed.
The future generation will not remember the dharma unless we halt the growth of the parasitic culture that promotes overconsumption, hyperindividualism, and anti-intellectualism.
The Westerner has a remarkable contrast to the Sinic or Indic. The Westerner has a grasp on this world so strong with its weaponry since the 16th century, using force to disrupt the traditional lives of whatever native people it saw, safe for those in a few countries (even though some of those countries are still being Westernized). The Dutch, English, French, Portuguese, and Spanish built colonies from the Americas to Southeast Asia. The kingdoms were blessed with powerful militaries, strong economies, stable governments, and advanced technology that allowed their cultures to spread. But after half a millennium and looking back, was any of this really earned? And is the Westerner’s conquest over yet?
Since the Great Schism of Christianity, the Westerner trained itself for roughly one thousand years. It trained itself in several aspects, but it forgot an important piece, the dharma. The cunning Westerner, blessed with advancements, used them to tyrannize other peoples on a scale never before seen. This was the beginning of the Latter Day of the Dharma. The dharma is declining because of the savage Westerner. And so, it leeched off of any people it got a hold of, including predominantly Buddhist peoples. Even during the decolonization of the 20th century, fundamentalist Christianity spread and threatened the dharma. To make matters worse, previously Buddhist peoples clung to Christianity as taught by their colonizers; the French in Vietnam and the Spanish and Americans in the Philippines. To this day, the Philippines is a lost cause along with its majority Muslim neighbors in Maritime Southeast Asia. The cunning Westerner turned the Filipino against us and now Buddhists make up only 2% of the Philippines’ population. Now, the Westerner sees Buddhism as nothing more than an aesthetic, a self-help lifestyle, or a decoration that they can commercialize and cherry pick aspects to integrate into their religion or lack thereof.
It is excellent for someone from the West to learn the dharma as this will turn them into a more compassionate and wise person, but they must not enforce the Western gaze onto it and discard parts of the Shakyamuni Buddha’s words they do not like. To be fair, some aspects of Buddhism would be nearly impossible for a Westerner to understand unless they assimilate.
Buddhism is not materialist or blind belief without evidence and it belongs to the East, so stop pretending to be something you are not while pushing stereotypes of Asian Buddhists.
However, even though Buddhism is not materialist or very in line with the Western worldview, it is uniquely human. Walpola Rahula, a Sri Lankan Buddhist monk and writer explains it this way:
Among the founders of religions the Buddha (if we are permitted to call him the founder of a religion in the popular sense of the term) was the only teacher who did not claim to be other than a human being, pure and simple. Other teachers were either God, or his incarnations in different forms, or inspired by him. The Buddha was not only a human being; he claimed no inspiration from any god or external power either. He attributed all his realization, attainments and achievements to human endeavour and human intelligence. A man and only a man can become Buddha. Every man has within himself the potentiality of becoming a Buddha, if he so wills it and endeavours. We can call the Buddha a man par excellence. He was so perfect in his 'human-ness' that he came to be regarded later in popular religion almost as 'super-human'. Man's position, according to Buddhism, is supreme. Man is his own master, and there is no higher being or power that sits in judgment over his destiny. (Rahula 3)
How could one even consider the Westerners who diluted Buddhism human themselves at this point? If it were not for them, Westerners may have a better understanding of the teachings of the “man par excellence”. We are lucky that the only Westerners who necessarily see us as inferior are white nationalists and fundamentalist Christians, otherwise the Westerner could have committed a genocide that would have left millions of us dead. Westerners are competitive beings, so they rarely act in concord towards each other. It is only when there is something that draws them together or away from a common danger.
If everybody on Earth becomes a Westerner, they would wallow in their shamelessness and would have nobody left to exploit except for each other until they destroy themselves.
Until they are the only ones left, they will vilify and exploit anything non-Western until they only have each other, then leading to a chaotic world of undignified militaries, economic inequality, corrupt governments, and little or no innovations.
Unless the Westerner considers even the slightest of inspiration from the East, it will continue to follow hyperindividualism and have apathy towards its education. That is why the West is falling. Those from the West who are smart enough to realize that the West’s flaws that it spreads are deciding that the West is not worth maintaining and its resignation is overdue. If those from the West abandon it to assimilate to the East, it would make the West’s death quicker but more dignified.
This is more than a fad but rather the realization that Western society would be best being a passing fad itself. The West gave us great inventions, food, clothes, scientific discoveries, etc. and once it is gone, the East can pick up where it left off just fine.
We will never abandon the Triple Gem because we recognize it to be more than a spiritual, exotic aesthetic or trend. To do so would make us just like those others in the West who Asian Buddhists look down upon. When the time is right, each and every one of us will surround ourselves with the people who know the dharma better than anyone you have met in the West and we can finally be at their level. We shall be Western only in our country of origin and/or race, but in every other way, we will be Easterners; Buddhist Easterners who will take back what rightfully belongs to us.
When we (and hopefully Buddhists outside of both the Eastern and the Western world) do this, consumerism will lose some of its biggest prey. Even though it may not seem like it at first considering we are abandoning everyone we have ever known, we are doing our ancestors a favor by joining the culture that strives towards the end of suffering. We will be leaving our cultures’ ways of thinking behind, but doing this will save face for our lineage, especially the Western lineage as we would be preventing the creation of more “Karens”, “Chuds”, dayangmas, “neckbeards”, and other degenerates. We will not be annoying dorky nerds and certainly not “neckbeards” who are overly obsessed with and fetishize the culture but people making an effort to get closer to the dharma and surrender to the East.
Although we are collectivists, we must seek personal liberation first for the good of other beings. Once the West collapses and its former supporters come running to us, we shall welcome them. If some do not recognize this before it is too late, well boo hoo! They will have a better birth with the world we will create. Some of them, especially their unlucky spawn, would probably be better off dead and reborn into a better life, maybe even the Pure Land.
The way it is looking now, the West is falling and becoming the world’s laughingstock, which is a good thing. The quicker it falls, the less painful it will be for the Westerner and everybody else. Western culture will not be missed, but we can keep the best of it and continue the innovations that the creators would wish to see. We will remember the legacy of them and be thankful while never forgiving or forgetting the ones who ruined the West.
Works Cited
“Ignorance Avijjā Sutta (AN 10:61).” Translated by Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu. Dhammatalks. 2017, https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN10_61.html. Accessed 31 May 2024.
Gabbe. “Western Culture.” Wikipedia. 25 May 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_culture#:~:text=The%20core%20of%20Western%20civilization,Roman%20civilization%20and%20Western%20Christianity. Accessed 31 May 2024.
Rahula Thero, Walpola. What the Buddha Taught. Oneworld Publications, 1959. Accessed 31 May 2024.
u/Tendai-Student. “栄真Eishin (u/Tendai-Student).” Reddit, 31 May 2024, https://www.reddit.com/useTendai-Student/. Accessed 31 May 2024.
u/Tendai-Student. “Buddhism is being MISREPRESENTED in the West Marginalisation, cultural appropriation, misconceptions and what you can do.” Reddit, 2023, https://www.reddit.com/WrongBuddhism/comments/14zc6xg/buddhism_is_being_misrepresented_in_the_west/. Accessed 31 May 2024.