The Play Within the Play
The Lady Doth Protest Too Much, methinks...
The following started as an AI assisted(Grok) translation of a live stream I recorded November 17th on Substack, and will function as a companion to an upcoming piece on the fractured “right”, and specifically how this affects AI alignment, which we argue constantly in this Substack publication is a human alignment problem masquerading as a technological one, and nothing is more important than getting it right.
So, what do we mean by “right” and which right is right?
Before we post this, we want to be crystal clear: this is not a stand-alone piece. It was written in conjunction with the companion essay embedded below. The political landscape is shifting fast enough that these two essays had to be written together.
The Court Jester or the Joker?
Before we post this, we want to be crystal clear: this is not a stand-alone piece. It was written in conjunction with the companion essay embedded below. The political landscape is shifting fast enough that these two essays had to be written together.
One essay takes a linear, logical approach.
The other takes a lateral, symbolic, artistic approach.
Both are required to see the whole picture.
Thesis:
The real fracture on the right isn’t ‘policy’ or even generational — It’s spiritual: between a globalist, Israel-first project justified as ‘Judeo-Christian values’ and an America-first project rooted in a specifically Christian understanding of imago Dei — That fracture shows up in how we talk about war, free speech, and ultimately what kind of moral universe we are going to hand to AI systems.
Scene One — The Setup
A very interesting realignment is happening to the “right” side of American politics — the “West” more generally speaking — and some of the heaviest hitters are asking questions that up until this moment had been buried in a similar fashion to the father of Hamlet Sr., the King in the classic Shakespearian play — not everyone is satisfied with the new king and it’s causing a radicalized Hamlet to ask difficult questions.
Give Me Some Light
I had to change a flat tire this morning, one I can’t afford due to certain immediate circumstances, but sometimes when it rains, it pours—and for some of us it’s been pouring since 2020 — perhaps even before — but really most predominantly for me it was around 2020 I realized something was terribly wrong with the world, I just didn’t know what it was, but I was definitely ahead of the curve in trying to make sense of it.
Most of my friends and family have become increasingly fatigued by the onslaught of constant lying created by legacy media and the bureaucracy of public health, general and seemingly feckless politicians, but mostly no one taking accountability for any of the damage that was being done by people who’s job it is to work for the general public they were seemingly targeting. And still here we are and no one has paid hardly any price for any of the totally irresponsible behaviours they engaged in.
Many have asked me why I keep trying to make sense of it all, they just want to put it all behind them and move on, but I’ve refused to let it go. In my case there are consequences for being so out in the open over these last few years. People don’t want to hire someone who they think is volatile or irrational, when in reality I’m actually more sane than I’ve ever been and when I look at the seemingly zombie like behaviour of the general public in the face of everything that has been happening since 2020, at least most people you speak to acknowledge this is not normal, but they don’t know what to make of it, the possibilities are too disturbing and multi faceted.
The increased conspiracy theorizing hatched out of this atmosphere of constant finger pointing has grown considerably — all this bad faith action has itself littered society so much trying to figure out what the hell happened has itself splintered into a thousand different micro niche areas to uncover compounded corruption and social media sleuths have been proliferating on platforms like X and especially here on Substack which is less of a writers platform than it is a space to learn how to think again, because there’s just so much dirt to dig up — some of these new school theorizers make their focus all about debating faith, medical corruption, banking corruption, the military industrial complex, banking corruption, or some hybrid overlap.
Worst of all the old school definitions of “left” vs. “right” tensions are provoking something that’s starting to look eerily like the beginnings of civil war in multiple Western countries that have been almost completely transformed in many areas by the mass immigration caused by all the fallout of endless wars and inflamed crisis zones, but if the problems were caused by the “left” or the “right” the outcomes of exacerbating those influences on aboriginal citizens in countries like Ireland, England, Canada and France and not reversing some past “colonial” injustice, they’re repeating and amplifying it, and the new battle grounds don’t look or sound anything like the old ones — instead it’s just straight up tribalism, which is what we’re told colonialism tried to get rid of in the first place because you can’t have a stable society if everyone gets more jingoistic, against the country they live in, in favour of the country they came from.
This should go without saying but it’s very easy to burn something to the ground, and our “social justice” managerial class is showing us every day just how easy it really is to destroy something — but to rebuild it from the ashes is going to take some hard looking in the mirror — never mind trying to make sense of how the AI explosion is going to affect the current dynamics of a heavily divided world.
To top off the gigantic sh@t sandwich Boomers and the managerial mayhem class is trying to shove down the throats of our youth, this seemingly coordinated attack on free speech being mounted against Americans and the MAGA “right”, and what can I tell you — I’ve got this sinking feeling I’m over the target trying to make sense of what the problem is, but simply early again, so let me try to tell you about it using the following example.
A hilariously Boomeriffic conversation took place a few days ago between Bill O’Reilly and Piers Morgan about Nick Fuentes. When you watch the following embedded clip notice how easily these political relics dismiss the concerns of people who want to know why certain political actors in America are trying to convince the taxpayers of the future that sending so much blood and treasure into the outside world makes for true common sense, when it’s money that might be better spent on Americans for American problems at home? And why exactly is America fighting these wars anyways when there appears to be nothing in it for the youth but the promise of the never-ending conflicts they’re going to be left as a some kind of demonic birthright, when that is not nor was it ever what America or the West were supposed to be about? When the Boomers were growing up, they were handed a prosperous country, something approximating a white picket fence, an affordable home, dogs, cats, and kids with cottages and campers to take vacations with, even if there was a full time job that paid for it all. The question is what kind of circumstances faced that generation when half of them could tune in turn on and drop out and still be able to have a relatively peaceful existence and some kind of success if they went to school and picked a profession, whether it was in the manufacturing plant, building homes or teaching in the schools, and it wasn’t one that left them with a bill that wasn’t likely to be paid off until after their grandkids were born?
True, it was never about freedom from responsibility, so who’s responsible for the loss of freedoms? During the great “covid-19” pandemic that was hardly challenged by the Boomers themselves and largely selfishly handled, are the Boomers themselves not somehow responsible for the world they created that has gone from great promise to nothing but a hollowed out promise suggesting if you just strap up your bootlaces it might become great, again?
The future they were handed was bright and as long as you were a relatively decent person it was even brighter. Meanwhile youth that listen to Fuentes are asking what the hell did you guys to our the country? Why is everything broken? Why is the most likely future that might actually be able to drag their prospects out of the basement for an average girl Onlyfans soft porn and for an average guy MMA, or for the softer side of the equation in the manosphere an Onlyfans account with hard porn? Hilariously the word manoshpere itself is loaded with condemnation from the UN because apparently it only refers to men who actually act like men, further condemning them as if they were born with natural sin. Add in the fact that if you’re “white” and straight it’s not only the women coming after you for being born that way, it’s also everyone else, whether it’s the Israel first lobby, the self aggrandizing and never guilty Boomers who through their own total weakness if the face of leftist occupation of the political and social domains let their sons and grandsons become the butt of every joke from every other culture and country in the world. Where were you guys? Relaxing at the cottage and paying for affairs with all that extra scratch you didn’t earn?
If someone hands you a broken piggy bank with nothing in it but a credit card debt that can never reasonably be paid off while simultaneously packing it in for retirement in Florida to live of the compound interests accrued from the debts attached to the credit card debts owed back to the investment houses paying their pensions, do the Boomers plan on explaining how exactly is that fair?
I’m no economist, but how is having no real plan to do something about the quickly mounting debts all over the world while also stoking wars on multiple fronts including within their own political parties when youth like Fuentes point out how completely retarded and shallow their ideas really a good plan?
In short, if the cost of “freedom” is no freedom from the cost, cui bono?
When commenting on Fuentes — a rather bright young man who’s star is ascendent unlike Bill who should really be put out to pasture — Bill suggests that Nick Fuentes is really just some dumb kid who’s concerns are irrelevant, and it’s up to “conservatives” to not give his “anti-semitic” ideas any platform. He proceeds to wag the finger from his podium at anyone who doesn’t agree with his analysis — Case closed — you’re welcome.
God bless him but Bill suggests Nick Fuentes doesn’t “know anything about history” — I wonder how much Bill or even Piers could tell us about the differences between “dispensationalism” and “covenant” theological thinking in Christianity, or perhaps give us the basic story of supersessionism, because Nick seems to understand quite a bit, actually. Not only that Nick seems to understand what the Jewish Kabbalistic narrative is about bringing forth the Messiah(Mashiach), winning the Holy war and bring a thousand years of peace, which one must concede sounds like something that people might want if they believed it to be true, is something I never hear O’Reilly or Morgan discuss, ever.
In fact it is rather amusingly conceded in the following clip by two Jewish commentators who are now shitting on Trump and trying to embrace Fuentes as potentially one of their own — what a crazy time to be alive, when the Boomers concerned about “anti semitism” are on the opposite page as actual religious Jewish people when it comes to what Fuentes is pointing out.
It’s rather amazing to me that this complete inversion of reality is happening in minds all around the political world, and so many people — instead of trying to understand one another’s perspective — are just trying to “win” arguments. This is not the way.
So perhaps it would help to know something about the back story, straight out of Nicks mouth?
The Real Divide
We on this Substack have been trying to highlight what we see as the major dispute happening on the “right” ourselves for several days now because it does indeed matter when it comes to thinking more deeply about the major recurring theme of our writing which is about AI alignment — but we’d be willing to bet Bill, just like Ted Cruz and Piers Morgan, have no idea what they’re saying when they repeat a specific phrase, and if they did, they probably wouldn’t be running around espousing “…our Judeo-Christian” values, because that’s the real dividing line between the actual “factions” on the emergent political realities, of which there are basically two main contenders, and we’re not saying we want it to be this way, and yet a lot of people are starting to realize that it really is where the major divide is happening, and what it’s ultimately about:
Israel first
vs.
America first
In fact Tucker Carlson just pretty much ended any suggestion this is not what’s actually happening with a guest he had on his program last night, who’s explanations about what is “radicalizing” the American youth, and why they’re exactly what Fuentes — no matter how flawed he might be in his messaging — has been actually saying they’re really about. What made it so devastating is this young man is not the infamous Fuentes, he is the son of Nikki Halley, who came in second in the 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries after Donald Trump. We think it was an incredible interview and a devastating blow to the Israel first narrative. I highly recommend the entire program but I’ve snipped 22 key minutes for you that needs to heard if you think that the problem is Nick, something we’ll be trying to dissect throughout the rest of this article.
All the Worlds a Stage
Despite the orthodox presentation of the divide on the “right”, between Boomers and what most Israel first talking heads derogatorily calling names like Groypers, “woke right”, NAZI’s, and anti MAGA, but how can that label be accurate coming from a group, many of whom who were never MAGA in the first place? It seems to be people who were “never Trumpers” are now claiming to be the most MAGA of all, but also worshipping of Israel and Judeo values as if they somehow explain something that to America first people sounds increasingly emotionally unhinged. You might as well call them the basket of deplorables.
On this Substack publication, we argue, as Fuentes does and Carlson seems to be suggesting, the biggest fight isn’t about “policy” so much as it’s about which spirit, “Israel first” or “America first” runs the big show — here we like to flesh out the deeper question — when we say “Judeo Christian”, are those concepts identical or opposing? Microcosms or macrocosms? Inversions or mirror images? — left, right, up, down, forwards or backwards, or simply lacking a principled position from which to reason and if so what do “they” point us at? — Lastly but not leastly, are we talking about the prince, or the King?
What does it mean to be an “American”, separate from the “West”? Are they the same thing? Because that is indeed what is being debated, by people not from the West, unless of course we suggest that Israel is a “Western” country, which it most certainly is if we compare it to its neighbours. But are we talking about the same set of values? Because it sounds like what we’re really talking about is the difference between a globalist mindset, and an American one.
Answering this deeper question matters more than anything else, especially in the context of the Western values — it’s about who gets to define “American values” — is it “Western values”? “Christian values”? “Jewish values”? Islamic values? Who gets to decide and who or what owns your soul? What is the soul? Is it devotional or methodological? Material or Metaphysical? Is it a hybrid? And if so, what are we? Are we talking about a universal standard, or a standard for the universe? Is there a difference? Should there be? If there should be why should there be? How can we know?
If you aren’t approaching the question of “values” by first asking what we even mean when we use that word, you probably think it’s about something as simple as identity politics, which the Israel first side is all too happy to endorse even if they like to pretend that’s not what they’re doing, but is it really that simple?
Their argument goes like this:
America first = white nationalist/racist/NAZI
vs.
Israel first = pluralistic secular liberalism/anti racism/Ally
You may note that this is a very difficult sell to most Americans, regardless of whether they find themselves on the “left” or “right” side of the political spectrum, but to the pushers of this narrative — people like James Lindsey something we explored in depth in an earlier stack — “they” have been trying for months (rather unsuccessfully) to convince the world that not liking this framework represents a new category they call the “woke right”, but hardly anyone is buying it because there’s something seriously off about narrative.
“They” are trying too hard to get us to buy into this idea that the “barbarians” of Islam are somehow tainted by their very DNA — something Tucker keeps pointing out — when the truth is we’re talking about human beings, and human beings are not simply the byproduct of their genes, their environment, and their circumstance — they have a Soul that is immaterial and a gift from God, a concept known to most Christians as “imago Dei”.
Imago Dei does indeed have a dual understanding — one from the Old Testament, and one from the New Testament — but are they the same thing?
From Wikipedia:
Following tradition, a number of Jewish scholars, such as Saadia Gaon and Philo, argued that being made in the image of God does not mean that God possesses human-like features, but rather the reverse: that the statement is figurative language for God bestowing special honour unto humankind, which he did not confer unto the rest of creation….
Doctrine associated with God’s image provides important grounding for the development of human rights and the dignity of each human life regardless of class, race, gender, or disability, and it is also related to conversations about the human body’s divinity and role in human life and salvation.[2]
Old Testament: Genesis 1:27
27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
The is just one of many passages but the point I’m trying to demonstrate is the version of imago Dei in the Old Testament denies the Divinity of Jesus, as He had not yet existed, even though there are a great deal many ways that one can make the case Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of a many prophecies from the Old Testament — but if you reject that He Is who He said He Is, we don’t get the additional interpretation of imago Dei that completely changes the story, and thus the ethical and moral framework derived specifically from the Christian Bible:
New Testament (from Wikipedia)
The New Testament reflects on Christ as the image of God and humans both as images of God and Christ.
God, having in the past spoken to the fathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, has at the end of these days spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds. His Son is the radiance of his glory, the very image of his substance
and transferred us into the Kingdom of the Son of his love; in whom we have our redemption, the forgiveness of our sins; who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him.
“Because those whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the Firstborn among many brothers”;
But we all with unveiled face, beholding and reflecting like a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, even as from the Lord Spirit.
that the light of the Gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn on them. For we don’t preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake; seeing it is God who said, “Light will shine out of darkness,” who has shone in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
The point is simple — God may have created the universe and man within it, but Jesus gave us the opportunity to know God in the flesh, and we can choose to know Him and what He wants for us, or we can choose to pretend there is no way to know what we are arguing is the proper interpretation of imago Dei, as superseded by the new Principled position of the Son of God. Do we accept He Is who He said He Is, or not?
Which brings us to an interesting question; What is the opposite of imago Dei?
Let us first preface this with an opening statement:
These terms—imago Dei and what Gemini suggests is its opposite — imago diaboli—do not describe people as essences — They describe what spirit a system or ideology aligns with, and this is a piece about how people can be motivated based on what they believe to be the truth, which is a concept that will be fleshed out in the second half.
As a Christian, this writer believes, as is compelled by my faith, every human bears God’s image; the Holy Spirit, the Soul, human consciousness, the Divine spark, a gift from God open to everyone at will — the question therefore is trying to answer a deeper question about “human nature”, and what we orient that image toward.
Gemini:
The opposite of imago Dei is “image of the devil” (imago diaboli), a theological concept describing humanity’s fallen state after sin, where the original image of God is defaced and corrupted. Other opposing concepts include idolatry, which directly contradicts being created in God’s image by worshipping a creation instead of the Creator, and the view of a wholly secular human, stripped of any intrinsic value derived from a divine image, as described in Trochia Ministries and Credo Magazine.
Opposing concepts to imago Dei
Imago diaboli (image of the devil):
This concept, explored by Martin Luther, suggests that the human image has been so corrupted by sin that it has become the opposite of the image of God.
It describes the state of humanity after the fall, where the image of God is present but marred and defaced.
This is a direct contradiction of being made in God’s image, as it involves worshipping created things rather than the Creator.
It is considered a severe corruption of human nature because it flatly contradicts the purpose for which humans were created.
Secular/materialistic view of human value:
In contrast to the belief that humans possess inherent value because they are made in God’s image, some ideologies deny that humans have any innate value beyond what is assigned to them by society or what they can achieve.
This view is seen as a dangerous opposite, as it removes the foundation for respecting intrinsic human value and can lead to the justification of atrocities, as was brutally portrayed by regimes in the 20th century, according to Trochia Ministries.
To delve deeper into the philosophical implications of imago Dei, you can explore this Wikipedia article on the Image of God. Additionally, this PBS article on *Imago Dei* provides a glossary definition of the term. You can also read this article from the St Andrews Encyclopaedia of Theology to understand how the concept relates to aniconism in the Old Testament.
Gemini:
In popular culture and theological discussions, the Latin phrase imago diaboli (image of the devil) is primarily associated with fallen, sinful, or morally corrupted humanity, standing in stark opposition to the concept of imago Dei (image of God).
Key associations and contexts include:
Theological Contrast: In Christian theology, the imago diaboli describes the human condition after “The Fall” (original sin), suggesting that humanity, which was originally created in God’s image, has become a reflection of Satan’s sinfulness and rebellion.
Depiction of Evil: In literature and film, characters embodying pure evil or profound moral corruption may be described implicitly or explicitly as the imago diaboli. For example, some literary analyses suggest that characters like Iago in Shakespeare’s Othello or King Richard in Richard II function as the “demonic inverse” of an ideal ruler (rex imago Dei).
Moral Depravity: The phrase is used to highlight extreme human depravity, where actions and character are seen as entirely opposed to divine or moral goodness.
Monsters and Villains: More generally, in fiction, the concept can be associated with supernatural villains or monstrous figures whose existence or actions are presented as a direct antithesis to divine creation, such as “The Beast” in the Book of Revelation, which is interpreted as an imago diaboli in some contexts.
Horror and the Demonic: In the horror genre, the term can be used in discussions of demonic possession or characters who have fully embraced evil, losing their inherent “divine image” and becoming vessels of the demonic.
We want to be extremely clear — we are not implying anything about any one or any particular belief system, because the entire point of the article is to explain the kind of rhetoric that is currently being thrown around in political discourse, because to avoid the kinds of misunderstandings that might trigger World War Three, we here think it’s worth talking about the motivations beneath the belief systems that people adopt, and how they influence behaviour. So let us humbly attempt to translate one more time, from both the materialistic and the mystical/spiritual perspectives, broadly speaking and not singling out any individual, but instead of using the “Israel first” narrative that wants humanity to follow Israel into battle no matter what, let’s do it from the perspective of American youth who are arguing ever louder that America is actually the byproduct of a Christian ethical framework that wants what is best for Americans, and their needs, no matter what advocates for “Judeo Christian” values, whatever those are, say:
America first = sovereignty/against materialism/macrocosm/Chosen God
vs.
Israel first = globalism/genes and geography aka materialism/microcosm/Gods “chosen”
One wants all of what’s “good” as identified in the Old Testament/Jerusalem — One wants what’s good for all as identified in the New Testament/Jerusalem (the Holy Church becomes the “Bride” of Jesus — Same Father, different message.
In fact the two are truly mirror images — imago Dei / Imago diaboli — I am made in the image of God/God is made in my image ergo I am God, and everyone else is an impostor in my castle.
It’s Free Will — I Choose / it’s my will — I choose for you.
Jesus came to His people, and it’s up to them whether or not they want to keep Him, or share Him, but it’s Not up to them whether or not He came to Share Himself.
Free Will is Given, you can’t keep it for yourself.
This conversation really isn’t for people who like to keep it light and can tend towards the more amusing if not very serious take that requires understanding some of the back story. This is no laughing matter, but even for Rosanne there seems to be some realization that we’re talking about Rome and it’s role when it comes to Israel.
After all, this isn’t the first time the “Judeo — Christian” dynamic affected the relationship between the King and the Queen, with the Queen being subservient —but the thing about a subservient Queen is she can also be quite crafty when it comes to power as the Queen knows enough to fear the outside world, but does she create it?
In the political arena, Ben Shapiro and Mark Levin are attempting, rather feebly, to duke it out with Carlson and Fuentes while O’Reilly and Morgan clutch pearls because Tucker had Fuentes on without trying to destroy him as Fuentes claims Shapiro has been trying to do since he first realized Fuentes might be a threat to Shapiro brand “conservatism” — and now the Israel first camp is screaming “anti-Semitism!” and “theocracy!” like it’s 1939, while they praise people who push their narrative, apparently blissfully unaware how this looks to most Americans.
Here’s a clip of Ben being praised at the “Tikvah : Jewish Leadership Conference” for calling Tucker Carlson “the most virulent superspreader of vile ideas in America…” as if it’s a good thing to encourage ad hominems when you have no real counter to substantive points about the behaviour of people who don’t do what their told by the Israel first crowd who’s main argument seems to be “you can’t say that because I’m Jewish”, but why are they so mad at Tucker Carlson when all he’s doing is letting people exercise their free speech in a country founded on the right to an opinion that isn’t censored because it might hurt the feelings of the king and queen?
But watch closely. This isn’t politics. This is Hamlet putting on a play within a play, and Big Orange just sided with his true base, a huge win for Carlson, Fuentes, and the first amendment, because apparently Trump knows who he works for, and it’s not the wannabe emperor with no clothes, no audience, and no arguments.
Act Three - Scene Two - the Play Within a Play
The Scene Within the Scene
Remember Hamlet? It’s a famous Shakespearian play that I was personally introduced to in High School, but it’s also the source of a fairly well known aphorism — a quote referencing human behaviour that rings true throughout the course of time. After all, human cycles might not necessarily repeat, but they most certainly rhyme.
In the play the main character is Hamlet who suspects his uncle murdered his father and married his mother, but he’s not sure and needs proof. His solution? Hiring actors to perform the exact crime in front of the royal court, and his uncle and mother to see how they react— an instant classic.
In the Hollywood production starring Mel Gibson as Hamlet, he creeps up behind his mother during the show and asks “Madame, how like you this play?”
She replies “The Lady doth protest too much, methinks.”
That’s the aphorism — it refers to a person who appears to be overacting.
Originally when I hearkened back to the play I hadn’t thought about much since High school, and only after watching the scene from Act 3 scene 2 of Hamlet embedded above, and subsequently after looking up the phrase that came to mind — “methinks thou doth protest too much” — did I connect the scene to watching the Israel first types try to make their case and being helplessly outclassed by more reasonable minds. Something else that rhymes with human cycles is human behaviours to difficult situations — most people, when they feel they’ve “lost the argument” will desperately appeal to emotion over logic.
Thinking about Thinking
There is an entire field of study devoted to what happens when people “lose the plot” and resort to an argumentation style that exposes flaws in their reasoning called “logical fallacies”. Unfortunately when seeking to separate what is “true” from what is “false”, a lot of people engage in these fallacies to “win” arguments via these rhetorical slides of hand that has its own name which is sophistry, and to be a sophist is to be clever, but sneaky, engaging in often fallacious behaviour to “one up” your debating opponent, and this kind of creative argumentation, even if it was dishonest, was actually a highly valued skill in Roman times, so trying to discern what is “true” from what is “false” became less about separating what is “right” from what is “wrong” because winning was the most desirable outcome when it comes to running an empire — so if the empire benefits, that “truth” superseded “right” from “wrong” and transcended “true” from “false” as it was in service of the “greater good”.
In fact we see this happening a lot today in the political sphere, with the most recent form of “illogical” or more accurately intellectual charlatanism inspired thinking called “relativism”, largely deployed by Marxists and critical theorists who like to take concepts and flip them on their head as a form of thought exercise to expose a deeper truth about an issue.
Occam's Sword
This will be the first of a five part series designed to break through the noise, separating what we know and can know from what we simply assert we know. These ideas originally appeared as 3 separate X posts between March 26th and March 27th. If you could help me boost the signal on X by reposting, it would be appreciated.
You could make the argument that throughout the entire course of recorded history the field thinking about thinking has morphed into the most progressive form of philosophy, as it is all encompassing and includes the original ways people started to explore logic as a discipline which we might call Hermeneutics.
You could further make the case that this argumentation about ways to know what good logic is matters more than anything when it comes to AI alignment, which is what we do here. This further led us to design an entirely knew way to think about the difference between “intelligence” and “wisdom”, developing our own test to see how much of each helps identify people who are thinking logically and consistently over and above people who are not.
The "UK National Cyber Security Centre"
This morning I was looking into some of the “guidelines currently up on the UK NCSC website for “secure AI system development”, and to inject a little humour into the terrifying reality of where the current discourse is on the development of the most awesome potential weapons in the history of the world, I was reminded of the hilarious scene from Spaceb…
Why then should certain forms of argumentation be extremely valuable, yet ultimately totally circular, never even capable of finding the objective truth because over and above the subjective because they didn’t start with the ultimate expression of such a presupposition or principle? In this camp we would place religions like Hinduism and Buddhism, post modernism and critical theories of all variety, because they are negatively charged ideas about society, so they are ill equipped to deal with the fact that right now, all eyes are on the cradle of civilization where, depending on how you choose to reason, always comes back to one man in history that changed the course of the Western and Eastern worlds, but when it comes from people who say things like “facts don’t care about your feelings”, it seems totally out of place, and more logical minds spot the red flag.
When I watched Mel Gibson masterfully play Hamlet in the short clip embedded above, because it had been so long since I thought about the play I suspected the mother was “in on it” and believe I said something to that effect in my livestream. As such I suspected the mother was being sly to the last, knowing the Son is trying to evoke an emotion. But after witnessing the scene within a scene, portraying her own character as interpreted and adapted to the stage through the eyes of Hamlet, queen Gertrude concedes that the stage queens performance of love toward the king seemed a little put on or exaggerated.
“The Lady doth protest too much, methinks.”
I have since looked it up and concede I was misled by the intentional ambiguity of the scene — it turns out Gertrude is noticing the obvious overacting in the play, but that says nothing about what is in her heart — that information is between her and God.
That’s what takes a good piece of art and makes it exceptional — the audience gets to choose what to believe, and it can be interpreted as the mirror image of what another witness might see. In this case is Gertrude the victim or the perpetrator? The truth is in the exclusive eye of the beholder — should we take first impression or think deeply?
This is an important distinction, as Hamlet is accusing his Mother of guilt, not only because he thinks she might have been an accomplice to the murder of his father, but because he’s simply bitter that his Mother took up with another man — his Uncle no less — before the “body was cold”.
As it happens it’s a point of contention even among Shakespeare experts.
Gemini explains:
It is strongly implied in Shakespeare’s Hamlet that Gertrude had an affair with Claudius before King Hamlet’s death, though the play leaves some ambiguity. The ghost of King Hamlet refers to Claudius as an “incestuous adulterate,” and Hamlet is deeply disturbed by his mother’s hasty marriage to Claudius, which occurred shortly after the king’s death.
The Ghost’s accusation: The ghost of King Hamlet uses the term “adulterate” to describe Claudius, suggesting he and Gertrude had an affair before the king’s death.
The swift remarriage: Gertrude marries Claudius less than two months after King Hamlet’s death, a fact that deeply disturbs Hamlet and leads him to believe his mother was already unfaithful.
Hamlet’s perspective: Hamlet confronts Gertrude about her “o’erhasty marriage” and the “incestuous” nature of her new relationship, which he sees as a betrayal.
Ambiguity in the text: While the ghost’s words and the quick marriage strongly suggest an affair, some scholars note that the ghost’s language might be metaphorical or that Gertrude’s actions could be motivated by a desire to maintain her status as queen. Shakespeare leaves room for interpretation regarding the extent of Gertrude’s knowledge or involvement in the murder of her husband.
For more information on the relationship between Gertrude and Claudius, you can read this Wikipedia article about Gertrude and how different interpretations portray her character. For a different perspective, you could read this Quora thread where users discuss the hints in the play about Gertrude’s adultery.
The uncle for his part when confronted with what he has done, the new king after grappling with the image of what he had done when he killed his own brother, leaps up and storms out screaming “give me some light!”
That’s what we’re watching right now.
The uncle (the old guard—O’Reilly, Shapiro, the Judeo-Christian establishment) is freaking out because someone is shining the light on their behaviour on stage:
Military-industrial complex worship cheering on endless wars
Forcing “democracy” abroad while hollowing out the middle class at home
Using “Judeo-Christian values” as a loyalty oath
And in the audience — Tucker, Fuentes, millions of zoomers — are pointing and saying: “Why are you sweating, Uncle?” and “Madame, how like you this play?”
The Spirit Behind the Scene within the Scene
There’s also an extra element of the play we have not yet mentioned — beyond the material presentation of the details, the audience is also introduced to the mystical side of the story, and the spirit of the dead father whispers to Hamlet, informing him of the uncle’s treachery, something only he can hear. This too enrages Hamlet and he becomes rather accusatory in the following scenes, acting rather horribly to his mother who simply seems rather shocked he would be acting this way.
It even drives Hamlet to murder but not the uncle who he thinks he’s stabbing, but a bureaucrat Hamlet has always had a lot of contempt for named Polonius, one of Voltaire’s bastards.
Gemini:
Polonius is the Lord Chamberlain to the King, making him Hamlet’s father’s successor as a counselor to the new king, Claudius. He is the father of Ophelia and Laertes, and is also a foolish, meddling figure in Hamlet’s eyes. He is killed by Hamlet, who mistakes him for King Claudius, while Polonius is hiding behind a tapestry to spy on a private conversation between Hamlet and his mother, Gertrude.
Polonius’s role
Politician and counselor: Polonius is the chief counselor to King Claudius.
Father: He is the father of Ophelia and Laertes, and his actions often involve trying to control his children and their relationships.
Meddler: He is characterized as a verbose and foolish man who is more concerned with pleasing the King and Queen than with his own dignity.
Why he is in Gertrude’s room
Spying: Polonius hides behind a tapestry in Gertrude’s chamber to eavesdrop on her conversation with Hamlet.
Reason: He wants to gather information on Hamlet’s behavior, which he believes is caused by his love for Ophelia.
King’s orders: He is acting on behalf of Claudius to try and find out the reason for Hamlet’s strange behavior.
How he is killed
Mistaken identity: Hamlet, convinced he is speaking with Claudius, stabs blindly through the tapestry, not realizing it is Polonius behind it.
“Treachery”: Polonius shouts for help after Hamlet hears him moving behind the arras, but Hamlet attacks him anyway, thinking it is the King.
Consequences: The death of Polonius, a respected member of the court, has dire consequences for Hamlet and leads to a chain of tragic events.
Fate: Hamlet does not express much regret for the killing of Polonius, remarking that he thought he was the King and that Polonius learned his lesson about meddling.
The Real Contradiction Nobody Wants to Say Out Loud
The Israel first crowd keep shouting “Judeo-Christian values!”
But peel back the label and you find two completely different operating systems:
“Judeo” (Old Covenant): Tribal law, Blood and soil, Eye for an eye, Temple sacrifices, Theocracy
“Christian” (New Covenant): Universal brotherhood, imago Dei in every soul, Turn the other cheek, One sacrifice for all, Render unto Caesar
Thanos, Leviathan, and the Logos
Everyone loves a movie where the problem can be solved with one heroic gesture. Thanos snaps his fingers; the story settles; the credits roll. We cheer. We breathe. We call it catharsis. Real life is messier, but the spectacle is seductive — and in our moment it has metastasized into the way people tell the biggest origin stories about life, meaning, an…
Jesus didn’t “complete” Judaism—He superseded it.
He took the tribal covenant and made it cosmic, because He created the cosmos.
That’s why Paul wrote in Galatians 3:28:
“There is neither Jew nor Gentile… for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
The moment you attempt to glue “Judeo” back onto “Christian,” you’re dragging the faith backward into ethnicity and real estate. The Old Testament idols that can only be fulfilled by one group, who claim that Jesus was not who he said he was and only they know the right formula for world peace — Tikkun Olam — Imago diaboli
And that’s exactly what the Uncle/Rome/Military industrial complex wants—because it keeps the old power structure alive, even though the true king is dead — the ghost of the true king however still haunts and tells the son to keep asking questions as the queen and new king are not legitimate — at best one is a traitor and one adulterer.
The Eastern Orthodox Elephant in the Room
Why do we hate Russia so much? Is it possibly because Russia is the largest Orthodox Christian populated nation on earth with Ethiopia #2, and Ukraine #3. I bring this up because it sure is interesting that right when Christianity is having a resurgence amongst the youth of the West, two of the largest Christian nations in Europe are sending all their young men to kill each other in battle. It’s almost as if the Machiavellian princes molded in shape of their inspirational source are fighting over who gets to take what’s left of the kingdom for themselves — but the West is not a kingdom and the East is not bound to the schism, for the Kingdom of God is not territorial and it isn’t genetic — it’s a conglomeration of sovereign states that are now being called back to recognize who inspired them — it wasn’t Martin Luther, it wasn’t Rome, and it wasn’t Constantinople.
Gods people are not defined by what separates them but by what brings us together, and while families might fight and be fickle from time to time, the Church of Jesus is one body — not two, not four, and not a thousand points of light.
Is the West really that different from the East anymore? We have the same King, the same ethical foundation, the same Principle, the same Rock.
22 The stone the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone;
The East never went through the Reformation, they never married the state, or better yet the “Deep state”, the way Western Christianity did with Rome, then with London, then Washington, so they never married our queen, but there is evidence of an entirely different kind of queen there. One lady liberty who was the byproduct of the enlightenment and prompted the marriage of a radical mistress that inspired the French, Russian and Chinese revolutions. But that’s something we’ve discussed elsewhere if you’re interested — So why is NATO(globalist “Judeo Christian” Rome) attacking Russia? Why are Eastern and Western Christians killing each other over geography? Cui bono?
In the context of Russia itself —Putin, for all his flaws, keeps quoting Christ, protecting churches, and pushing multi-polarity, because that’s an Eastern Orthodox mindset, one that terrifies an empire whose foreign policy is built on endless war and evangelical Zionism. The boomers only see the material, because they’ve grown up in a world largely inspired by Popperism, but that king is screaming for light because he’s got a guilty conscience and people are starting to notice. What they’re seeing however is usually only half the story, the scene within the scene.
This conversation is not going away — in fact it’s climaxing and people are starting to have conversations the Boomers rarely had God bless them, traumatized as they were by two world wars that created a buffer between them and the metaphysical side of their religion — they were trying to create the world inspired by Popper, one called the “Open Society”, presumably free from the inspirations of the past, but the Strong gods won’t be kept from this battle and cracks in the “secular humanist” armour are starting to show.
So one Uncle Boomer puts Putin on the book cover next to Hitler, Mao and Khomeini, and the king freaks out again because he knows that Hamlet is suspicious to his loyalties, especially when the book is co-written by Polonius who has his own agenda.
The Punchline
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
When Bill O’Reilly clutches pearls over Nick Fuentes…
When Ben Shapiro screams “blood libel” at anyone questioning Israel policy…
When the entire neocon-boomer establishment loses its mind because someone simply asks, “Why are we funding forever wars in the name of Judeo-Christian values?”
…they’re doing exactly what Hamlet’s Uncle did, they’re trying to stop the show from playing itself out on stage and searching for light in a different story to tell, because the play just showed the murder he doesn’t want to remember.
So What Do We Do?
Stop saying “Judeo-Christian.”
Say Christian.
The values that built the West—forgiveness, imago Dei, unalienable rights—came from Jesus, not from temple law.Recognize the East-West schism can heal.
Russia isn’t the Soviet Union. Orthodox Christians are our brothers. Stop letting the military-industrial complex divide the church for profit.Watch the fruit, not the aesthetics.
Does the policy bear love, life, and liberty? Or does it bear debt, death, and division?
The king is sweating.
The queen is protesting too much.
And a whole generation of kids in the audience is starting to ask:
“Wait… what really happened to the old king?”
Keep watching the play.
The truth is about to take the stage.
Jesus walks — from a dad who just wants his kids and yours to grow up Free
P.S. you are here, and the scene within the scene is prepared for the chosen, which is anyone who knows how to put on the armour of God for the battle, but this isn’t a time for deception, it is a time to speak the Truth which was Revealed by the Logos.
The Wedding Banquet Is Ready — Choose Your Garment
The Parable of the Wedding Banquet
22 Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: 2 “The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. 3 He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come.
4 “Then he sent some more servants and said, ‘Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.’
5 “But they paid no attention and went off—one to his field, another to his business. 6 The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them. 7 The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.
8 “Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. 9 So go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.’ 10 So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, the bad as well as the good, and the wedding hall was filled with guests.
11 “But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. 12 He asked, ‘How did you get in here without wedding clothes, friend?’ The man was speechless.
13 “Then the king told the attendants, ‘Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’
14 “For many are invited, but few are chosen.”
Paying the Imperial Tax to Caesar
15 Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. 16 They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, “we know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are. 17 Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax[a] to Caesar or not?”
18 But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19 Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, 20 and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”
21 “Caesar’s,” they replied.
Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”
22 When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.
Marriage at the Resurrection
23 That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 24 “Teacher,” they said, “Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for him. 25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. 26 The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. 27 Finally, the woman died. 28 Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?”
29 Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 31 But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’[b]? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”
33 When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching.
The Greatest Commandment
34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[c] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[d] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
Whose Son Is the Messiah?
41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?”
“The son of David,” they replied.
43 He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says,
44 “‘The Lord said to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
under your feet.”’[e]
45 If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” 46 No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions.