It is not surprising that a great many promoters of "Indo-European" syncretic perennialism have been unusually quiet as of late.
Their idea that our ancient faiths need elements or parts of foreign religions to function or have traditional-grounding / legitimacy was always preposterous. Such a fusion would produce a Frankenstein-faith that never existed historically, insulting the Gods and Ancestors.
This is the same rationale we are seeing with the current H1B debate in the states, "in order to have a functioning nation/business you need to integrate foreigners." Or, "in order to have a functioning pagan faith you need to syncretize with foreign faiths."
Folkishness is not hatred for everything else, it is prioritizing your own, just as every single living being does.
Hopefully this debate about H1B shows the proponents of syncretic perennialism the error of their ways. That faiths and people are distinct from one another, and that's okay. That our revival can move past the last vestages of universalism
It is not surprising that a great many promoters of "Indo-European" syncretic perennialism have been unusually quiet as of late.
Their idea that our ancient faiths need elements or parts of foreign religions to function or have traditional-grounding / legitimacy was always preposterous. Such a fusion would produce a Frankenstein-faith that never existed historically, insulting the Gods and Ancestors.
This is the same rationale we are seeing with the current H1B debate in the states, "in order to have a functioning nation/business you need to integrate foreigners." Or, "in order to have a functioning pagan faith you need to syncretize with foreign faiths."
Folkishness is not hatred for everything else, it is prioritizing your own, just as every single living being does.
Hopefully this debate about H1B shows the proponents of syncretic perennialism the error of their ways. That faiths and people are distinct from one another, and that's okay. That our revival can move past the last vestages of universalism
On February 27th, Durov posted that Channels were becoming a source of unverified information and that the company lacks the ability to check on their veracity. He urged users to be mistrustful of the things shared on Channels, and initially threatened to block the feature in the countries involved for the length of the war, saying that he didn’t want Telegram to be used to aggravate conflict or incite ethnic hatred. He did, however, walk back this plan when it became clear that they had also become a vital communications tool for Ukrainian officials and citizens to help coordinate their resistance and evacuations. For Oleksandra Tsekhanovska, head of the Hybrid Warfare Analytical Group at the Kyiv-based Ukraine Crisis Media Center, the effects are both near- and far-reaching. Stocks dropped on Friday afternoon, as gains made earlier in the day on hopes for diplomatic progress between Russia and Ukraine turned to losses. Technology stocks were hit particularly hard by higher bond yields. Given the pro-privacy stance of the platform, it’s taken as a given that it’ll be used for a number of reasons, not all of them good. And Telegram has been attached to a fair few scandals related to terrorism, sexual exploitation and crime. Back in 2015, Vox described Telegram as “ISIS’ app of choice,” saying that the platform’s real use is the ability to use channels to distribute material to large groups at once. Telegram has acted to remove public channels affiliated with terrorism, but Pavel Durov reiterated that he had no business snooping on private conversations. Again, in contrast to Facebook, Google and Twitter, Telegram's founder Pavel Durov runs his company in relative secrecy from Dubai.
from us
