Unfortunately AWS doesn't allow HTTPS for static sites like this. I'd have to use Cloudflare if I wanted the site to be accessible to HTTPS

Thank you. Is your app changing the http to https?

I recommend Donald Hoffman's TED talk, which I'm pretty sure is linked on My website http://soulism.net. Hoffman is a cognitive scientist who literally wrote the book on why our perceptual reality cannot be objective truth. And he doesn't speak to any kind of religion or vague philosophy, his findings are 100% science.

I use capitalised pronouns. I came out as trans quite a while ago, and I went through the usual egg_irl to estrogen pipeline as a self-identifying trans woman. But eventually I discovered I was nonbinary. I'm not a woman, I'm a goddess. I had been openly trans at that point to everyone I knew, and I surrounded Myself with trans accepting people. But when I came out as goddessgender, as goddesskin, as a being who cannot exist within the confines of a physical, atheistic consensus reality, most of My trans accepting friends turned on Me. I went through a period of intense trauma that I'm still recovering from today. I couldn't work full time for years because of the flashbacks. My career was permanently impacted and it led to Me experiencing homelessness.

I had a relatively easy time of being a trans woman, relative to a lot of other stories I've heard. But being otherkin was too far for most trans allies, and My identity caused Me to suffer horrendous abuse.

Why would a trans ally, a trans person themself, be kinphobic? The answer is realism. These allies had accepted that trans people are part of reality. That gender is a social construct. But they hadn't accepted that reality is a social construct. They weren't willing to bend the rules all the way. In the soulist community, we bend the rules ALL the way. We accept everyone, and it's not lip service. For example, I believe in the gods of ALL religions. So that when I respect the beliefs of marginalised religions, it's not the liberal "they're allowed to be wrong in their unique cultural way". Instead I say "their beliefs are literally true. There is a world composed of their beliefs that literally exists, and it must be preserved."

I'm tired of people accepting trans but not otherkin. I'm tired of people accepting autism but not NPD. I'm tired of people accepting religions but dismissing their truth. I'm tired of liberalism. I'm tired of moderate leftists betraying people when our identities and lived experiences step outside the boundaries of permissible diversity. So no more boundaries! No more objective truth! No more "too far". Soulists will go all the way to the left. We will not compromise on diversity, equity, or freedom. Enforcing the conditions of capitalism upon our very reality is oppressive. Realism is fundamentally neoliberal. Excluding marginalised groups from the freedom to be as "real" as the privileged classes is genocide. Realism is fundamentally fascist. No more! We don't need reality, it's only ever been a justification for the extermination of the different.

I disagree. I think that failing to recognise humanity as a choice leads to greater dehumanisation of marginalised humans. The white supremacist's argument is always "They are less than human, intrinsically. It is their nature. It is reality." When we accept that humanity is a feature of nature and not of society, we cede ground to white supremacists. We should not be arguing whether people of colour meet some criteria that make them human. We should be arguing that white supremacists' dehumanisation is a choice, a choice to be evil, not an inevitable reality.

A core theme of soulist philosophy is responsibility. The white supremacist denies responsibility, saying that the essential nature of those they oppress is not their doing. They wield power irresponsibly. The power to control reality will always exist in the hands of the powerful. And a people who deny this power will not be able to see their oppression clearly. There have always been people of colour who knew their deserved rights and knew their oppression is wrong, but there have also historically been people of colour who bought into the propaganda, and accepted they were less than human. Such a belief can only be the result of realism, of ignoring society's responsibility in all this. The soulists say "this reality we find ourselves in, where people are separated by class and race, was built. It is not natural, and it is not inevitable. It is our choice. All of our choice. And we must choose to be better to each other. Or I'm going to bash some white supremacist heads in."

American style white supremacists don't want there to be nonwhite races, because a race is a people, and they don't want slaves to be considered people. Nobody cares about the ethnic identity of a cow. They only care about its pedigree for good meat or good milk. This isn't race in the human sense of the word. American style white supremacists want to be able to think of people of colour like that. They want white to mean human being, and black to mean animal.

There aren't many people who feel pride because they're smarter or stronger than an animal. There's lots of animal abusers who relish their power over animals, but I wouldn't call the thing they get out of their abuse pride. It's about having the power, not about reflecting on who one is as a person. It's not "I am awesome because I kick puppies." Likewise, the goal of American white supremacists is to have a society where people of colour are slaves, and white people get to think they're the only kind of human being in existence.

Thank you!

Even if you look at a neo-nazi group like the Proud Boys, the name is actually ironic. Their leader based the name on the Aladdin song Proud Of Your Boy, which he hates. McInnes thinks that Aladdin having emotions of pride and shame related to his role as a mother's son is fake and bad. "Real men" don't feel emotions about their identities or relationships. Nazis think the idea of a man feeling proud of who he is is a joke, worth mocking. The conservative man is expected to repress questions like "who am I" and "am I a good person". Those sorts of questions are for women and lefty snowflakes .

The conservative man only has a cultural identity (race, nationality, religion, occupation, sex), no personal identity. Gender identity and sexuality, being defined by the individual, are not acceptable identities for a conservative to have. Vegan and religious convert also fall under the category of chosen identity and are also hated or ignored. When you call a conservative cisgender, you are putting a choice in their hands. You're saying "you get to choose your gender identity and here is the name of your choice. Your choice is an important part of who you are". That's terrifying. That's responsibility. That's freedom. That's prompting the conservative to ask "who am I", and that question is a taboo. Elon Musk doesn't want to be cisgender because he doesn't want to be responsible for who he is. He wants society to choose for him. He wants male to be the only option for him. Elon Musk only wants to be proud of what's happened to him, he doesn't know how to be proud of who he is and he doesn't like being asked to feel that way. And to be fair, if you got Elon Musk to seriously ask "am I a good person", he'd realise the answer is no and panic. He's made choices that mean he can never actually be proud of himself except in a shallow, superficial way. Most conservatives have made those kinds of choices. Continuing to live in a world without pride means they don't have to face the monumental task of reclaiming theirs.

A lack of belief among some individuals matters, but not enough to stop a god from being a god. Because, as you say, gods are social constructs. If we consult Merriam Webster and skip the silly monotheist definition, a god is "a being or object that is worshipped as having more than natural attributes and powers". Note that this definition doesn't say the being must actually have these powers. They must only be worshipped as such. The belief is the important thing to the definition, not the truth. This is because divinity is socially constructed. You can't deny a god's divinity except by denying the faith of their followers. If you accept that the worshippers really do believe their god is a god, you must accept that the god is a god. They may well be an undeserving god, or a lying god, or a false god, but a god they still are. If you want to tell Me that Thor isn't a god, I'm going to demand a historical source based on the Eddas, or say you're wrong. Divinity is like a job. If everyone agrees that Mr Smith is a plumber, and His boss pays Him to fix toilets, then Mr Smith is certainly a plumber. It doesn't matter if Mr Smith has never fixed a toilet in His life, society has decided He's a plumber. He could be an incredibly shitty plumber who doesn't know anything about pipes, but He's a plumber.

In fact, let Me go back to the original article and restate its conclusion, because I think you may have been misled by My use of the term "god" to refer to the gods, as you seem to consider "god" a loaded term:

The gods are psychic parasites made out of thoughts who live in the collective consciousness of humanity and really are living beings, capable of taking action as psychic parasites who can affect people's minds. This is not to say the myths are literally true, but rather to say that the myths are alive. That they feed upon worship and command legions of followers from their palaces within our imaginations.

The gods are mythical, whereas Frodo Baggins is fictional. People believe in myths. Though of course it's a fuzzy boundary. You can arrange various characters on a spectrum from myth to fiction. For example, Zeus is pure myth, Lucifer is an originally fictional character that has almost entirely become mythical, Achilles is sort of directly in the middle, Sherlock Holmes is a highly mythologised fictional character, Gandalf is a fictionalised adaptation of a myth, and Jake Sully is pure fiction because nobody gives a shit about him.

Also *You

Bigfoot doesn't live in the woods. He lives in people's heads. That's where all memes, including the gods, live. In people's heads.

Anarchism is a leftist theory of everything because it is radical. It's easy to just be a socialist, and to not be a feminist or a queer ally or a supporter of indigenous sovereignty. And it's easy to be a feminist without being a socialist, queer ally, or supporter of indigenous sovereignty. And all the other permutations too. But anarchism, as a political lens, points us towards all of these different struggles and says they are the same. I am not wholly convinced anarchism is the only leftist theory of everything, but I have yet to see an alternative. Rather, I see dozens of alternatives within anarchism, such as soulism, transhumanism, mutualism, and so forth.

An anarchist has solidarity with all of the leftist movements, works together with all of them. If one wishes to run any sort of leftist political movement while maintaining alliance with the entirety of the left, I believe explicitly endorsing anarchism is a good way to get that done, from a practical point of view. After all, the nazis went after the communists before the socialists, because communism is stateless and is therefore aligned with anarchism. The nazis knew that the non-communist socialists, who support the existence of the state, would not offer as much resistance as the communists to the attacking of other leftist groups.