Unpopular opinion: religious govt. isn't stronger than secular, and putting religious authorities or even zealots in charge of political matters leads to weakness and defeat.

Governments with religious support or leading a religious country may be strong; is not the same as a religious state. Salazar in Portugal was a "Catholic dictator" but firmly kept the Church out of politics in fact with Concordat of 1940. Franco, others similar

ISIS has been very weak compared to Arab nationalism and Baathism. Despite neocon hysteria that kind of movement has no future in the world. I believe this is the reason it's been promoted by Israel and others at the expense of secular Arab nationalism

By analogy there's been since at least 2015 a vigorous campaign in academia, media, and sections of fedgov to portray the "altright" as "Western ISIS" and even to meme it into becoming so. They know how much weaker and stupider it would be if you spergs took the bait

"Religious radicalism" has been a subject of much interest lately in universities; by contrast secular nationalism is still so taboo that the words and concepts for discussing it are not available to journalists beyond "nativism," "xenophobia," other claims of heresy

Introduction of "religion" into nationalist uprising replaces fight against entrenched authorities with doctrinal disputes, intellectual narcissism, fights over who is purer...it's the most devious divide & conquer tactic of globalism...to inject first ideology and now religion.

Not all journalists or academics pushing the "religious radicalism" line are in on any grand design...most are just rubes or following the dominant interest out of necessity (see Hazony). But feds like Vermeule push discourse in religious direction as means of weakening the right

Don't be fooled by simple image of "RELIGION STRONK"...idea that vehemence of belief must translate into political strength. Opposite is true! Real political might comes not from ideology or belief, but from manliness, cunning, and loyalty...

Mangan talking about Warburg but as usual his knowledge of physiology doesn't extend beyond abstracts. As an alternative consider Ray Peat on Warburg, lactate and cancer; deeper understanding of the science and reaches opposite conclusions RE diet: raypeat.com/articles/article…

Some interesting excerpts from Peat's essay on lactate, Warburg, and what he calls "cancer metabolism" or "stress metabolism." Glucose doesn't actually feed cancer in the sense meant by paleo people, and glucose restriction will accelerate death in most cases

Just presenting case counter to "keto"...things aren't always simple.; these forums are quite confusing...but I suppose don't trust people who claim to have all answers on something still not understood raypeatforum.com/community/t… raypeatforum.com/community/t… raypeatforum.com/community/t…

One thing RE cancer prevention/cure as well as general health that everyone seems to agree on: PUFA are very bad, (even if there is debate on sugar); niacinamide, thiamine, aspirin, GLYCINE very good and very important. Stress very bad, including psychological stress