Is the Biblical / post-Biblical demon Asmodeus really a displaced Vedic storm god who entered Middle Judaism through Zoroastrianism?
No idea, and the video above isn´t scholarly, but it´s an interesting idea, to be sure! Note also the peculiar ambivalence towards the Asmodeus character in Judaism. Solomonic grimoire magick, anyone?
OK, this is going to be a rant, but whatever...
"The Spinoza method" seems to be just another version of the OTF. And probably even more silly, since it presupposes from the start that all religious scriptures should be interpreted literally (does that include "The Gospel of Thomas"?) and are obviously fake. But the atheist narrator admits that billions of people believe in it. So clearly it isn´t *obviously* fake, is it? The point of the rhetoric is obvious: the small minority who has seen through it are Brights. And everyone else is an idiot. I suppose that must be a wondeful thing to hear when you´re in senior high or college (where most American atheists took up their atheism). Smart people! LOL.
Since the main point of the video is to attack Christianity, it´s actually quite funny that the last segment of this video comes across as an evangelization tool for...wait for it...Zoroastrianism! Now, Zoroastrianism is probably the religion I most would *like* to be true, so the idea that Jesus is really the Shaoshyant does have a certain intrinsic appeal. But no, I don´t believe it either.
A competent Christian apologist should be able to respond to this video. Sure, the response might be "wrong", but I think it could be made to sound convincing. Simply presupposing that you´re right won´t help you there, buddy.
Now, do Woke.
 |
| Credit: Kevin Cho |
I asked Gemini about the oldest surviving human traditions. Supposedly, Australian Aboriginals have stories which go back tens of thousands of years. I admit that I´m skeptical. So much romantic BS have been written about Native tribes that I wouldn´t be surprised if somebody debunks this 20 years from now. But sure, here is the information (I´ve heard some of it before):
Is it possible to know which religious or cultural tradition is the oldest? That is, the oldest of those which still exist today?
Determining the "oldest" tradition is a bit like tracing a river back to its source—it depends on whether you are looking for the oldest continuous practice, the oldest organized religion, or the oldest written scriptures.
Because cultures evolve, merge, and change names, there isn't one single winner, but rather several "finalists" depending on how you define the terms.
If we define "tradition" as a set of spiritual beliefs and cultural practices passed down through generations, Indigenous Australian and San (Bushmen) traditions are the oldest.
Aboriginal Australians: Their spiritual connection to the "Dreamtime" and their oral histories have been maintained for over 50,000 to 65,000 years. Recent archaeological evidence suggests they have passed down stories of sea-level rises and volcanic eruptions that occurred tens of thousands of years ago.
The San People (Southern Africa): Genetic and archaeological data suggest the San have lived in Southern Africa for at least 20,000 to 30,000 years, maintaining a shamanistic tradition that involves rock art and trance dances.
In terms of "major" world religions with a structured system, hierarchy, and massive following, Hinduism is widely considered the oldest.
Age: It has no single founder and roots that stretch back over 4,000 years.
Evolution: It emerged from the Vedic period (c. 1500–500 BCE) but incorporates prehistoric Dravidian and Indus Valley Civilization elements that are even older.
The "Eternal" Nature: Many Hindus refer to their faith as Sanatana Dharma (the Eternal Way), viewing it as a timeless truth rather than a historical movement.
If you are looking for the oldest tradition based on the worship of a single God, there are two main contenders:
Zoroastrianism: Founded by the prophet Zoroaster in ancient Persia, it dates back to roughly 1500–1000 BCE. It introduced concepts like heaven, hell, and the battle between good and evil, which heavily influenced later Abrahamic faiths. While its population is small today (the Parsi community), it still exists.
Judaism: While the biblical patriarchs date back to roughly 2000 BCE, the formalization of Judaism as a monotheistic religion occurred around the 9th–6th century BCE. It is the oldest of the three major Abrahamic religions.
| Category | Tradition | Estimated Age |
| Oral/Cultural | Aboriginal Australian | 50,000+ years |
| Organized Religion | Hinduism | 4,000+ years |
| Monotheism | Zoroastrianism | 3,000–3,500 years |
| Written Scripture | The Vedas (Hinduism) | 3,200–3,500 years |
The main problem is syncretism. Religions don't usually "start" on a specific Tuesday; they evolve. For example:
Shinto in Japan has prehistoric roots, but it wasn't "organized" until much later.
Hinduism today looks very different from the Vedic religion of 3,000 years ago.
When we look at these traditions, we aren't seeing a static museum piece, but a living "ship of Theseus" where the parts have been replaced over millennia while the identity remains the same.
Are you looking for a tradition with a specific "start date" or founder, or are you more interested in the survival of ancient oral myths?
How do we know that Aboriginals have traditions of ancient sea-level rise and volcanic eruptions?
We know this because of a fascinating field of study called geomythology, where scientists compare ancient oral traditions with geological data like sonar mapping and carbon dating.
The evidence isn't just "vague myths" about water; it involves specific geographic details that were only true thousands of years ago.
During the last Ice Age, sea levels were much lower, and Australia’s coastline extended kilometers further out.
The Depth Check: Researchers have identified at least 21 locations around Australia where Aboriginal stories describe a coastline that hasn't existed for at least 7,000 years.
Specific Geography: For example, the Yindjibarndi people have a name for Fitzroy Island (gabaɽ) that literally means "lower arm" of a mainland promontory. For this name to make sense, the sea level had to be at least 30 meters lower than it is today—a condition that last existed roughly 10,000 years ago.
The "Walking" Stories: Numerous traditions across the continent describe ancestors walking to islands (like Kangaroo Island or the Tiwi Islands) that are now separated by deep, treacherous water. Geological records confirm these "land bridges" were submerged exactly when the stories say the "water came in."
The most striking example is found in the Gunditjmara tradition in South Victoria, regarding a creator being named Budj Bim.
The Oral Record: The story describes a giant who transformed into a volcano, with his teeth becoming the lava and his hair the smoke.
The Scientific Match: In 2020, geologists used argon-argon dating on the lava rocks at Budj Bim and found the eruption happened approximately 37,000 years ago.
Human Witness: Archaeological evidence (stone tools) found beneath the volcanic ash layers confirms that people were living in the area at the exact time of the eruption.
Western scientists were initially skeptical, believing oral stories "decay" after a few centuries. However, Aboriginal culture uses highly structured memory systems:
Cross-Verification: Stories are often owned by specific families; others are not allowed to tell them, which prevents "telephone-game" style distortion.
Ritual Repetition: The stories are tied to "Songlines"—physical paths in the landscape.
This video explains how researchers and Gunditjmara elders worked together to scientifically date the Budj Bim eruption, confirming it as one of the oldest witnessed events in human history.
Our man Anton Petrov discusses various speculative hypotheses concerning the Star of Bethlehem. They are surprisingly interesting, including a recent attempt to prove that the "star" was a comet in geosynchronous orbit. Apparently, such a comet would appear to be move "right ahead" an observer and even "stand still" over the same location for hours. Sounds familiar?
However, there are also problems with this theory (as with all the others) and Petrov eventually reaches the conclusion (backed by most secular Bible scholars) that the Star of Bethlehem is pious fiction. After all, the only source for such a phenomenon *even in the Bible* is the Gospel of Matthew! Of course, a Christian might explain it as a miracle, perhaps an angel appearing as a star (I believe the Jehovah´s Witnesses claim it was the Devil instead).
I suppose it´s possible that a real celestial event, perhaps a nova or a planetary conjunction around the Year Zero, could have inspired the author of the Gospel to invent an even grander story. Note also the peculiar fact that the new Jewish king is hailed by astrologers from the Parthian Empire! Which surely means something.
With that, I close this little post. Merry Christmas!
 |
| Venkateshwara and Bhargavi - impossible to get rid of? |
ChatGPT continues its lecture on the monotheism situation. I´m probably going to stop here.
This is a very fruitful angle, because failed monotheisms reveal much more than successful ones. They show what normally prevents monotheism from stabilizing.
I’ll examine the clearest cases, then draw out the structural reasons for failure.
By “failed” we mean:
• A clear move toward exclusive worship of one god
• That did not persist or did not become socially dominant
• Or reverted to plurality after initial success
This excludes:
• Philosophical monism without cult
• Henotheism that never claimed exclusivity
• Exclusive worship of Aten (solar disk)
• Suppression of other cults
• Closure of temples
• Elimination of divine images
• King as sole mediator
This is the earliest clear attempt at monotheism.
• Imposed top-down by the state
• No deep popular support
• Disrupted economic networks (temples were major employers)
• Depended entirely on the king’s authority
After Akhenaten’s death:
• The old gods returned almost immediately
Lesson:
Monotheism imposed without grassroots meaning collapses instantly.
• Strong ethical dualism
• Ahura Mazda as supreme creator
• Moral universalism
• Cosmic struggle between truth and lie
• Early Zoroastrianism may have been close to monotheism
• Later forms retained:
– Yazatas (divine beings)
– Ritual plurality
• Could not eliminate intermediary beings
• Ritual and cosmic pluralism remained
• Adapted to empire without exclusivity
Lesson:
Ethical monotheism alone does not guarantee exclusivity.
• Yahweh as national god
• Other gods acknowledged but forbidden
• Gradual move to exclusivity
• Repeated returns to polytheism
• Local cults persisted
• Texts reflect constant anxiety about apostasy
What saved it:
• Trauma (exile)
• Scribal class
• Canon formation
• Moral universalism
Without these:
• It would likely have reverted
Lesson:
Monotheism requires sustained social stress and textual enforcement.
Solar-focused cults appear repeatedly:
• Egypt (pre-Aten)
• Mesopotamia
• Indo-Iranian traditions
Why they fail to become exclusive:
• The sun is too embedded in nature
• Competes with agricultural, local, and ancestral cults
• Lacks moral specificity
Lesson:
Natural phenomena don’t displace relational gods easily.
Examples:
• Plato’s Good
• Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover
• Neoplatonic One
Why these failed religiously:
• Too abstract
• No mythic narrative
• No ritual economy
• No emotional reciprocity
They influenced theology later, but:
• Did not generate popular monotheism on their own
Lesson:
People worship persons, not principles.
Even where monotheism “succeeds”:
• Angels
• Saints
• Demons
• Intercessors
These function as:
• De facto minor gods
This shows:
Human religious life naturally re-multiplies agents.
Failed monotheisms show this pressure clearly.
Summarizing the recurring causes:
No exclusivity enforcement
No narrative that absorbs older gods
No trauma to motivate theological consolidation
No bureaucratic infrastructure
No emotional accessibility
Miss more than one → failure.
Judaism, Christianity, Islam succeed because they:
• Absorb older gods as:
– Angels
– Demons
– Saints
• Moralize cosmology
• Universalize ethics
• Tie belief to identity
• Are portable across geography
Failed monotheisms lack one or more of these.
Failed monotheisms suggest:
Monotheism is not a “natural religious evolution” but a fragile cultural achievement requiring constant reinforcement.
It is easier to break monotheism than to create it.
Early monotheisms usually failed because they demanded exclusivity without yet having the social, emotional, and institutional tools to sustain it.
If you want next, we could:
• Compare failed monotheisms with non-dual traditions
• Examine monotheism’s internal pluralization
• Explore why exclusivity becomes morally compelling
• Or bring this back to deep prehistory and plural humanity
Just say the direction.
An interesting take on the strange Biblical tale of the Magi. Why would three Zoroastrian priest-astrologers recognize baby Jesus in Betlehem as the new universal "king"? Or at all?
It seems Greeks and Romans knew about the king-making function of the Magi, even claiming that Sulla was prophesized to become the new leader of Rome by Magi from the East. Both Jews and Parthians believed in prophecies about the fall of the Roman Empire. Thus, the Gospel story of Magi recognizing a rival king to the Roman puppet Herod the Great (who became ruler by deposing a pro-Parthian Jewish king) was a potent "geopolitical" symbol.
If the Gospels were written after the destruction of the Second Temple (which seems very likely), the Magi could also be an allusion to Cyrus the Great, who liberated the Jews from the Babylonian Captivity and allowed them to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem.
Of course, this also raises a more intriguing question: why should *we* care about Judeo-Parthian-Roman conflicts 2000 years ago? Are we Levantines?
So Christianity is a Jewish sect syncretized with Near East paganism and Zoroastrianism, with implicitly pro-Parthian geopolitics. You know, the Magi.
And this is relevant for me in Sweden in 2025 (CE)...how?
There doesn´t seem to be any AI Hindu pics scheduled for today, so instead I give you this dramatic illustration of three Magi discovering the Star of Bethlehem in the East heradling the birth of the Messiah who saveth the world.
Or was it just three superstitious old men with a penchant for herb lore and magical incantations serependitiously seeing one of many purely naturalistic supernovae somewhere in Parthia circa year zero when a barbarian allegedly named Quirinius temporarily occupied one of the Empire´s border provinces?
So much hinges on your answer to these questions...
Excerpts from a somewhat eclectic conversation with ChatGPT about the demographic crisis. I noticed that the AI tends towards "official optimism" on this topic, but it still has something useful to say here, I think...
Can a small population consistently maintain a high IQ?
That’s a very good (and complex) question — it touches on genetics, culture, environment, and demography. Let me break it down carefully.
In very small populations, genetic drift (random changes in allele frequency) is strong. Over many generations, this can lead to loss of genetic diversity and sometimes inbreeding depression, which may negatively affect health and cognitive traits.
However, if the group is not isolated and has some gene flow (occasional marriage/mixing with outsiders), it can maintain both genetic health and potentially high average IQ.
IQ is not fixed by genetics alone. Nutrition, education, cultural values, and health conditions matter enormously.
A small population that prioritizes education, literacy, and intellectual culture can maintain or even raise average IQ across generations, even if its gene pool is small.
Historical examples:
Ashkenazi Jews (a relatively small population historically) have been argued to maintain high intellectual achievement through cultural and selection factors.
Parsis/Zoroastrians in India, a small endogamous group, have maintained high literacy and professional success.
Inbreeding risk: without enough out-marriage, recessive disorders can accumulate, potentially lowering cognitive performance.
Population bottlenecks: sudden reductions (wars, disease) can cut genetic diversity.
Environmental vulnerability: a small group is more sensitive to social, political, or ecological disruptions that could affect education and health.
A key idea is that IQ is partly heritable but also amplified by culture.
If a small group creates a strong “cognitive niche” — schools, literacy, traditions of learning — the environment itself lifts average IQ. This can compensate for genetic limitations.
Conversely, if that culture erodes, IQ levels may drop within a few generations.
✅ Summary:
Yes, a small population can consistently maintain a high IQ, but usually not through genetics alone. It requires:
Some genetic diversity (avoiding severe inbreeding).
Strong cultural emphasis on education and intellectual values.
Good health, nutrition, and social stability.
Would you like me to give you a historical case study (say, Ashkenazi Jews or Brahmins in India) where a relatively small population maintained high intellectual performance over centuries?
Alright, let’s take two classic case studies where relatively small populations maintained high intellectual performance across centuries:
Population size: Historically small, especially during medieval and early modern Europe (often <1% of surrounding populations).
Genetic factors: Some researchers (e.g., Cochran & Harpending’s The 10,000 Year Explosion) have argued that centuries of occupational restrictions (e.g., Jews barred from farming, pushed into finance, trade, medicine, scholarship) may have created selection pressure for verbal, mathematical, and memory-related abilities.
Cultural factors:
Universal literacy (boys were expected to read Hebrew texts).
Strong intellectual traditions (Talmudic study, debate, reasoning).
Tight-knit communities that valued scholarship over physical power.
Result: Disproportionate representation in science, philosophy, finance, and the arts, especially from the 19th century onward.
Population size: A relatively small caste minority (in many regions, 3–5% of the population).
Genetic structure: Endogamous groups with some regional mixing, so each sub-group is small but the broader Brahmin community retains diversity.
Cultural factors:
Exclusive custodians of the Vedas and Sanskrit learning.
Generational transmission of memorization skills (oral recitation of massive texts).
Social status tied to intellectual/spiritual achievement, not material wealth.
Result: Across history, Brahmins have been highly represented in philosophy, administration, mathematics, and modern professions like law and science.
Endogamy but with enough diversity to avoid collapse.
Strong intellectual and religious/ethical traditions reinforcing the value of knowledge.
High literacy and structured training systems.
Selective pressures (social, cultural, sometimes genetic) that rewarded intellectual achievement.
✅ Takeaway:
Both Ashkenazi Jews and Brahmins show that a small population can maintain high intellectual performance if cultural institutions are strong enough. The culture becomes a multiplier that sustains and enhances cognitive ability over centuries.
Would you like me to also give a counterexample — cases where a small, once-advanced group lost its intellectual edge due to collapse of culture or environment? That contrast might make the picture clearer.
Perfect — let’s put the enduring cases (Ashkenazi Jews, Brahmins) side-by-side with the decline cases (Greeks, Mayans, Parsis) to see the contrasts clearly.
Ashkenazi Jews & Brahmins:
Had structured, continuous institutions: yeshivas (Jewish academies), Vedic gurukulas (teacher-student lineages).
Education was embedded in daily religious practice (Torah study, Vedic recitation).
Even under persecution or political collapse, these institutions survived because they were portable and family-based.
Greeks & Mayans:
Depended on state or elite patronage (libraries, courts, temples).
When cities fell or patrons disappeared, the knowledge systems collapsed.
The Mayan writing system was nearly lost after conquest.
Ashkenazi Jews & Brahmins:
Literacy or memorization was expected of every boy/man in the community.
This distributed intellectual tradition widely, not just among a tiny elite.
Families themselves were educational units.
Greeks, Mayans, Parsis:
Intellectual activity was concentrated in an elite class or small circle.
When that elite was disrupted (by war, famine, assimilation), knowledge transmission broke.
Parsis today struggle because cultural reproduction depends on a shrinking base.
Ashkenazi Jews & Brahmins:
Adapted to radically different environments while preserving their core.
Jews: from medieval ghettos to modern Europe and America → retained study traditions.
Brahmins: shifted from ancient ritual roles to modern professions → leveraged their educational base.
Greeks & Mayans:
Systems tied to specific political/ecological conditions.
Couldn’t adapt well to large disruptions.
Once the context collapsed, the tradition couldn’t migrate or reinvent itself.
Ashkenazi Jews & Brahmins:
Practiced endogamy, but not total isolation.
Small but steady genetic inflows (converts, intermarriage at the margins) prevented complete stagnation.
Parsis:
Very strict endogamy and extremely low birthrates → demographic crisis.
Without renewal, their cultural prominence is fading despite high individual achievement.
Enduring groups combined:
Portable, family-based education (not tied to state).
Community-wide participation, not just an elite.
Flexibility and adaptability across centuries.
Sufficient demographic resilience (not too small, not too closed).
Declining groups often had:
Reliance on fragile institutions.
Over-concentration of knowledge in elites.
Inflexibility when environments shifted.
Demographic shrinkage without renewal.
✅ Big Picture:
The difference wasn’t just “IQ level” — it was cultural strategy. Groups that democratized learning, embedded it in religion, and kept institutions portable (like Ashkenazim and Brahmins) could maintain high intellectual performance across millennia. Groups that relied on elite patronage or fragile states (like Greeks and Mayans) saw brilliance flame out when those supports vanished.
Would you like me to also connect this to your original question about small populations maintaining high IQ — i.e., what lessons a modern small group could take from these historical cases?
Excellent — let’s pull this all together and answer your original question about whether a small population can consistently maintain a high IQ.
Genetic potential for intelligence means little unless cultural institutions (schools, literacy, rituals of study) reinforce it.
Ashkenazi Jews and Brahmins show how making learning part of daily religious life ensures transmission even in small numbers.
If only a priestly or courtly elite holds knowledge (Mayans, Greeks), collapse of that elite means collapse of the intellectual tradition.
If every family participates in education (as in yeshivas or Vedic chanting), knowledge is resilient and portable.
A small population must flex with history.
Jews adapted to ghettos, then modern universities.
Brahmins shifted from ritual priests to modern professionals.
Groups that tied knowledge to one rigid social or ecological system (Mayans, Hellenistic Greeks) couldn’t survive disruptions.
Small populations need a balance:
Some endogamy → preserves group identity and selective traits.
Some exogamy/gene flow → prevents inbreeding and stagnation.
Extreme isolation or ultra-low birth rates (e.g., Parsis today) threaten long-term continuity, no matter how bright the group is.
Groups that made learning sacred (Torah as divine law, Vedas as eternal sound) could not abandon it without abandoning their entire identity.
This sacred anchor kept intellectual traditions alive across persecution, migration, and even near-genocide.
A small population can consistently maintain a high IQ across centuries, but only if it:
Embeds education in religion, culture, or identity.
Distributes learning widely, not just to elites.
Remains adaptable to changing circumstances.
Maintains demographic health (not too small, not too inbred).
Views knowledge as sacred or central to survival, not optional.
Without these conditions, even a brilliant small group risks fading, as seen with the Mayans, Greeks, and possibly Parsis.
Are there any national populations today that are on the road to extinction. For instance Japan or South Korea?
Yes — some modern national populations, particularly Japan, South Korea, and a few others, are often considered “on the road to extinction” in a demographic sense, though “extinction” here doesn’t mean literal disappearance in the next century. Let’s break it down:
| Country | Total Fertility Rate (TFR) | Replacement Level | Population Trend |
|---|---|---|---|
| Japan | ~1.2 | 2.1 | Declining |
| South Korea | ~0.78 | 2.1 | Rapidly declining |
| Taiwan | ~1.0 | 2.1 | Declining |
| Italy | ~1.3 | 2.1 | Slowly declining |
Replacement level: Around 2.1 children per woman. Below this, a population will eventually shrink without immigration.
Japan: Population peaked ~2010 (~128 million) and is now ~124 million, projected to fall to ~88 million by 2100.
South Korea: Declining even faster; projected to drop from ~51 million to under 35 million by 2100.
Very low fertility: Women are having far fewer children than needed to replace the population.
Aging populations: Large elderly cohorts → high death rate in coming decades.
Limited immigration: Unlike countries like the U.S., these nations have strict immigration, so population decline isn’t offset.
Social and economic factors: Work culture, urbanization, cost of raising children, and gender roles reduce birth rates.
Even if extinction in the strict sense is centuries away, the trajectory shows:
Shrinking labor force → economic strain
Increased dependency ratio → more elderly per working adult
Potential loss of cultural or regional diversity if smaller communities vanish
Japan and South Korea may stabilize at a smaller population if fertility improves or immigration increases, but without those changes, they are indeed on a centuries-long path toward “functional demographic extinction” — meaning their populations cannot sustain themselves without outside intervention.
Yes — without immigration, many countries in Europe and the U.S. would also be on a long-term path of population decline, though the timelines differ and the severity varies by country. Let’s break it down carefully.
| Region / Country | Current TFR | Replacement Level | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Europe (average) | ~1.5 | 2.1 | Below replacement, especially Southern and Eastern Europe. Northern/Eastern Europe is slightly higher in some countries (~1.7). |
| United States | ~1.6 | 2.1 | Above some European countries, but still below replacement. Immigration keeps population growing. |
Replacement level: ~2.1 children per woman.
Europe: Many countries (Italy, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Greece) are well below replacement. Without immigration, their populations would shrink over the next century.
U.S.: Fertility is slightly higher than Europe, but still below replacement; immigration accounts for most of population growth.
Southern and Eastern Europe: Populations could shrink by 20–50% by 2100.
Northern/Western Europe: Slower decline; countries like France and Sweden might stabilize at a smaller population.
United States: Population would plateau and then slowly decline within a century, as natural increase becomes negative without immigration.
Even without population collapse:
Aging populations → higher dependency ratio
Labor shortages → economic strain
Potential decline in cultural, linguistic, or rural community diversity
Europe and the U.S. have more buffer than Japan or South Korea because their fertility is slightly higher and populations are larger, but the trajectory would still be “on the road to demographic decline” without immigration.
Japan and South Korea: Very low fertility (~1.2 or lower) → decline is rapid, almost inevitable.
Europe / U.S.: Fertility slightly higher (~1.5–1.6) → decline is slower; could be partially offset by policies encouraging families, though immigration has historically been the main stabilizer.
If you want, I can make a side-by-side comparison of population trajectories for Japan, South Korea, Europe, and the U.S. over 200 years, showing the effect of immigration versus no immigration. That gives a very clear visual picture of how “on the road to extinction” differs by region.
Do you want me to do that?
