Posted on X by @VLEAnderson_ on October 6, 2026: https://x.com/VLEAnderson_/status/2107353333287780577
...sometimes synthetic energon...but mostly love
Disclaimer: this post may contain uncensored strong language or imagery some may find controversial in its pictures or video. Proceed at your own caution.

2107353333287780577.mp4 https://conscryption.com/web/content/1126/2107353333287780577.mp4

Posted on X by @VLEAnderson_ on October 6, 2026: https://x.com/VLEAnderson_/status/2107352607467647122
Disclaimer: this post may contain uncensored strong language or imagery some may find controversial in its pictures or video. Proceed at your own caution.

2107352607467647122.mp4 https://conscryption.com/web/content/1122/2107352607467647122.mp4

Posted on X by @VLEAnderson_ on October 5, 2026: https://x.com/VLEAnderson_/status/2107339548900655482
Disclaimer: this post may contain uncensored strong language or imagery some may find controversial in its pictures or video. Proceed at your own caution.

2107339548900655482.mp4 https://conscryption.com/web/content/1117/2107339548900655482.mp4

Posted on X by @VLEAnderson_ on October 5, 2026: https://x.com/VLEAnderson_/status/2107314930890514673
Disclaimer: this post may contain uncensored strong language or imagery some may find controversial in its pictures or video. Proceed at your own caution.

2107314930890514673.mp4 https://conscryption.com/web/content/1114/2107314930890514673.mp4

19 October 2026

Review conducted on 2026-10-19. Each essay was checked by an independent reviewer that held the framework's presumptions fixed and tested citations, facts and argument structure. Every revision listed here was applied to both the live documents and this collection.

How the review worked

Four reviews ran: one on the thesis and its earlier citation review, one on the ideology application, one on the domestic terrorism essay, and one on the posthumanism essay. Reviewers verified claims against primary sources where they could reach them (court opinions, statutes, journal records, the original reports) and against standard secondary sources otherwise. They returned three kinds of finding: factual or citation errors, weaknesses in the structure of the argument, and problems of balance.

The thesis: "The Diagnostic Advantage of Moral Anti-Realism"

Citations. All 51 DOIs resolved and matched their Crossref records. Three claims were wrong as written and were corrected.

- The phrase "primary justification for the death penalty," cited through Caruso (2020), comes from Spaziano v. Florida (1984), where the Court was summarizing a

- petitioner's argument it then rejected. It was replaced with the joint opinion in Gregg v. Georgia (1976), which describes capital punishment as "an expression of society's moral outrage."

Vincent L. Anderson · Oct 19, 2026

1. What this essay does

The task. The three earlier essays presumed moral anti-realism, impartial altruism and Sapolskian determinism, and used them to diagnose hatred, ideology and domestic terrorism. This essay takes their implications one step further and makes the case, as its defenders would make it, for a deep-ecological posthumanism with two commitments: the abolition of ideology, and voluntary human extinction. It argues the case at full strength in Sections 2 to 6, then sets out the strongest objections in Section 7 and says in Section 8 what survives them.

The constraint that defines the position. "Voluntary human extinction" here means one thing only: people freely choosing not to have children, so that the human population declines to zero over generations through ordinary deaths. It is the position of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, whose motto is "May we live long and die out" (Knight, in Miller 2011). It does not mean ending any existing life, one's own included; it does not mean coercing anyone's reproduction; and it does not mean violence of any kind. Section 6 shows that these exclusions are not a disclaimer added from outside. They follow from the framework itself, which counts every existing person's suffering and predicts that moralized ecological certainty becomes violent.

How the essay uses "case." The framework presumes that there are no stance-independent moral facts. So the essay does not claim that human extinction is objectively right. It argues that, for someone who holds the impartial aim the earlier essays presume, voluntary non-procreation is a reasonable and possibly the most consistent response to the evidence. Whether that argument succeeds is a question about consequences, which Section 7 tests.

2. What the earlier essays commit us to

Five commitments carry forward.

1. No moral fact privileges humans. On moral anti-realism, human exceptionalism,

Vincent L. Anderson · Oct 19, 2026

1. Framework and scope

The framework, presumed. This essay presumes the two earlier documents: "The Diagnostic Advantage of Moral Anti-Realism" and its application to five ideologies. It takes as given three positions: moral anti-realism, impartial altruism as the overriding aim, and Sapolskian determinism. It also takes as given the paper's account of hostility as a pipeline: sentiment comes first, moralization recruits disgust and outrage, conflict manufactures felt objectivity, conviction drives intolerance and violence, and networks reward and return the output. Institutions that must codify sentiment state it as desert. The application added two further findings. Extremity is a property of how an ideology is held and enacted. And every ideology attributes free will selectively: determinism where it excuses, free will where it blames.

What the framework asks of terrorism. On these presumptions, an attack is not a free act of evil to be avenged. It is the output of a causal system, with the attacker as one node. The diagnostic question is therefore not "who deserves what?" but "which causes produced this, which amplified it, and which can be changed?" The aim is to reduce the suffering such attacks cause, including the suffering caused by responses to them.

Definitions. Two definitions are used, because the major datasets differ. Cato's 1975– 2025 dataset counts premeditated, ideologically motivated killings by non-state actors, and excludes spontaneous hate crimes (Nowrasteh 2026). CSIS counts "the deliberate use or threat of premeditated violence by nonstate actors" for political goals and broad psychological impact, including plots and non-lethal attacks (Byman and McCabe 2025). "Domestic" here means attacks on U.S. soil by people living in the United States, whatever the ideology, including homegrown jihadists. The 9/11 attacks were planned and staffed from abroad and are excluded.

Case selection. Cases were chosen on two criteria the request named. Most destructive: the highest death tolls. High-profile: attacks whose political effects reached far beyond their death tolls, such as assassinations. Historical racial terror is included, because by death toll it dwarfs the modern record.

2. The record

The modern totals. From 1975 to 2025, 208 attackers killed 3,577 people on U.S. soil in politically motivated attacks, about 0.35% of all U.S. murders (Nowrasteh 2026). Two attacks, 9/11 and Oklahoma City, account for about 88% of those deaths. Excluding both, 186 killers took 430 lives: 45% by right-wing attackers, about 32% by Islamist attackers and about 16% by left-wing attackers. CSIS's count for the past decade gives 112 victims of right-wing attacks, 82 of jihadist attacks and 13 of left-wing attacks. CSIS also found that in the first half of 2025, left-wing incidents (attacks and plots) outnumbered right-wing ones for the first time in more than 30 years, five to one. The numbers are small, and left-wing attacks remain far less lethal. CSIS's data run from 1994 to 4 July 2025 (Byman and McCabe 2025).

Vincent L. Anderson · Oct 17, 2026

A systemic, determinist diagnosis of hatred and ideology, and why a diagnosis built on moral realism cannot see the mechanism it belongs to. Companion to "Diagnosis Without Desert." Revised 2026-10-19 after adversarial review.

Abstract

This paper presumes three positions without argument: moral anti-realism; impartial altruism as an overriding aim; and Sapolsky's determinism. On the third, every belief and emotion is the product of prior biological and environmental causes, and libertarian free will is excluded. On these presumptions, moral realism is not a rival theory to be weighed. It is a widespread misconception with a function. It attaches a sentiment, such as disgust or outrage, to a justification that presents itself as a stance-independent moral fact, after the sentiment has formed. The paper defines a diagnostic systemically: an account of how a population comes to hold a harmful ideology, and of how hostility toward its holders is produced, amplified and sustained. It argues that a diagnostic built on moral realism is drastically inferior in kind, because it is itself an output of the mechanism it should diagnose. It reads moralized sentiment as perception, so it cannot see the moralization pipeline or the systems that amplify it. The paper reviews evidence for each stage of that pipeline, from post hoc moral reasoning and disgust-driven moralization to the network amplification of outrage. It also argues that wherever a sentiment must be codified, it must be stated as desert or character. The justice system requires sentiment to be stated as desert, and the gatekeepers of financing, healthcare and legal documentation adapt the same conversion. Their codified outputs then stoke moralized issues and are cited as proof that moral facts exist, so the belief confirms itself. The difference in kind follows from the presumptions; the evidence shows that the loop exists and does harm, not that the moral realist diagnostic is blind to it. The size of its behavioral effects has not been measured, and the paper proposes how to measure it.

1. Presumptions and terms

The paper presumes three positions. It does not argue for them, and it does not weigh them against alternatives.

1. Moral anti-realism. There are no moral facts whose truth is independent of the

- attitudes of any actual or idealized agent.

Written 2026-10-18; revised 2026-10-19

Written 2026-10-18T11:51-06:00. The reviewer holds the paper's presumptions fixed: moral anti-realism, impartial altruism and Sapolskian determinism. The question is whether these two studies, as the paper cited them, advance its thesis: that the moral anti-realist diagnostic sees the mechanism and the moral realist diagnostic is part of it.

Verdict

Both citations distracted from the thesis, as the author suspected. Neither study tests moral anti-realism. Young and Durwin contrast universality with cultural relativism and subjectivism. Van Zomeren and colleagues measure first-order moral conviction. Neither bears on whether a diagnostic can see the loop. The paragraph also turned a point about mechanism into a ledger of motivational benefits. That invites a comparison of moral realism and moral anti-realism by outcomes, which the presumptions exclude.

Young and Durwin (2013)

Read in full from the authors' lab copy on 2026-10-18.

1. The primes do not contrast realism with moral anti-realism. The "realism" prime

- asked: "Do you agree that some things are just morally right or wrong, good or bad, wherever you happen to be from in the world?" That is universality. The Experiment 1 "antirealism" prime said morals are "shaped by our culture and upbringing, so there are no absolute right answers to any moral questions." The Experiment 2 version said "it is up to each person to discover his or her own moral truths." Those are cultural relativism and individual subjectivism. The paper does not presume relativism, and it set aside Rai and Holyoak (2013) and Lu et al. (2017) on that ground. Citing Young and Durwin as "moral realism against moral anti-realism" was inconsistent with that rule.

A collection of five essays and an appendix on moralization, ideology, political violence, and what an impartial observer would want from the human species. Nothing to do with codes, ciphers or cartoons — hence this corner of the board.

Contents

Each piece is a separate post in this forum.

- The Diagnostic Advantage of Moral Anti-Realism
The framework: why a diagnosis built on moral realism cannot see the mechanism it belongs to.
- Adversarial Review: Young and Durwin (2013) and van Zomeren et al. (2011)
An earlier audit of two citations the thesis had misused, and how they were reclassified.
- Applying the Framework: Five Ideologies
White supremacy, anarchism, Marxism, liberalism and white abolitionism, including their theories of free will.
- Domestic Terrorism Through the Diagnostic Lens
The deadliest and most consequential U.S. attacks, the response to them, and prevention.
- After Us: A Deep-Ecological Posthumanism