Connect with us

Red Pill

Blue Pill

Politically Correct

Hilarious video shows why “Spiritual but not religious” is a crazy western idea

This is what American individualism produces




A hysterical video came up which savagely ridicules the “Spiritual but not Religious” craze which spreads like across the west. Just to be clear, this is not an attack against anyone’s deeply held religious convictions, nor a sermon on organized religion, this is merely a redpill bombshell to drop on this uniquely western phenomenon, which exists primarily in the west.

It is a critique of the petty, feel-good religion of the west, intended to be in good humor, if you’re an easily offended snowflake, you’ve been warned.

Spiritual but not religious, is a western context, is a uniquely American thing, which may have spread beyond America’s borders, but can only truly be understood within an American context. It is the product of a society which has taken individualism, moral relativism, and freedom of conscious to such a radical extreme, that it can no longer maintain any semblance of objective truth.

As a result, this critique of “Spiritual but not religious” people, can not be applied those in other countries, where the term may mean someone who does not take religion too seriously. This critique is about an American social trend, this does not apply to Europeans, Russians, Chinese, etc. who may or may not identify this way. The American concept is far more insane.

To truly explain how mentally insane we are talking, we need to create an example:

Note: The following is sarcasm, criticizing a social trend – it is NOT a direct attack against anyone.

Imagine a hipster who can’t decide what its gender is, but for now, we’ll call it Arian. The name of an ancient heretic – that sounds like something insufferably archaic and obscure for a hipster, who was a heretic before heresy was popular. We’ll say Arian decided it’s a he.

He is Spiritualbut not religious. Oooh, how edgy. So what does that mean? I’ll tell you. That means he believes in God – but not hateful MASCULINE Chrisitan God, oh no, he believes God is an energy within all our hearts. Now Arian was raised Methodist, so a heresy of a heresy, so he still attends his Methodist church on Christmas with his family, because he believes God is everywhere, and he loves Jesus as a spiritual pacifist teacher.

He sometimes reads the Bible when he’s not reading the Kami Sutra, trying to find how something that morbidly obese can attempt asexual reproduction. How does he justify reading the bible, with all that “hateful” stuff?

Easy. He does what any true American would do. He just picks the parts and verses he likes, and spouts them at you, just like a bible thumping baptist (whom he hates) would do. Context, language, interpretation? Who needs that! He does not need to read the writings of the Church Fathers (who literally put the bible in the current version we recognize) to understand the book. He just picks any verse at random, because it’s not possible to take the Bible out of context [sarcasm]. For example:

[Searches for a random verse] Matthew 27:5: Judas went and hung himself [searches for another] Luke 10:37 Go and do likewise.

That totally makes sense in context! If you point to examples from the Church Fathers, saying that suicide is a serious sin, he will scorn you for being hateful, telling you to read the bible which says to “Love one another”, as if randomly quoting from whatever verse you want at any given time is how to read it. How did he determine which verse is true, and which isn’t who knows?

If you point out that the bible literally did not exist in the current form without The Church, and the Church  Fathers LITERALLY compiled the bible, he will break down and say he doesn’t believe in that hateful book anyway. He will also scorn you for not including the Church Mothers – despite that not actually being a term – who cares about facts!

He will explain to you that HIS God is actually a woman. Except for when he worships Lord Shiva, or the Budhah – nevermind that Buddhists don’t worship the Budah in a traditional western sense. He also loves Mother Thersa, and claims she was a goddess.

Never mind the fact that she was a devout Catholic – and if he actually met her and discussed religion with her, he would find she believes in all those hateful Catholic things he rejects.

He also adores Russian Saint Seraphim of Sarov, who said:

“Acquire the Spirit of Peace and a thousand souls around you will be saved.”

He loves it because it just talks about Peace, and not an exclusive God or dogmas. He thinks Seraphim of Sarov is enlightened. He doesn’t actually speak Russian though. If he did, he would know that Saint Serpahim was referring to the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Holy Trinity.

In all of this, he forgets Saint Seraphim would defend to the last breath the Orthodox Faith, and does not believe anything he practices.

Now, on a serious note, I am also aware Saint Serpahim said:

You cannot be too gentle, too kind. Shun even to appear harsh in your treatment of each other. Joy, radiant joy, streams from the face of him who gives and kindles joy in the heart of him who receives.

All condemnation is from the devil. Never condemn each other…instead of condemning others, strive to reach inner peace.

Keep silent, refrain from judgment. This will raise you above the deadly arrows of slander, insult, and outrage and will shield your glowing hearts against all evil.

I am not perfect, but that little speech about our friend Arian was not meant to condemn anyone, because he isn’t a real person. I don’t condemn anyone, for who am I to judge. Arian in this context, only represents an odd social trend in the west: the idea of spiritual but not religious.

As demonstrated, it is so odd, because it lacks any conviction. Unlike a decided Atheist, a Roman Catholic, or an Orthodox Christian, who each have clearly defined beliefs, spiritual but not religious, in this extreme, represents a pathological resentment of collective and objective truth and faith.

The reason why this has devolved to this level, is because American society has from the very beginning been highly individualistic. This individualism has become so ingrained, that it is beginning to produce people who can’t accept a higher truth or authority beyond their own, fallible, human wills. Russian readers can read this amazing article which shows how Russian collectivism differs from Western individualism.

As a result, religion has degraded in the west to a form of religious entertainment, a feel-good philosophical buffet, devoid of any objective truth, much less the True Faith.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Notify of


Lori Loughlin’s daughter was aboard USC official’s yacht in Bahamas when mom was charged

Lori Loughlin’s daughter was on the yacht of USC’s Board of Trustees when her mom was accused in scheme.

The Duran



Via Fox News

Lori Loughlin’s daughter Olivia Jade Giannulli was spending spring break on a University of Southern California official’s yacht when her mother was accused Tuesday of involvement in a college admissions scheme, reports said.

Giannulli, 19, was on Rick Caruso’s luxury yacht Invictus in the Bahamas, a report said. Caruso is chairman of USC’s Board of Trustees.

Giannulli, who currently attends USC, was with Caruso’s daughter Gianna and several other friends, the outlet reported.

“My daughter and a group of students left for spring break prior to the government’s announcement yesterday,” Caruso told TMZ. “Once we became aware of the investigation, the young woman decided it would be in her best interests to return home.”

Loughlin’s daughter has since returned to Los Angeles to face the allegations that could result in her getting expelled from USC.

USC’s Board of Trustees will not decide the status of Giannulli and the other students involved in the case, but rather, the university’s president will make the decisions, according to TMZ.

Business deals in jeopardy?

Giannulli is a YouTube beauty vlogger and social media star, but in the midst of her mother’s charges, she may lose the lucrative brand-sponsorship deals she has landed over the years, Variety reported.

HP, having cut ties with Giannulli, said in a statement, “HP worked with Lori Loughlin and Olivia Jade in 2017 for a one-time product campaign. HP has removed the content from its properties.”

Giannulli also cut brand deals with partners including Amazon, Dolce & Gabbana, Lulus, Marc Jacobs Beauty, Sephora, Smashbox Beauty Cosmetics, Smile Direct Club, Too Faced Cosmetics, Boohoo, and Unilever’s TRESemmé, the report said.

Giannulli’s rep declined to comment, Variety reported. Estée Lauder Companies, which owns Smashbox and Too Faced, also declined to comment, while the other brands or companies the magazine reached out to did not immediately respond to their requests for comment.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading


$250M Lawsuit Against CNN Imminent; Covington High MAGA Student Suffered “Direct Attacks”

CNN will be the second MSM outlet sued over their reporting of the incident, after Sandmann launched a $250 million lawsuit against the Washington Post in late February. 



Via Zerohedge

CNN is about to be sued for more than $250 million for spreading fake news about 16-year-old Covington High School student Nicholas Sandmann.

Sandmann was viciously attacked by left-leaning news outlets over a deceptively edited video clip from the January March for Life rally at the Lincoln Memorial, in which the MAGA-hat-wearing teenager appeared to be mocking a Native American man beating a drum. Around a day later, a longer version of the video revealed that Sandmann did absolutely nothing wrong – after the media had played judge, jury and executioner of Sandmann’s reputation.

CNN will be the second MSM outlet sued over their reporting of the incident, after Sandmann launched a $250 million lawsuit against the Washington Post in late February.

Speaking with Fox News host Mark Levin in an interview set to air Sunday, Sandmann’s attorney, L. Lin Wood, said “CNN was probably more vicious in its direct attacks on Nicholas than The Washington Post. And CNN goes into millions of individuals’ homes. It’s broadcast into their homes.”

They really went after Nicholas with the idea that he was part of a mob that was attacking the Black Hebrew Israelites, yelling racist slurs at the Black Hebrew Israelites,” continued Wood. “Totally false. Saying things like that Nicholas was part of a group that was threatening the Black Hebrew Israelites, that they thought it was going to be a lynching.”

Why didn’t they stop and just take an hour and look through the internet and find the truth and then report it?” Wood asked. “Maybe do that before you report the lies. They didn’t do it. They were vicious. It was false. CNN will be sued next week, and the dollar figure in the CNN case may be higher than it was [against] The Washington Post.”


Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading


Rand Paul refuses to support emergency declaration, deepening problem

Rand Paul gives a principled reason for his refusal, and he cannot be faulted for that, but it leaves the borders open and unsafe.

Seraphim Hanisch



Senator Rand Paul indicated he will vote to terminate President Trump’s National Emergency Declaration on Sunday. This continues a story that seems to want no resolution.

Weeks ago, the seed to this news piece started this way:

One 35-day partial government shutdown and almost three weeks later, the debate over a statistically tiny amount of money in the US budget for the building of a border wall drags on with no solution. On February 15th, if there is no agreement that is to President Trump’s satisfaction, the government will once again descend into a partial shutdown.

And on February 15th, the President signed a continuing resolution to keep the government open through the rest of the fiscal year. This CR gave sharply limited authority of funds with regards to the border wall. This prompted the President to take it a step farther and declare a National Emergency.

This is because very few people in the US government actually desire a solution to close and secure the American-Mexican border. In fact, what we see is a government that is largely aligned against the will of its citizens.

President Trump has made repeated statements and speeches in which he outlines a fair array of facts concerning the problems experienced in the US by illegal border crossings of both people and controlled substances.

However, the issue of border security remains something that Congress only supports with words. We saw this in action both last week and the week before with the Democrat led House of Representatives voting 245-182 to terminate the National Emergency declaration. While this was to be expected in the House, on March 3rd, libertarian Senator Rand Paul, a known strong supporter of President Trump, nonetheless penned an Op-Ed piece on Fox News in which he said he planned to also vote against the National Emergency in the Republican-led Senate (emphasis added):

In September of 2014,  I had these words to say: “The president acts like he’s a king. He ignores the Constitution.  He arrogantly says, ‘If Congress will not act, then I must.’

Donald J. Trump agreed with me when he said in November 2014 that President Barack Obama couldn’t make a deal on immigration so “now he has to use executive action, and this is a very, very dangerous thing that should be overridden easily by the Supreme Court.”

I support President Trump. I supported his fight to get funding for the wall from Republicans and Democrats alike, and I share his view that we need more and better border security.

However, I cannot support the use of emergency powers to get more funding, so I will be voting to disapprove of his declaration when it comes before the Senate.

Every single Republican I know decried President Obama’s use of executive power to legislate. We were right then. But the only way to be an honest officeholder is to stand up for the same principles no matter who is in power…

There are really two questions involved in the decision about emergency funding:

  • First, does statutory law allow for the president’s emergency orders,
  • and, second, does the Constitution permit these emergency orders?

As far as the statute goes, the answer is maybe — although no president has previously used emergency powers to spend money denied by Congress, and it was clearly not intended to do that.

But there is a much larger question: the question of whether or not this power and therefore this action are constitutional. With regard to the Constitution, the Supreme Court made it very clear in Youngstown Steel in 1952, in a case that is being closely reexamined in the discussion of executive power.  In Youngstown, the Court ruled that there are three kinds of executive order: orders that carry out an expressly voiced congressional position, orders where Congress’ will is unclear, and, finally, orders clearly opposed to the will of Congress.

To my mind, like it or not, we had this conversation.  In fact, the government was shut down in a public battle over how much money would be spent on the wall and border security.  It ended with a deal that Congress passed and the president signed into law, thus determining the amount.

Congress clearly expressed its will not to spend more than $1.3 billion and to restrict how much of that money could go to barriers.  Therefore, President Trump’s emergency order is clearly in opposition to the will of Congress.

Moreover, the broad principle of separation of powers in the Constitution delegates the power of the purse to Congress.  This turns that principle on its head.

Some are attempting to say that there isn’t a good analogy between President Obama’s orders or the Youngstown case. I disagree. Not only are the issues similar, but I think Youngstown Steel implications are even more profound in the case of emergency appropriations. We spent the last two months debating how much money should be spent on a wall, and Congress came to a clear conclusion: $1.3 billion. Without question, the president’s order for more wall money contradicts the will of Congress and will, in all likelihood, be struck down by the Supreme Court.

In fact, I think the president’s own picks to the Supreme Court may rebuke him on this.

Regardless, I must vote how my principles dictate. My oath is to the Constitution, not to any man or political party. I stand with the president often, and I do so with a loud voice. Today, I think he’s wrong, not on policy, but in seeking to expand the powers of the presidency beyond their constitutional limits. I understand his frustration. Dealing with Congress can be pretty difficult sometimes. But Congress appropriates money, and his only constitutional recourse, if he does not like the amount they appropriate, is to veto the bill.

This statement by Rand Paul is extremely – and painfully – fair. It marks not the actions of a liberal but of someone who is trying to do things truly “by the book.” He cannot be faulted for this.

But his “Nay” is very poorly placed because it comes in the context of a Congress that is full of people far less committed to the vision of America and its sovereignty than he or the President are. One of the reasons stated for lax border security is that cutting off illegal immigration also cuts off very cheap labor for several industries. Some of those industry leaders donate lavishly to political campaigns, ergo, corruption.

Rand Paul, in trying to fight for what is right by the letter of the law, may be correct, but in the short term it appears to exacerbate the problem of the porous US-Mexico border.

President Trump is trying to do the right thing in the company of a Congress who does not want this, for various reasons. Some of it is because some Congressmen and women are petty, Nancy Pelosi and Charles Schumer being the crabby National Grandparents in this aspect. But add to the “resist Trump because he is Trump” lobby those people who gain from illegal immigration in the short term, and those like the new socialist crop of Congressional members who are ready to change the very nature of the United States into something like their cannabis-induced dream of Sweden (which didn’t even work in Sweden!) and we see that border security is every bit the uphill climb that President Trump has shown it to be.

The government shutdown did one very good thing: It got the American focus on the border and some opinions on the matter moved – at least among the American people.

But since when did our representatives and senators really represent us, the American people?

It has been a long, long time.


Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading


Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...


Quick Donate

The Duran
Donate a quick 10 spot!


The Duran Newsletter