The parable of the Wicked Vinedressers

The materials of a group manifesto are present, the problem is to integrate it into a group manifesto, Talmud style.

But the Talmudic method, better known today as dialectical materialism, tends to result in the madness of crowds. This can be obviated by not assembling the manifesto until after consensus has been reached, but before anyone attempts to learn if there is a consensus, let alone what the consensus is.

If there are divergent points of view, it is not yet time. If you even suspect there might be divergent points of view, it is not yet time, because trying to construct a consensus will, as with the Talmud and Dialectical Materialism, construct madness and evil.

If people are mostly in agreement, few disagreements on the details seldom matter. Let the disagreements stew for a year or a century, and they will usually fade away. Does every national Orthodox Church agree with all the other Orthodox Churches on everything?

If the disagreements are a problem, then you need to construct a credo and expel the heretics. Or let the heretics expel themselves, thinking they are expelling us, as happened on the issue of the sexuality of nine year olds, but that is when things get nasty, better to ignore the problem and expect it to go away in due course. It usually does. (If anyone is doubt about the sexual prefences of nine year old girls, reflect on the love interest in Disney Princess movies)

The Roman Catholic Church excommunicated the Orthodox hierarchy, but today, the Vatican is well along the path to becoming a lesbian anarcho communist bookshop, while the Orthodox Churches are returning to actual Orthodoxy behind the shield of Putin’s nukes, so it looks like after a millennium, that schism is well on the way to being fixed.

Obviously we have consensus on Game in a world of defect/defect equilibrium, the game of players and bitches. Heartiste speaks truth, Aidan MacClear speaks the truth, Rollo used to speak truth, and many others, myself among them, speak truth. But that is not all that interesting, since the point is to attain a world of cooperate/cooperate equilibrium.

Is there consensus on that? Probably, but it would be dangerously premature to find out.

We have consensus on the Tripartite division Priests, Warriors, and Merchants (the masses do not count, so it is not a four part division.

Overproduction of priests/Brahmans and the holiness spiral. Overproduction of “elites” is well known, but our take is different,these guys are not elite in the way a top engineer or a top athlete or a top general or a top businessman is. They are members of a priesthood, Brahmans. We are all in agreement on the Moldbuggian thesis, but apt to give it in considerably more concise form. Any one of us can and routinely do summarize the doctrine. This one is ripe for a group effort.

Once you say Priests or Brahmans, instead of saying “elites”, the holiness spiral and its cause becomes absolutely obvious.

This concept however is only interesting, when used to put current events into the context of past events.

This doctrine gets interesting when applied to past and recent history. Thus, for example the non trinitarian Socinians that destroyed the Established Church and the Monarchy of England were unambiguously priestly. They called themselves “the Saints”.

Thoreau seems to have pretty much agreed with the Moldbuggian analysis of the civil war, except, of course, that the armed faith that was to conquer America was supposedly individualist, and while he knew it was a religion, felt it was not a church, and therefore exempted from the first amendment, that his brand of individualism could only be imposed at gunpoint by the state, that his brand of anti statism required a vastly more powerful federal government. Thoreau pretty much agrees with Moldbug that the civil war was a theocratic and explicitly religious war to impose the true religion on all by centralized state power, the difference being that Moldbug thinks the religion was statist, oppressive, and untrue, while Thoreau thinks the religion is true, individualist, and anti statist, despite requiring conscription, taxation, warfare, and a vast increase in state power.

Thoreau prefigures the innumerable protests we have recently seen where the Cathedral revolts against itself by demanding more power and money for itself.

I have often remarked on the resemblance between Talmudism and the Dialectical Method and the resemblance between the Marxist reified “History”, and God as understood by the Jews.

The French Revolution was also an unambiguously holy war between Post Christians, who dropped their entryist cover with the Church of Reason, and Christians, exemplified in unambiguous form by the war in the Vendee and the war in Spain. In Paris itself, Church of Reason entryism into the Roman Catholic Church rendered the religious nature of the conflict less clear.

And of course, the English Civil War was just the Bishop’s war. The religious nature of that war is perfectly unambiguous, and Cathedral efforts to rewrite and cast it as Aristocrats versus merchants are ludicrous.

On giving effect to large scale cooperation, we don’t really have consensus. Moldbug’s proposed solutions assume the Ring of Fnargl, which does not and cannot not exist. No man rules alone.

We are still groping around there, but are generally happy with Throne and Altar as the least bad existing and reliable working operating system. It has become apparent that the Parliamentary democracy and the American Republic were mistakes. It is likely that something interesting will emerge out of Sovereign corporations on the blockchain, but we do not yet have the software to instantiate such things, and when we do, it will take a long time to see how they work out. Throne and Altar is a known and existing solution. There is a general consensus that Moldbug’s proposals are idiotic, with which consensus Moldbug does not entirely disagree. Perhaps sovereign corporations can emerge out of his blockchain solution.

The Dark Enlightenment analysis of the state follows from analysis that any state is apt to find things difficult without a state religion, and if you don’t have a state religion, something very bad is going to step into its place. Its a power vacuum.

And, of course, the red pill, my primary interest, and the topic of many of my posts. It simply follows from Game and Evolutionary Game Theory that female consent is a bad idea, that emancipation was a society wide shit test that we failed, and women are reacting to it as to any failed shit test.

Men need to own their wives and children. They should be responsible for their children’s education and educate them as they see fit – which will typically involve enforceable apprenticeship, rather than university.

Of course, it follows from the priest analysis that judge, lawyers, professors, and most of the media are priests – and priests are apt to educate you only in priesting, resulting in “elite” overproduction, and priests getting into everything and redirecting everything from production of value to production of holiness. Hence the murder of Star Wars franchise, Gillette and Coke insulting their customers, the collapsing viewership of Miss Universe and the Woke Olympics, and so on and so forth.

Also resulting in a huge number of utterly useless graduates supposedly educated in “Computer Science”.

I remember when the Cathedral line on the Khmer Rouge changed overnight. Every single academic in the entire western hegemony did a U turn, and none of them were able to notice.

The change of line on Darwin comes pretty close to that.

Now is not yet the time to seek to accomplish what Scientology accomplished.

If we even began doing that sort of stuff, we would be Wacoed instantly.

The Cathedral has a very low tolerance for genuinely patriarchal faiths. Ever since the Mormon wars, they have reacted with fire and slaughter, shouting “Think of the children” as they set the children on fire.

To not be massacred, we would have to make compromises in the faith that would prove fatal to the faith. Namefag problem on steroids.

For the moment, each man must maintain the rule of husbands and fathers individually and privately, rather than collectively, which is profoundly weak and unsatisfactory.

Since nothing should be in the document except matters on which consensus already exists, is widespread and uncontroversial, anyone can do it.

Procedure: Draw up a document on points of agreement (I forgot lots of matters, such as the faith of Gnon)

Circulate to everyone prominent. If none of them complain, done. If they complain that does not accurately reflect their position, leave it out. Throw in a more stuff than is likely to remain – lots of people don’t comment on lots of things because they are in general agreement.

If they cannot do voice recognition that works to log me in to a service or a computer, I would not worry too much. Humans are good at recognizing voices, computers cannot. Computers are getting very good at recognizing faces, but a hat and and outlaw mask throws computers and humans both. Glasses, however, are a problem. Computers are ridiculously good at recognizing glasses. Conversely, if you wear a pair of non prescription glasses for the conference, and never get photographed wearing them otherwise, it screws up their facial recognition no end. They tend to fixate on glasses because they are good at them. For a computer, superman’s Clark Kent disguise is impenetrable.