Fixing Christianity.

Some argue that Christianity is irretrievably cucked, and is the cause of our current problems. And there is much truth in that. Maybe we just have to say “Let Gnon sort them out”.

But, on the other hand, Europe was saved, and indeed formed, by the Roman Catholic Church under the holy Roman Emperor, and we got World Empire, Science, and Industrialization under the officially official State Anglicanism re-established by Charles the Second.  We became what we are under throne and altar, and without throne and altar, are declining from what we were.

If you are going to have a state, you are going to have an official established Church. If you officially do not have an official church, you will unofficially and informally have an officially unofficial Church, a formally informal Church, the arrangement that we first saw with Cromwell’s puritans. Which unofficially official Church tends to wield unaccountable power and is subject to holiness spirals, so they became holier than Jesus, thus Unitarian. A unitarian Bishop, rather than striving to be like Jesus, congratulates Jesus on striving to become as virtuous as her very holy self. Then holier than God. Today’s progressives are holier than God puritans, who have dumped God for insufficient holiness as the unitarians dumped Christ for insufficient holiness.

Natural selection has a huge amount of explanatory power for describing the world that is, and accounting for how it came to be;  Evolution contains vital and important truths about the nature of man and the world, which we must not discard.  The story of the fall, the book of Genesis also contains vital and important truths about the nature of man and the world, which we must not discard.

But the story of evolution tells us that we are risen killer apes who rose over the corpses of a thousand genocides, whereas the story of the fall tells us that death only entered the world in the fall.  We have to reconcile these positions.

We gained knowledge, we were black pilled by it.  We want to go back, to return to innocence, to unknow what we have learned. But we cannot go back.  This is the fall.

The fall is spiritual aspiration rather than a literal descent from a literal plane of existence. The loss of innocence in the story of the Garden of Eden is the black pill, and we cannot return to Eden by unknowing what we have learned, cannot regain our innocence, but must instead take the white pill.

The tower of Babel

The Legendary Tower of Babel

European poster

European Poster of the Tower of Babel

Actual tower of Babel

Actual Tower of Babel

Rather than the Tower of Babel being the last attempt to return to that higher plane of existence, to regain our innocence, to return to Eden, it was the first of many. The story of Babel reflects our consciousness of tribalism, and the problems that it poses for larger political units.The EU is consciously reprising the tower of Babel, which was, so legend tells us, raised by the first city, capital of the first King.

Cities, Kingdoms, and empires followed agriculture, and agriculture first appeared where legend locates Nimrod and the tower of Babel, so likely the legend is based upon truth, that a mighty hunter of the first city became the first King of the first city, the first Kingdom became the first empire, the first empire sought to abolish the fissiparous nature of man, and spectacularly failed to do so.  And similarly, the Puritan socialist experiment was consciously an attempt to return to Edenic innocence.

As was the nineteenth century attribution of innocence and virtue to women, which continues to this day, forgetting what we knew of women in the eighteenth century.  By unknowing what we learned in the fall, supposedly women would become unfallen.

European poster

High trust society

Actual tower of Babel

Tower of Babel in actual practice

Roosh is the only one of a very few Middle Easterners banned from Britain. England fears Roosh more than it fears terrorists who drive trucks over people at nativity scenes, because since 1800 it has been trying to unknow what we know about women. A wall against terrorists would admit the truth about tribalism – so they instead want a wall against Roosh, because Roosh speaks the truth about women. Speaking the truth about women is more terrible by far than driving trucks into nativity scenes to crush the people there.

The EU, Victorianism (and by Victorianism I include the current rape hysteria and sexual violence hysteria) and socialism, are all attempts to cure the black pill, to return to the Edenic plane of existence, by regaining innocence, by forgetting the terrible things that we have learned. The tower of Babel was not the last attempt at return, but the first. But there is no path back. The cure for the black pill is the white pill.

Proofs of God are not interesting, because they can at most prove the existence of a God vast, cold, indifferent, and far away. Back before Darwin, it was seemingly obvious that God was like us, a maker, and we alone of all his creatures were like him, makers, therefore made in his image.  And any one who doubted this was a clever silly.  Now that argument does not fly any more.  Further, a God that is excessively vast and powerful, the God of Muslims and Jews, is inimical to science and technology.  Notice the total non contribution of Muslims and orthodox Jews to science.  The Trinity solves this problem.  God is three and God is one.  Christ is wholly man and wholly God.  God has omniscience, but we have true choices and free will.  Notice how the Muslims fail to get stuff done, because they always say “I will do such and such, God willing”, whereas a Christian will say “I will do such and such”. Predestination sodomizes your civilization and corrupts your culture.  Have to have doctrine that we get to make real choices, and our choices matter, that we are capable of knowing the truth and of being deceived, and the difference matters.

A God of any  argument for the existence of God, is fundamentally inimical to our civilization, for our civilization rests on the Christ and the Trinity.  Which God makes absolutely no sense transcendeth human understanding.

When you try to prove the existence of God, you are proving the existence of the Muslim or Orthodox Jewish God, and we want that God like we want nine inch nails hammered into our heads. Our civilization rests on a God that is as much a man as any Greek God, indeed more a man than any Greek God, for he knew pain and death.

For our civilization to survive, for science, technology, and industry to survive, we either have to go with Christ or with the Norse gods, or perhaps both, and the Norse gods are deader than Christianity.  The only people who seriously claim to be worshiping the Norse gods are a bunch of gay polyamorist greenies, who claim to be worshiping the Norse gods, but are actually worshiping themselves, demons and the evil dead.  Reactionary attempts to revive the Norse Gods suffer from a fatal lack of awe and sincerity.  This may change in future – there is a project under way to unite Odin, who was hung by the neck from a tree, with Christ, who died on the cross.  We will see how that works out, but at the moment, not really working out. Needs a prophet. Will not necessarily get one.

If Islam wins, and as long as conservative Muslims, and only conservative Muslims, are allowed to have real marriages and real families, it is going to win (white Christian women convert to conservative Islam for alpha dick, white Christian men convert for marriage and children) then we are going to wind up looking like the middle east.

Either we go with Darwin alone, or we go with a Christianity reconciled with Darwin.  Anything else is the death of European civilization.  And very few people can handle Darwin alone.  Most of those who claim that they can, are lying, and are in fact preaching progressivism, a form of Christianity rendered observably false by being transliterated from the next world to this world.

The doctrine of the fall contains important truths about the nature of man. The doctrine of evolution also contains similar important truths about the nature of man. Our state religion is going to have to deploy both doctrines simultaneously.

And the doctrine of evolution is that we are risen killer apes who rose upon a thousand genocides. So, death did not literally come into this world with the loss of innocence. Rather, it is a spiritual truth about the black pill, about spiritual death.

A lot of it is a matter of explicating what predecessors said and did reverentially but not uncritically. If the process of explication uncovers errors and defects, it has to be pointed out and fixed accordingly. This is how you make old books live again and recover and reactivate traditions.

If you don’t integrate Darwin and Christ, the clever sillies, claiming falsely to know the truth from Darwin, whom they do not read and do not understand, will take down Chesterton’s fence, and you will start agreeing with them that Chesterton’s fence is really stupid and come up with some clever reasoning that it is not really part of Christianity. And I see this happening right now, and it has been happening ever since Darwin

Christianity is a church, adoptive kin, it is necessarily a tribe, and thus, being a tribe, necessarily something rather like a state. Merely individual Christianity, a personal and individual relationship with god, is not Christianity. Faced with a hostile belief system, Christians are retreating before it, and yielding the collective and tribal functions of the Church to the educators, to the progressives. And inventing a merely individual Christianity that is concerned with merely individual salvation. In so doing, they are hoping to save Christianity by abandoning it.

The clever sillies invoke Darwin merely as a creation myth, to discredit the bible and to discredit the moral, psychological, and spiritual truths of the fall. The correct response is to retreat from young earth literalism, while pointing out that Darwinism confirms the psychological and spiritual truths of the fall. Christianity’s response has been to retreat from young earth creationism as literal truth and also to retreat from the moral, psychological, and spiritual truths of the fall

Religion needs to be a true statement about this world, as well as an unfalsifiable statement about the next. Christianity needs to be fixed so that it once again makes the true statements about this world that it used to make. Speaking truth about this world is a vital and important task of religion, which task it has fled from fearing condemnation by the state religion of progressivism Instead of speaking the truth, they torture the texts, Jewish style, to make them say the opposite of what they say. They turn Saint Paul into a feminist, and turn Deuteronomy and Proverbs into twenty first century anti family and anti marriage law.

Leonardo da Vinci and Lyell showed the world is immensely ancient, and I myself have verified this with a sledgehammer and a crowbar. And then the church fled in embarrassment from the truths that were linked to young earth creationism. Thus the EU repeats the error of Nimrod. This is not a sign of the end times, it is a sign of entropy and forgetfulness, that men do stupid things anew, having forgotten the lessons they learned last time around. It is not a sign of the end times, it is a sign of the decline of social technology.

Who is complaining about the EU project on religious grounds? Only nutcases who think it is a sign of the end times. A Darwinist would tell you that humans are naturally fractious, and one tribe will oppress the other, and a Christian should tell you that one world of one beige colored people is not part of God’s plan for men. If a Darwinist and a Christian got together, as they should, they should agree that to the extent that the EU works, it will work by forming a tribe of Eurocrats that oppress everyone, and to the extent that it does not work, Eurocrats are insufficiently tribal to make it work, and Europe’s military incapacity was demonstrated in the Balkans. The European Union project  is demons in the dark enlightenment sense of self destructive memes possessing people. Whether it is demons in the literal sense of Satan and the antichrist is unverifiable, and does not make a whole lot of difference. Either way the church should be calling it out.

The Anglican Church full of liberals, Catholic Church full of liberals, and world council of churches full of liberals is because the earth is very old. No one can prove Darwinism, though Darwinism makes sense of the world in ways that other forms of analysis do not, but anyone can pick up a sledgehammer and a crowbar, and, following the footsteps of Leonardo and Lyell, prove that the world is immensely old, that young earth creationism is false. The problem is that the truths about human nature and the human condition are linked to Young Earth Creationism, and in quietly abandoning the error of Young Earth Creationism as literal history, the Churches have quietly abandoned their duty to speak the truth about human nature and the human condition, which is almost the same thing as their duty to speak against liberalism and the enlightenment, for in transliterating religious promises about the next world to this world, the enlightenment necessarily denies important truths about human nature.

Therefore, the church has to accept Darwinism, and treat Young Earth Creation as a myth and symbolism expressing important Dark Enlightenment truths about the human condition: Among those truths: The city of Babel became the empire of Babel, failed because of tribalism, the European Union will fail because of tribalism. Also, and more importantly, All Women Are Like That

Universalism neglects the incarnate nature of Christ and his Church, making the Christian God into the God of the Universalists, the God of the Muslims, and then the “Arc of History” of the progressives. At the same time, the Church must not take particularism to the extreme that mistakes the good things of home, family, and nation for ultimate ends in themselves, must steer between the error of the Enlightenment, and the error of the Nazis, must proclaim both to be heresies. “Neither man nor women, neither Jew nor Greek” was said of the next world, not this. Today, the EU, having ensured that there is neither Jew nor Greek, is abolishing men and women.

228 Responses to “Fixing Christianity.”

  1. eternal anglo says:

    Universalism neglects the incarnate nature of Christ and his Church, making the Christian God into the God of the Universalists, the God of the Muslims, and then the “Arc of History” of the progressives. At the same time, the Church must not take particularism to the extreme that mistakes the good things of home, family, and nation for ultimate ends in themselves

    What is the danger in this? Is this not the Ayn Rand position?

  2. The Truth Is says:

    The truth is, God and Jesus are both scumbags.

  3. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    Ideological reframing; God was a conquering chad who cucked jewboy joseph and made mary his concubine.

  4. TBeholder says:

    Notice the total non contribution of Muslims and orthodox Jews to science.


  5. John Sterne says:

    culture is downstream of biology or in a loop with it, power can like any environment repurpose biological instincts but are restricted to biocultural limitations. even modern mao stalin totalitarian absolute powers found bio cultural limitations inevitable resurface.maybe a small point Im sure the right has enough to work with.
    But on the other hand maybe not so small a point.Isn’t the problem that power has exceeded the biocultural limitations, In essence defected from their bio cultural for individual theoretical, and that they keep tending to do this because they can they are powerful, but were not the best periods when the powerful were subject to the bio cultural limits. Thus the right order should be bio cultural power capital thede, and no i didnt forget religion it needs to go, an understanding of the former order can be religions replacement.

  6. vxxc2014 says:

    I disagree with the need. Fix who’s in power and culture/religion/values fix themselves. Culture is downstream and always dependent on POWER. Only clever, silly fools prate that politics is downstream from culture. Bullshit.

    Besides POWER is all we can fix.
    Who, whom we can fix.
    Fix Christianity?
    Well if we’re in power long enough it fixes itself.

    • jim says:

      Nothing fixes itself. Entropy always prevails unless stopped by clever, strong, and forceful means.

      The scientific method prevailed from 1660 to 1944 because King Charles the Second, the fount of all honors mortal and divine, made the invisible college (a bunch of low status nerds who were into the scientific method) high status by making them “The Royal Society”. People who did not like the scientific method then sent thugs to shut down their meetings, antifa style, and King Charles then sent tough guys wearing armor and carrying deadly weapons to keep their meetings open. Ater 1944, Harvard once again sends the thugs around against people practicing the scientific method, on the grounds that you are a “denier”, “racist”, etc.

      It is always easier to break things than build them, and stuff does not build itself.

      • vxxc2014 says:

        I actually think the above is a trenchant and important essay.

        Nor do I think things fix themselves so we agree: but WHAT can we fix?

        Power. Who has power. After that POWER dictates the Culture it wants, to include the scientific method being restored, to restore Christ and Darwin, and so on.

        Now sir all of the above all those good things require what? POWER.
        Now that’s fixable. And now is the time or never – neither you nor I are getting any younger. Nor will this moment come again.

        Charles protected Science because he had POWER.
        Anglicanism exists because Henry VIII needed it’s POWER so he and Thomas Cromwell [thief] stole the Church for themselves. POWER.

        [no the English Catholics weren’t waiting for Henry the Liberator, they wailed at the loss of their church but they submitted to POWER].

        Anglicanism is Catholicism with the King as Pope. Wise actually, I would not at all mind if a President to our liking did the same to the American Church but that’s not presently in the cards. Cuz a Catholic POTUS isn’t in POWER.

        [btw the Catholic Church hardly anti-science but that’s another story, and in any case they lost POWER].

        POWER Jim. That we can do. Then the rest can be fixed.
        Without Throne there is no Altar.

        Cheers and good essay.

  7. vxxc2014 says:

    Also your problem is and remains for most that you want to take a systems approach to a personnel problem.

    The Left are people that must go.

    No system is safe from them nor contains them. Only the grave or jail for life will.

  8. vxxc2014 says:

    This reminds me of the early stages of the Iraq occupation when we were making Iraq into democracy. That’s not complimentary. You can’t just “code” or “recode” civilizations.

    Certainly not ours.

    Go back to last working configuration. Constitutionally that’s before Wilson.
    Social Contract the 1950s.
    Religion? Fulton Sheen and the 1950s was peak American [and not Liberal] Catholicism. Only in the 1960s with Vatican II does the madness set in, and it will pass.

    BTW Catholicism/Early Church got away from Creation Story being literal in the 300s, and the Catholic Church is quite reconciled with evolution.
    And science. Despite what you may have heard.

    If only we had a Pope at present to offer you, but odds are we will again.

    Which doesn’t mean America-a Protestant country that has lost it’s way-can use it. You can’t and won’t. America is a Protestant country, you’re going to have to find your way back to sanity.

    Take what’s working still and build from there, get rid of what isn’t working.

    As for the clever sillies and the Left: there is only one way-death, drive them out or repress them utterly into extinction.

    • jim says:

      This reminds me of the early stages of the Iraq occupation when we were making Iraq into democracy. That’s not complimentary. You can’t just “code” or “recode” civilizations.

      Sure you can. East India company did it all the time. The reason the Iraq occupation failed was lack of colonialists.

      • vxxc2014 says:

        Then we take power, POWER and “recolonize” America.
        Which in a sense we must anyway.

  9. […] Rather than the Tower of Babel being the last attempt to return to that higher plane of existence, to regain our innocence, to return to Eden, it was the first of many. The story of Babel reflects our consciousness of tribalism, and the problems that it poses for larger political units.The EU is consciously reprising the tower of Babel, which was, so legend tells us, raised by the first city, capital of the first King. […]

  10. TTAAC says:

    Uh… the story of the fall is hardly inconsistent with the nearly universal attribution of some form of relative moral innocence to women, which is by no means a modern invention. If women, like children, need firm supervision or are prone to mischief, that hardly implies that women and children are actually less innocent than men. Women may not be angels, but they generally aren’t serial killers or mass murderers.

    • yolo says:

      It implies that they have less agency than the average snake

      • Oog en Hand says:

        Women hold the opposite view that men are mentally deficient creatures who need to be under tight control of mommy, sissy and/or wifey to prevent them from doing stupid things. For this to work, it is very important that men continue to believe that things are run by men.

        • peppermint says:

          No. Single women who watch Netflix believe that women believe that. All women, like the poor girl abused by Aziz Ansari, actually believe that men exist to take care of them, give them resources and babbys, and tell them what to do and protect them from doing stupid things. That’s how the male feminist scam works.

          The only way we continue to exist as a people is by returning to our natural role as protectors and leaders and patrons. Our women, deep down inside, and lowkey not even that deep, expect and demand it.

        • Oliver Cromwell says:

          Women try to control men for the same reason a child keeps asking “why?” to every answer to the question “why?”. He does not want to know why. He wants to know when his target is unable or unwilling to continue answering.

  11. John Sterne says:

    reaction can not save christianity it can only conserve the people who were once christians.christianity is cucked, it served us once only because the cucking accrued to the family called euros. It couldn’t be a better engineered virus for leftist jews to destroy us. Reaction is also based on radical reality, the only religion possible is rational something like nazism or american ism circa 1950 sans the background jews termites. WE can not go back to the greasers ;leftism opened pandoras box universal truths and god are dead. That’s fine even better never again do we have to find a nigger jew work around our truths which we will restore will no longer be universal truths they will be white truths with a little asterisk or swastika that says your results may vary nigger. So there will be no god but gnon the god of piles of children’s arms and hells angel philosophy.The god of our particular truth that justifies only our existence

    • glosoli says:

      Nazism was entirely leftist.
      Why is anyone confused about that?
      National Socialists, it’s a big clue, plus all of their socialist policies.
      Just like Hungary today, pure-bred nazis.

      • jim says:

        Nazism was entirely leftist in 1937, but eighty years of movement even further left has left them behind. Thus 1930s nazis are now, like 2008 Obama Democrats, ultra extreme super duper right.

        • mongoloid says:

          yeah they were pretty nuts but they got fuhrerprinzip right which would have resolved their problems given time

        • John Sterne says:

          maybe the economics were leftist by the days standards certainly less than todays american economic policies AIACC. But so what really what is it we are trying to conserve? at this point it better be our people first and foremost.In favt the only way leftism marxism has survived the economic adjustment since the initial upset due to industrialization to to make it a genetic war.
          so when i say nazism as a religion im being non literal but in the sense that they did in fact suppress cucked religions while inventing a religion of hierarchy patriarchy and genetic and national supremacy, it eclipsed the religious impulse entirely perhaps better faster and more thoroughly than any religion in the history of the earth. They may in fact have shown that the religious impulse is only a tribal impulse. I wont go on about its brilliance because im not even suggesting a exact copy only that they had generally a right idea that the good of the nation was paramount and that is achieved through the good of the individual. Leftists like to claim america was facist like that up to about the 60s and in a sense its true we had a health self centeredness.
          actual superstitious religion is a stupid idea, you cant put that genie back in the bottle rather we should finish the job on christianity admit to the left they are right that everything is subjective and institute our particular truth with an iron fist and no longer need to contort reason to defend cuckery and universal truths

          • Samuel Skinner says:

            The problem is we had that- American civic religion was hierarchical, patriarchal and in favor of genetic and national supremacy. It is possible that making it explicit and writing down its features might prevent that from happening, but it didn’t prevent liberals and conservatives from tossing the bible so that bulwark is questionable.

            • John Sterne says:

              but it wasnt really it was an enlightenment and christian based culture and both those think all men are created equal so when crafty jews made them live up to their own rules they had to fold up or sack up the folded. This is exactly why i say not only must christianity go it must be replaced with a ration non religion and one that is not universal but particularist. this is our nation our people our truth we dont have to justify it to your truths or interests and we dont hold any universal truths we need uphold all men are not created equal christ was a jew so his brothers must be jews

          • Samuel Skinner says:

            Now we might get a religion that uses Nazi symbols or claims ancestry to the movement or claims it as part of a general rise-fall-overcoming decadence trend. I think that is likely to happen. However we are not going to get a faith that takes any substance from the Nazis. If there are similarities, it will be things the Nazis had similar to other groups and not unique to them.

            • peppermint says:

              No one writes a book and then says this is my religion. The most reasonable sounding Gospels from 300 years before were chosen, and then, stupidly, the Old Testament was stapled to them for context.

              If our people survive, we will always be fascinated with this time, and there will eventually be more writted about now than is written now, which will of course be preserved and read over and over. Maybe something from my blog will be considered important, but only anachronistically, as the currents of history go through Moldbug, The Daily Stormer, and The Right Stuff.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            There’s a crucial difference between Vox Dayian protectionism and laissez faire scepticism on the one hand, and National Socialism on the other: in the case of National Socialism, the idea was to stop greedy rich people getting rich, to stop bankers charging interest because it was inherently illegitimate, and to provide generous benefits for the poor because they deserve it bless ’em.
            In the case of our movement’s re-evaluation of laissez-faire, what we’re disagreeing with is the Ricardian idea of the international division of labour, which ignores (understandably) the modern ability of key skilled labour to just up sticks and set up a functioning factory abroad, as well as for fully developed capital equipment (and the ideas to produce it) to be literally transferred across borders.

            Even older Mises Institute talks such as the excellent (at the time) Sudha Shenoy lecture on the international division of labour now seem completely wrong. Basically the production of hi-tech devices is shifting according to the price of bottom tier labour, just like the Marxists said. This isn’t because Ricardo was utterly wrong, but rather because times have dramatically changed now.

            Vox Day isn’t acknowledging that new reality because he’s resentful of investors owning foreign stocks getting rich: he’s acknowledging it because it has a lethal consequence: *unskilled* labour can be shifted around in order to manipulate the supply (and hence price) thereof, and boy are the corporations taking full advantage of it!

            In 2018, the main propaganda enemies of the white race are arguably the entertainment industry first, corporate policymaking second and academia third!

            • peppermint says:

              Why does anyone ever listen to the media? Because they are backed by official truth as produced by academics.

              That’s why media is allowed realism sometimes and irony in portrayals of official truth, but right-wing academics must be forced into retirement. No one believes them, but a bunch of guys telling the truth display academic credentials as if it means they’re also writing stuff people are allowed to believe. Meanwhile, that corporate policymaking is academics through the same revolving door as in government.

              Academia is the one sector that will cease to exist in the future on top of being bitterly resented like journalism and clergy and law (entertainment will be completely rehabilitated with some purging). That’s why all academics will hang.

            • Samuel Skinner says:

              “in the case of National Socialism, the idea was”

              The idea was to say things that appealed to stupid poor people so that Hitler could use the nations resources to mass produce war material. National Socialism ideology is a smoke screen to justify Hitler doing what he wanted to do.

              “he’s acknowledging it because it has a lethal consequence: *unskilled* labour can be shifted around in order to manipulate the supply (and hence price) thereof, and boy are the corporations taking full advantage of it!”

              Nitpick- the problem isn’t manipulation of supply and price- the problem is the elite hates our guts and so sets things up so that firms are better off screwing Americans to make money. The solution is to recognize the manipulation and shoot the elites.

              The exception to this is China because sending industry to the country that is going to be our main competitor in the 21st century is suicidal and stupid even if it is cost effective. There is no solution because no one cares about the long run.

              • jim says:

                Hitler’s socialism fucked up the economy, severely damaging the war effort.

                He was undoubtedly a true believer in socialism.

                His giveaway to the unions was exactly what one would expect of a socialist, and the opposite of what one would want for a war economy.

                • John Sterne says:

                  sometimes an ideas time is historically inevitable, socialism was written into the manorial/agrarian denouement. he at least opted for national over jew international and actually as i understand it implemented a more corporatist model which frankly we also did for wartime. Does anyone really think if germany had won they would have remained socialists, I find that hard to believe. There’s also this question of where to draw a line called socialism. Its pretty hard to say capital doesnt have the upper hand in determining wages negotiations, since its a matter of information technology we dont currently have we must settle for “well you took the wage don’t complain” as the best guess at what the fair wage really is, fair price usually defined as free willing negotiators with equal information, employees rarely have the same freedom willingness or information as employers.Now unions certainly are not perfect and have certainly been sorely abused but they are a rough attempt at leveling the employers information edge, future technology may very well give employees a lot more information and ill bet wages would rise if that happens. Of course only if niggers are sent home.So saying nazis recognition of unions in the transition from agrarian serfdom to industrialization is communism is being a bit of a knee jerk anti socialist the socialism we hate is the socialism that overpays or pays for sitting on ones useless ass, so called socialism that makes price discovery better is not really socialism is it. I mean is anyone here really claiming 1920 wages were what white men were really worth? if so why are you personally demanding more? Bezos can not run amazon if white boys do notman nuclear submarines in the china sea, if white cops do not keep niggers from looting his warehouses and white judges and lawyers do not keep jews from breaking contracts, etc etc bezos didn’t build amazon in america by coincidence, it simply cannot exist in a nigger nation, everything from the transportation communication research institutions military security and advanced labor market and wealthy consumer market were all necessary preconditions for Bezos to be successful.If he were trying to build amazon in nigger land and had to hire haliburton to provide all those services or if molburg were allowed to patch the world and gave haliburton the USA Bezos would pay dearly for each and every one of those services, Imagine halliburton’s employees being the current providers of that at their current wages now imagine how much more haliburtons shareholders would also be making as the difference between what the true price of that labor is and what the employees are getting. Except currently moldburg hasn’t yet been allowed to give title of the nation my people built to some jew techlord trillionaires, so where is that excess money now its being split between bezos and the niggers in a backroom deal brokered by leftist jews who are probably cousins of the tech billionaires they are making these deals with and would be the same jews moldburg wants to make officially our masters. great plan jew boy talk about cucks nrx is like the cuckiest of cucks, some jew flatters them with a promise of scifi edgelord title and they fall for it

  12. anon says:

    “Roosh is the only Middle Easterner banned from Britain.”

    Flatly false, Jim – there’s a partial list here. Plenty of other Middle Easternes

    • peppermint says:

      yes, it was a vast exaggeration, since literally ones of terrorists are also banned

      was the uk one of the countries offering benefits to israeli secret intelligence service veterans?

  13. BomberCommand says:

    Why do we need original sin at all? Our actual progression is from Egalitarian Saveragy to Civilization & Inequality. The Human Race was uplifted from Eden.

  14. 7817 says:

    Essentially, because Ken Ham (chose him because he is the best example) is cucked on race we have no alternative but to believe the old earth hypothesis?

    So the issue is no defenders of YEC acknowledge the reality of human nature?

    • jim says:

      Plenty of defenders of Young Earth Creationism acknowledge the reality of human nature – but are discredited by Young Earth Creationism.

      Our problem is that Christians who quietly fail to defend Young Earth Creationism, also fail to acknowledge the reality of human nature.

      Leornardo was the first person to notice that the rocks show the earth to be immensely old.

      • 7817 says:

        My knowledge is insufficient to make a judgment on the young earth/ old earth debate. People I respect are on both sides.

        The young earth defenders I know of lost credibility when I found the red pill on women and HBD.

        That said, if the Fall is genuine, I don’t understand why it can’t adequately explain everything that Darwinism appears to be needful for. What do I need to read to understand the necessity of evolution to further explain reality beyond the Fall?

        • jim says:

          Sure, a Young Earth Creationist can and should accept something very like the red pill. And if he does, he will be fine.

          But he is vulnerable to the compelling evidence of an immensely old earth dug up by Leonardo and Lyell. Needs to be able to hang on to the moral truths taught in Genesis without needing to hang on to the literal history taught in Genesis.

          • 7817 says:

            That is essentially an inversion of what Ken Ham says: that you can’t hold on to the moral truths taught in Genesis without believing the literal history taught in Genesis.

            I don’t understand why the age matters so much to both sides, apart from the potential moral implications. Truth is truth, and has to be followed wherever it leads.

            The book The Red Queen is valuable because it explains the biological effects of the Fall, and correctly slaps us in the face with the fact that we are animals too and subject to the rules of biology. We are not only a spiritual being, we are beasts. All of this it calls evolutionary biology.

            In so far as evo biology and evo psych correctly describe what we see, I happily accept them, as the descriptions conform to reality. What I remain unconvinced of is their “why.” The Fall explains these effects as well as evo-bio and evo-psych.

            The book The Moral Animal is not valuable because it is a rationalization of the appearance of morals in an utterly mechanistic world. Black pill with no red.

            • Michael Rothblatt says:

              >you can’t hold on to the moral truths taught in Genesis

              That’s the problem with protestants worshiping Bible instead of God.

              >literal history

              But Genesis does not allow itself to be taken as literal history. Else you would have to believe:

              1) That God is anthropomorphic — he has arms, legs, works, rests, literally walked around the Garden of Eden.
              2) That snakes can talk. Is that literally or telepathically?
              3) That Sun is younger than the plants, and that it doesn’t contribute to the nigh-day cycle.
              4) That there is a sky dome, and that there is no cosmos.
              5) That Earth is flat disk and floating on the water and surrounded by the dome.
              6) That hell is under the ground of the Earth. With current technology it would be possible to dig through to hell.
              7) That there is no speciation. Thus all the fossils that were discovered were placed there by satan to tempt the faith.

              Obviously nobody sane is going to believe this, when there is so much evidence to the contrary. So, all that Creationism achieves is production of atheists. This tool must be taken away from their hands and put into ours.

              • glosoli says:

                Catholic incoherence:

                ‘Else you would have to believe:

                1) That God is anthropomorphic — he has arms, legs, works, rests, literally walked around the Garden of Eden.’

                It’s really not hard to believe He did this, given that He sent His Son down to earth to do exactly the same. Doh.

                As for your other points:


                Stop worshiping Mary, the Romans and the Popes, return to the bible, and believe what you read.

              • peppermint says:

                cosmos used to mean the ordered universe that God formed from chaos, now it means the random arrangement of voids and walls that we formed in a structured corner of

              • 7817 says:

                “That’s the problem with protestants worshiping Bible instead of God.”

                Do 10 hail Mary’s and get back to me.

            • jim says:

              > That is essentially an inversion of what Ken Ham says: that you can’t hold on to the moral truths taught in Genesis without believing the literal history taught in Genesis.

              If you cannot hang on to the moral truths taught in Genesis without hanging on to the literal history taught in Genesis, then Christianity is going to have to be dumped.

              But I rather think we can hang on to the moral truths taught in Genesis without hanging on to the literal history taught in Genesis.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                Absolutely we can hang on to it. The moral truths in Genesis appear fully shaped with neither logical necessity nor clear progression from the story.
                If the story progressed logically, the moral would be “stay ignorant and do as you’re told”.

                The Commandments literally appear out of nowhere: Moses vanishes up a mountain and comes back with them ready-made on tablets. Deus Ex Machina in the middle of the plot.

                Breaks all sorts of modern dramatic rules, for sure, but it does at least mean we can throw out all the supernatural garbage without losing the message God was sending to us.

                In a way it makes sense that the Commandments would be so protected and isolated from the story itself: no matter how the context changes in relevance or interpretation, the Commandments appear exactly as they are.

          • Koanic says:

            The literal history is fine. You just can’t read superlatives like “whole” and “all” with a modern interpretation. They are used elsewhere in the Bible to indicate a large but limited scope.

  15. 7817 says:

    Fat fingered the comment box…

    My question is, why is an old earth necessary to understanding human nature?

    Most of the Bible is post fall material.

    Missing something basic, would like to know what it is.

    • peppermint says:

      Obviously a culture that believed in human nature and a young earth existed. The question is if modern young earth theories are compatible with human nature. Old earth Darwinism is incompatible with liberalism which doesn’t stop the masses from asserting their belief in both, as illustrated by The Simpsons’ evolution video.

      Unfortunately, young earth creationists don’t have access to the best arguments against global warming either.

  16. 7817 says:

    I’m not up to your guys intelligence level, but I don’t understand why YEC is incompatible with understanding the Fall of man and human nature.

    The genesis account pretty clearly explains murder beginning immediately after the Fall. It explains the curses Man and Woman would be under as a result.

    Evolutionary biology is definitely interesting, but I haven’t read anything there that’s not adequately explained by

  17. Josh says:

    Unfortunately, I think your assessment of where Odinism and Asatru is at is spot on. The ones who take it seriously are self worshiping faggots, and the right wing ones don’t seem to actually take it that seriously.

    I find it a shame, because in my own spiritual development, it’s the only religion that makes sense to me. (I have no problem going to church and playing Christian if there were to be a serious restoration based on Christianity, but I would still be doing my own thing outin nature) But I know from browsing local Asatru groups, they do not contain anyone worth practicing with.

  18. But Mainline Protestants did reconcile Darwin with Chrisitanity in the late 19th century and it was liberal crap. Ignoring the core idea, they focused on the concept of evolution itself as a form of progress, thus associated to societal progress… Remnants of this are visible at, where else, the UU:

    “the scientific theory of resident forces compels us to find intelligence, purpose, and righteousness in some power within the universe itself and not apart from the universe”

    (insert expletives)

    What we need to reconcile Christianity with is a proper understanding of a subset of Darwinism, I would say, roughly this direction:

    “Richard Alexander proposed a comprehensive integrated explanation. He argued that as our hominin ancestors became increasing able to master the traditional “hostile forces of nature,” selective pressures resulting from competition among conspecifics became increasingly important, particularly in regard to social competencies. Given the precondition of competition among kin- and reciprocity-based coalitions (shared with chimpanzees), an autocatalytic social arms race was initiated, which eventually resulted in the unusual collection of traits characteristic of the human species, such as concealed ovulation, extensive biparental care, complex sociality, and an extraordinary collection of cognitive abilities. We term this scenario the “ecological dominance–social competition” (EDSC) model and assess the feasibility of this model in light of recent developments in paleoanthropology, cognitive psychology, and neurobiology. ”

    Well, the closest to that reconciliation is Rene Girard. Girard was deeply Christian who interpreted the concept of sin having a pragmatic angle namely the competitive spiral of vengeances between these kin-and-reciprocity based coalitions.

    I haven’t invest a lot of time reading Girard because it seems his focus on people imitating each other is better explained via social status. But if you want to do this fixing, Girard is easily your starting point, as he is pretty much the only Christian author who sees humans as coalitions of chimps engaging in genital-ripping contests.

    • jim says:

      > But Mainline Protestants did reconcile Darwin with Chrisitanity in the late 19th century and it was liberal crap.

      Then they were already liberals. Hard to reconcile Darwin with liberalism.

      • yolo says:

        “Hard to reconcile Darwin with liberalism.”

        Liberals profess Darwinism as the smart person’s alternative to Creationism. One might as well take them seriously. The science, after all, is in.

        • Samuel Skinner says:

          “One might as well take them seriously. ”

          Except Darwinism and Creationism aren’t mutually exclusive. Darwinism covers change of living things over time. Creationism is about the origin of the universe and life on earth.

          Creationism is discredited by chemistry and astrophysics, not Darwinism. The only thing Darwin disproves is that species are not unchanging and were not created in their present form by God. Given the existence of artificial selection this is not stunningly novel.

        • peppermint says:

          Liberals claim to, but don’t, believe in Darwinism as applied to humans. This demonstrates the utility of a hostile to a religion’s holy texts. Christianity was not subverted by a hostile appeal to the Bible, but through the universities and seminaries. Hostile appeals to the Bible were then used by the progressive priests in the mopping up phase, which has reached its conclusion. Christianity is now useless, to us as well as to the enemy.

          Creationism has and will always mean what it means, and it is contradicted by Darwin, whose idea applies as much to non-cellular life as to cellular and sexually reproducing life. Carving out a nonstandard role for God and rejecting common definitions is underhanded apologetics and apologies are for losers.

        • Dave says:

          Liberals believe in Darwin only when ridiculing Christians for not believing in Darwin. They never stop to think that if Darwin was right, racial differences are real and it is natural, necessary, and good to discriminate in favor of one’s own race.

        • jim says:

          They lie.

          They deny Darwinism.

          They absolutely reject Darwinism.

          Chagnon had his life destroyed and his tenure effectively cancelled for actually professing Darwinism.

          What they profess is common descent – and not even common descent. They profess that men are merely apes, and apes are merely monkeys.

  19. Anon Man says:

    Jim, you should look into this thing called Christianity. Try reading any saint ever.

    • Knygar says:

      AM, you should look into this thing called Science. And not cuckolded American science, true Marxian social science.

    • jim says:

      We have the pope washing the feet of trans sexual prostitutes. Pretty sure he is going to be sainted for that.

      • You mean, the Antipope? 🙂 No Pope have retired of is own will for like 7-800 years. Ratzinger’s retirement is highly suspicious…

        • Oog en Hand says:

          What about John Paul I (THE FIRST!!!)?
          Lay name: Alberto Luciani

          David Yallop wrote a book about this. It also mentions that Cardinal Siri was also one of the contenders.

          Karol Wojtyla is a halachic Jew.

          Wrong choices have ETERNAL consequences. Wager of Pascal, Wager of Bernstein….

      • Orthoanon says:

        Try orthodoxy. There is a whole deep well of Christian thought that supports king and country and lacks the cucked consequences of papist innovations.

  20. Carlylean Restorationist says:

    Since we’re entertaining possible religious ideas and flirting with adopting them, here’s a bit of off-the-wall blue sky thinking for y’all:

    The arc of history is true, but the progressives, like all Keynesians/logical positivists, are trying to interfere with Time, and as it is with malinvestment arising from interest rate suppression, so it is with unnatural social progress: some of the results would have been wholesome in some real and possible future (a factory wrongly built in 1928 would probably have eventually been built: there were certainly more factories in 1965 than in 1929) but were out of time and hence out of place; others of the results are weird misbegotten abominations (pets dot com would never have been a good idea but once time was warped out of shape, it looked like a tempting picture of a future reality – a false one!).

    According to austere, Daniel Dennett flavoured Darwinism, blind differential replication processes have produced not only everything we see around us, but in addition an ever-growing set of skills, tricks, speed-ups and competences: everything from sexual selection and mitochondrial symbiosis through to tool-use, language and the printing press.
    The trend over time has been towards increased Goodness: the life of a bird is brutal compared to the life of a human in the West, but nevertheless is a lot less brutal than that of a primitive worm; the life of a human in the West is problematic in ways that the life of a medieval Middle Easterner’s life was not, but overall the comfort and scope for mental development is far greater.

    This kind of arc of history, where blind Darwinian processes, *if left alone*, produce Good over time, is a vision of God, the maker (as figuratively as you like) of the rules themselves.

    If we want to focus our reverence on something our Darwin-evolved brains are most suited to understand, it is the embodiment of God’s rules in a Man.
    That Man is Jesus Christ, the living breathing embodiment of opposition to logical positivism, of accepting reality and Truth as it really is while embracing the guiding principles laid down (as figuratively as you like) to Moses: protect property rights, venerate family and tradition, eschew envy and covetousness and put your own house in order before righting your brother’s.

    Not a bad draft at a version of Christianity wholly compatible with Darwin and Reality, and remember even if the above is pish and twottery, SOME version of somesuch attempt has to be undertaken because right from the horse’s mouth (or the Lamb’s mouth if you prefer): it’s all about what is True.

    • peppermint says:

      “society just isn’t ready for trannies, we still have the notion of a women’s room because men can’t at this stage be stopped from abusing women”

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        I appreciate your comment peppermint: you and I might rarely agree but what’s very clear is that you have one of the sharpest minds in our community.

        I anticipated that my claim about the arc of history would be controversial. The danger for our people (reactionaries, rightists in general, whitists in general and so on) is that we simply adopt the polar opposite of everything the left adopts: an easy formula!!
        Take the shorter working week: a person in 2017 in most Western countries can get away with working thirty hours at a relatively low level job if they’re not too attached to material luxuries.
        That’s something completely alien to anyone living prior to about 1960, perhaps even later.

        Now, before anyone says it, of course I realise there are some distortive subsidies going on here in the West and I’m not taking adequate account of them. Nevertheless, many of these predate the shorter working week.

        The mild, ‘weak’ point I’m making is that human existence has tended, under conditions of capitalism and the relatively free flow of information, towards greater comfort and reduced suffering.

        *That* is what I’m calling “the arc of history”.

        What the left does is to try to do to the arc of history what it does to the economy of a nation: stimulate it! Bring the future into the present….

        This by necessity involves knowing what’s IN the future, which is why during a period of fiscal and monetary looseness, you see some projects brought forward which *aren’t* liquidated during the bust phase, but many others which are. Technically Mises would categorise both of these categories as malinvestments, because in both cases the only reason they’re happening is that the signals from the market coming their way are an illusion.
        (Remember Austrianism is neutral as to the value of the results: it just tells you what the results will be.)

        The obsession with trannies is (to our eyes at least) a very clear case of the latter: an obvious ‘malinvestment’. Something’s being ‘brought forward from the future of the arc of history’ which has no legitimate place IN the future arc of history! The leftists are predicting a future condition which would NOT have come about, and then bringing ‘it’ forward into the present.

        Remember, it’s *always* a Misesian misallocation, and while sometimes it may turn out by sheer luck (and some skill) to have been a good guess, plenty of other times it won’t, so it’s better to let the arc unfold of its own natural accord, just like the economy.

        Now again before anyone needs to say this, in our circles we’re above pure laissez-faire: we know that if laissez-faire means the death of the British steel industry simply because China’s undertaking some government stimulus of theirs, then to hell with laissez-faire, we do what’s best for the nation, which may very *well* be doing things which harm many more consumers of products using steel than they help people involved in the steel industry. Yes we agree and concede this and we don’t care.

        Does the same apply to this posited arc of social history? Certainly! If our God-Emperor decides to make some kind of social intervention in the interests of the nation then so be it. We trust that we cogs in the machine don’t know better than the man who’s tasked with guiding the nation. This is what differentiates a reactionary / dissident-rightist from a milquetoast small/limited government conservative or libertarian.

        The question then is this: absent democracy and the Satan cult of progressivism, which Habsburg, Cameralist or Fascist dictator is going to make a big song and dance about teaching five-year-olds the beauty and dignity of cutting your penis off and putting on a dress?

        • Samuel Skinner says:

          “Take the shorter working week: a person in 2017 in most Western countries can get away with working thirty hours at a relatively low level job if they’re not too attached to material luxuries.
          That’s something completely alien to anyone living prior to about 1960, perhaps even later.”

          So moderns have almost as much free time as hunter gatherers.

          “The mild, ‘weak’ point I’m making is that human existence has tended, under conditions of capitalism and the relatively free flow of information, towards greater comfort and reduced suffering.”

          No. 19th century plus that has held true due to innovation. Prior to then, the economic growth rate was slow enough that it was generally eaten up by the population growth rate.

          Unless the trans-humanists get their wish, this will eventually return and the standard of living will return to what is needed for birth and death rates to be in equilibrium.

          • peppermint says:

            Medieval peasants had tons of holidays and important legal protections up to and including the safely valve, sanctuary at a monastery. Their marriages were protected. They were vastly better off than most Whites today, including in terms of health, since today’s Whites have a ridiculous high carb low protein diet leading to insane levels of fatness.

            • Koanic says:

              I remember when you weren’t worth reading. You’ve been reading.

              • glosoli says:

                As you mentioned above, if he would only read (or listen to) the Old Testament, he’d see that the framework we need to live ordered lives is all in there.

                If he’s bright and seeking the truth and solutions, eventually he must realise that modern Churchianity is not what is in the bible. As a bonus, he would probably be saved, and be more relaxed about the shit on this planet.

                • mongoloid says:

                  theres no salvation in the old testament because back then god was cool and knew what he was doing

                • glosoli says:

                  God is unchanging and we live according to His plan.
                  Mock Him at your peril.

                • mongoloid says:


          • mongoloid says:

            The mild, ‘weak’ point I’m making is that human existence has tended, under conditions of capitalism and the relatively free flow of information, towards greater comfort and reduced suffering.

            nobody wants to go back in to th malthusian bonecrusher

            • glosoli says:


              Given a choice and a time machine, I would go back in time. The Reformation in my country, c.1500, would be fine.

              Re the suffering, you simply are ignoring WW1, WW2, Stalin, Mao etc. Suffering is everywhere, and it’s worse by the day.

            • peppermint says:

              Greater comfort? Moron. Look out a window.

              • Samuel Skinner says:

                Maybe he is autistic and doesn’t get out?

                Look at the suicide rate, the prescription drug rate and the obesity rate. If people are engaging in those activities they are not comfortable.

                • mongoloid says:

                  calhouns rat utopia did not turn dystopic because of material superabundance but because of social breakdown, cause and effect went… material superabundance -> insufficient mortality -> occupation of all possible social spaces by the old -> inability of rat boys to become rat men -> inability of rat manboys to woo rat women -> le beautiful ones

                  rats are stupid, humans are slightly less stupid, social engineering is imperative, gas the boomers generation war now

                • peppermint says:

                  No, moron, people are not more comfortable. You may have heard about a little group of people called Generation Zyklon…

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  “calhouns rat utopia did not turn dystopic because of material superabundance”

                  Material abundance is unrelated to comfort. Human happiness from material goods is essentially homostatic; the amount of joy you get from a new car , tv or movie is the same as what someone got from a new horse, radio or passion play. Happiness and sadness are signals your body gives you to reinforce certain behaviors; you can’t have increases in comfort over time because any increase causes the baseline to rise.

                  The exception are super-stimuli; refined sugar, alcohol, pornography, drugs and gambling.

                  If people are turning to those it doesn’t just mean their lives are bad; it means they are constantly getting worse.

                • peppermint says:

                  Be that as it may, the fact remaints that GenZ plays with 200$ cell phones and 600$ computers or consoles and eats chicken tendies where their GenX parents had cars and burgers and went outside. It’s not just inflation masking just how little these kids have.

                  All they have is us. Thus they are hard right. Even most millennials don’t get it.

                  If millennials had had the kind of access to porn GenZ has, we would all have discovered tranny bullshit earlier. That’s not what they’re doing.

                  We just need to keep the last waves of invaders out, at long last there is hope for America.

                • Mack says:

                  “Be that as it may, the fact remaints that GenZ plays with 200$ cell phones and 600$ computers or consoles and eats chicken tendies where their GenX parents had cars and burgers and went outside. It’s not just inflation masking just how little these kids have.”

                  Close, very close, but you’re not quite there. Cars and burgers are not material happiness either. Would that the problem were so tractable. There was life with bicycles and hikes and the occasional soda. The real problem is that there just is no remaining social space.

                • peppermint says:

                  cars are seriously expensive in a way that computers are not, and mean going outside; what I mean by burgers is healthy food that isn’t the cheapest possible. Parents had serious money and time to invest in GenX, which has been taxed and stolen from GenX. So the children of GenX reject the values of GenX and the schools, since those values obviously aren’t capable of giving them anything.

                • peppermint says:

                  The essential lie of rationality is that facts are exchanged as a frictionless transaction, instead hatefacts are resisted.

                  Children are intended to be be given resources and values. Boomers, Xirs, and Millennials were bought, I once got in trouble for saying the word jap but never for calling anyone gay, schools now impose strict snitching ideological conformance with Michelle food and no future at the end. No transfer of resources, no transfer of values.

                • mongoloid says:

                  michelle food? slow food is great every body should a garden. look the problem isnt investment of either money or time somehow all of our ancestors made did with so much less it’s all degraded culture and mechanisms of behavioral regulations more generally i don’t know why this is so hard to understand i really dont

                  kids can get around just fine on bikes and healthy food costs less than junk just people especially the prole driftmasters and their offspringen don’t have the time preference to make a pot of rice and beans and ham in 15 minutes over the 30 second microwavable “pizza” lab concoction. libraries are basically dead nowadays unfortunately but anyone can learn anything on the internet for free now as long as they have the IQ for it, theres youtube and google books for free and amazon for buying books and so many great books are out of copyright available on you can have the words of the inventor of propaganda one edward bernays himself delivered straight to your retinas in just a few clicks and a few more seconds but nobody does for three simple reasons:
                  a. everything is illegal
                  b. people are stupid
                  c. vidya and “””social””” media apps are superweaponized psychowarfare scientifically designed to hack your amygdala, fuck the shit out of your dopamine and turn innocent young kids into grubby cheeto-eating basement-dwelling fat slobs by the millions

          • jim says:

            Improving physical technology means more food, fewer deaths from disease, everyone can communicate with everyone, all data gets stored forever.

            Declining social technology makes it harder to form families and reproduce, This is profoundly distressing, and for males is psychologically similar to being conquered and enslaved by a hostile tribe, for women psychologically similar to being neglected and abandoned.

            • peppermint says:

              Does that better food get into the bellies of the youth? As with everything, Boomers benefit, GenX passively endures, Millennial bugmen are bought off, the rest of the Millennials and GenZ are ignored except to insult them. Boomers have this idea that no matter how hard off you are, you can always get a job and rent an apartment. The low wage jobs are taken by migrants, but you can still get one, but the low wage housing is taken by Section Ape niggers, and low wage housing, obviously, means luxury apartments too. If you’re White and poor you’re less than nothing. There is anger that you wouldn’t believe that bleeds into the normiesphere sometimes, and that everyone citing productivity statistics or the rat utopia is ignorant of.

              This isn’t declining social technology psychologically similar to being occupied. This is occupation.

              • peppermint says:

                This is why the Dhimmicrat party is over. The Boomers are increasingly irrelevant and hated as looters, they don’t have the resources to buy off GenX the way they bought the Boomers, they have to keep up the pressure on Millennial bugmen who are dimly conscious of the plata o plomo they’re accepting, and they have no answer to GenZ. Buying off more Whites inherently means more Whites feeling comfortable expressing themselves. Ratcheting up anti-Whiteness lowers morale for Xirs and bugmen, but is necessary to keep them in line. If they didn’t have an occupying army, the US would have been completely Republican a decade ago, and if they can’t keep bringing in occupiers, they’re completely done within the next five years.

        • John Sterne says:

          but the satans of progressivism dont in fact get tranny toddlers or nigger rights voted in do they they take their fellow aristocrats into rooms and bribe or threaten them then they cut the penises off at gunpoint and watch for who stops clapping.And no while i enjoy the shit out of trump calling niggers shit i wouldnt trust him to do shit

        • Michael Rothblatt says:

          >Yes we agree and concede this and we don’t care.

          It isn’t about laissez-faire, we haven’t had laissez-faire for over a hundred years. It’s about the fact that Westerners have become so decadent that if China stopped subsidizing the Western consumerism the Western living standards would start falling.

          But falling living standards *might* actually be a good thing right now (we are unworthy)…
          I imagine there would be less virtue-signalling about rapefugees and trannies when people have their own shit to worry about.

          • mongoloid says:

            “standard of living” is typical post-mercantilist crap. we are land-fish. material standard of living beyond literal fourhourworkweek subsistence hunter-gathering is unimportant to human happiness because human evolutionary imperative doesn’t give a flaming fuck how much money you have in the bank, what car you drive, what you have in your wallet, or what brand of Ralph Lauren polo shirt you wear, human evolutionary imperative is get fit, make war, take women, fuck and be merry

            • Michael Rothblatt says:

              I am not a utilitarian. I don’t give a crap about happiness.

              • mongoloid says:

                >But falling living standards *might* actually be a good thing right now (we are unworthy)…
                >I imagine there would be less virtue-signalling about rapefugees and trannies when people have their own shit to worry about.


                >material wealth has something to do with standard of living
                >people virtue-signal because they are rich and/or because they are happy because they are rich

                your shit is retarded, dawg

                • Michael Rothblatt says:

                  You are retarded.

                • mongoloid says:

                  conversational postmortem:

                  Mikha’el Rothblatt:
                  >decay might like totally be a good thing after all
                  >people will surely stop conspicuously professing their religiopolitical loyalty to the reigning supertotalitarian order upon becoming dirt-poor in reality as well as dirt-poor on paper

                  >your argument is retarded and heres why

                  Schlemiel Kvetschenschlockmaven
                  >no u

  21. Michael Rothblatt says:

    It turns out that there was no problem in the first place Jim, only that old knowledge was lost and forgotten. Here’s Saint Athanasius the Great (note that he lived in fourth century and wasn’t aware of Darwin) in his De Incarnatione:

    “For transgression of the commandment was turning them back to their natural state, so that just as they have had their being out of nothing, so also, as might be expected, they might look for rotting into nothing in the course of time. For if, out of a former normal state of non-being, they were called into being by the Presence and loving-kindness of the Logos, it followed naturally that when men were bereft of the knowing of God and were turned back to what was not (for what is evil is not, but what is good is), they should, since they derive their being from God who IS, be everlastingly bereft even of being; in other words, that they should be disintegrated and abide in death and rot. For man is by nature mortal, inasmuch as he is made out of what is not; but by reason of his likeness to Him that IS (and if he still preserved this likeness by keeping Him in his knowledge) he would stay his natural rotting, and remain incorrupt; […] For God has not only made us out of nothing; but He gave us freely, by the Grace of the Logos, a life in correspondence with God. But men, having rejected things eternal, and, by counsel of the devil, turned to the things of rot, became the cause of their own rot in death, being, as I said before, by nature rotting, but destined, by the grace following from partaking of the Logos, to have escaped their natural state, had they remained good.”

    TLDR; Man like everything else by its created (and thus mortal) nature is in the constant state of rotting, being pulled to return to its natural state of non-being. God gave man a chance to avoid that, and by turning away from God, man was returned to the natural state of things, which is rot and death. And that was the story of the Fall of Man.

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      I don’t think declaring that which is natural is bad is the way forward. If death, sex, struggle, domination and power are necessary parts of life, we should say they are good, not declare we are above them and erode that which is necessary for our survival.

      • Michael Rothblatt says:

        >we should say they are good

        “Then God looked over all he had made, and he saw that it was very good!”

        The rot at the heart of Creation is a consequence of its disunity with God. This fact, that Creation is incomplete, is unfortunate and tragic, but it doesn’t mean that Creation is evil. It’s what Gnostics believe. And it’s a heresy. All the animal instincts that humans possess can be used for good or bad. Consider what Saint Gregory of Nyssa says of bad use of instincts:

        “These attributes, then, human nature took to itself from the side of the brutes; for those qualities with which brute life was armed for self-preservation, when transferred to human life, became passions; for the carnivorous animals are preserved by their anger, and those which breed largely by their love of pleasure; cowardice preserves the weak, fear that which is easily taken by more powerful animals, and greediness those of great bulk; and to miss anything that tends to pleasure is for the brutes a matter of pain. All these and the like affections entered man’s composition by reason of the animal mode of generation.”

        And of the good:

        “So, likewise, on the contrary, if reason instead assumes sway over such emotions, each of them is transmuted to a form of virtue; for anger produces courage, terror caution, fear obedience, hatred aversion from vice, the power of love the desire for what is truly beautiful; high spirit in our character raises our thought above the passions, and keeps it from bondage to what is base; yea, the great Apostle, even, praises such a form of mental elevation when he bids us constantly to think those things that are above and so we find that every such motion, when elevated by loftiness of mind, is conformed to the beauty of the Divine image.”

        Death can mean teens applying for euthanasia like they do now in Europe, or it can mean dying for some higher goal. Sex can mean sodomy, and can mean procreation in lawful marriage. Struggle can mean struggle of highwaymen to rob and pillage, or struggle of an honest man to earn his daily bread. Domination can mean domination of said highwaymen over their victims, or it can mean domination of paterfamilias over his family. Power can mean power of the righteous prince that scatters the bandits out of his realm, or it can mean a power of communist dictator presiding over a reign of terror.

    • jim says:

      Young earthism, and fails to derive human nature from the fall.

      This is the opposite of what we need. We need to derive human nature from the fall, without taking young earth creationism literally.

      • Michael Rothblatt says:

        It’s the opposite of YEC. Young Earth creationists believe that man was by nature immortal, but became mortal as a consequence of the Fall. Saint Athanasius says that man is by nature mortal, and was offered immortality by supernatural means, which immortality man rejected.

        Human nature isn’t derived from the Fall, but from the Creation. And since man came from nothing and is pulled towards nothing, that nature is struggle, pain, and death.

        • jim says:

          OK, makes sense. It is not old Genesis, but it is consistent with an old earth Genesis story that can be told.

      • Michael Rothblatt says:

        Or let me put it this way, perhaps more clearly. Man was called into being from creation, which was called into being from nothing. So God did not snap his fingers and then suddenly puf: there is already everything in place as it is today. And the fact that YECs believe that is more on Aristotle than on the Bible.

  22. glosoli says:

    Evolution is bunkum, read Zippy above.

    Sarah Salviander at sixdayscience has reconcied creation with science and time. Read it.

    • alf says:

      Not sure who I find sillier, dorkonaryfuture or zipcuck. DF

    • alf says:

      At least is obviously silly which makes him disarming, while zipcuck is serious enough to almost trick you into thinking he knows what he is talking about. So I guess I prefer DF.

      • glosoli says:

        It’s telling when a reply instantly jumps to name-calling, and facts are ignored.

        Anything to alleviate that cognitive dissonance.

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      … fine, I’ll take a look.

      “It is a historical fact that a republic based on inalienable rights, rule of law, the free market system, the abolition of the ancient practice of slavery, the rejection of a rigid class structure of society, and the optimistic belief in progress”

      Glosoli, we are reactionaries. Having someone declare how wonderful Christianity is because of how progressive it is is not a good sign.

      “Science must also be included as one of Christianity’s many gifts to humankind. ”

      The Ionian Greeks developed science as well.

      Then there is matching parts of the genesis narrative to scientific understanding of how things came to be. The problem is the methdology can be extended to any creation myth. Etc- Taoism

      —There was something featureless yet complete, born before heaven and earth; Silent—amorphous—it stood alone and unchanging. We may regard it as the mother of heaven and earth. Not knowing its name, I style it the “Way.”[2]—

      One of the cosmological theories is the universe was in an unstable state before the big bang occurred bringing everything into existence; it is amorphous because it lacks any distinguishing features, even time itself.

      —The Way gave birth to unity, Unity gave birth to duality, Duality gave birth to trinity, Trinity gave birth to the myriad creatures.—

      There are 4 fundamental forces in physics. At the birth of the universe they were combined as one and separated one by one as described here.

      —The myriad creatures bear yin on their back and embrace yang in their bosoms. They neutralize these vapors and thereby achieve harmony.[3]—

      Once separated the 4 forces allowed the creation of stable matter and the universe.

      “Darwin: Very gradual change combined with natural selection sufficiently explain the origins of new cell types, organs, tissues, and species. (Falsified by scientific evidence).”

      Darwin is responsible for the theory of natural selection and sexual selection. It was also not about ‘very gradual change’; Darwin didn’t have the specifics of the mechanics in mind because under what was currently known what he was proposing was impossible. Specifically it was clear that traits blend which means you can’t get traits to evolve in populations; the evidence however was strong enough that Darwin and Wallace were willing to stake their reputations on the possibility that there was an unknown mechanism preventing blending.

      And it turns out they were right; genes exist, are discrete and reproduction works in such a way that traits aren’t blended out of existence.

      • peppermint says:

        if dhimmicrats have TFR 0.9 and rethuglikkkans have TFR 2.4, even though political tendencies are a continuum, the population will drift conservative

    • glosoli says:

      > > “It is a historical fact that a republic based on inalienable rights, rule of law, the free market system, the abolition of the ancient practice of slavery, the rejection of a rigid class structure of society, and the optimistic belief in progress”

      > Glosoli, we are reactionaries. Having someone declare how wonderful Christianity is because of how progressive it is is not a good sign.’

      I didn’t say she was perfect. It’s the slide show that is most impressive anyway. Taoism or any other *religion* can’t match the accuracy of the six-days with the universe’s known history.

      • jim says:

        > Taoism or any other *religion* can’t match the accuracy of the six-days with the universe’s known history.

        Any attempt to rationalize six days as historically accurate is likely to result in you rationalizing away the moral and psychological truths of the Genesis account, with the result that you reinterpret the bible into an Enlightenment document.

        The Enlightenment is empirically false, transliterating unfalsifiable Christian doctrines about the next world (“Neither Greek nor Jew, neither man nor woman”) into falsifiable and false doctrines about this world.

        It is unchristian, because false to the world, thus false to the incarnation.

        We don’t want to “save” the Genesis account in ways that destroy its moral, psychological, and spiritual truths, because such a rescue is bad for civilization and is not Christianity.

        • Koanic says:

          There are lots of metaphorical uses of units of time in prophecy. I doubt it was exactly 40 years wandering in the wilderness. Chronometer precision is not a Biblical value. It was pre-clock.

      • Samuel Skinner says:

        “I didn’t say she was perfect. It’s the slide show that is most impressive anyway. Taoism or any other *religion* can’t match the accuracy of the six-days with the universe’s known history.”

        Given we have no metric to judge accuracy (since we have no way of declaring what parts are more important to be known) this is like reading tea leaves- totally subjective.

    • jim says:

      Zippy is wrong. Darwin is right.

      And Saint Augustine is right about the Book of Genesis.

      Further, Saint Augustine is right that it is stupid for religion to intrude on the proper magistry of science, as it is wicked for science to intrude on the proper magistry of religion.

      Further, the twentieth and twenty first centuries have convincingly demonstrated that it is heresy to add things outside the proper magistry of religion to orthodoxy and required belieft.

  23. Orthodox says:

    The Catholic Church already accepts Darwin.

    The Church knows eternal truths about humanity (human nature being relatively fixed for millennia at least and possibly these truths only cease to be true when men cease to be human), while Darwin has a good theory, but conclusions are constantly changed by new facts.

    Until you have a very concrete, verifiable, testable hypothesis confirmed, then Darwin must start from the truths taught by the Church. Consider it a rock if you like, the foundation from which you test.

    Pope Benedict XVI wrote the Introduction to Christianity, worth reading. He makes a point that the Trinity is really about explaining how God is not limited by number. 3 in 1 is easier to process than 10 in 1.

    Every Protestant sect is cucked. The Lindy effect in in play: the older the sect, the more pure it is to its origins. The Catholic Church has not splintered and Latin Mass is on the rise. The Anglican and Lutheran churches (the most Catholic of the Protestants) are relatively unchanged. Even if they are getting cucked, the fundamentalists break off and preserve it. More modern sects vanish within generations.

    • John Q Public says:

      Sorry, the Catholic Church will approve gay marriage in 2018.

    • glosoli says:

      Hail Mary, queen of the universe, is that cucked or not? You tell me.
      Confessing one’s sins on earth to a man you call ‘father’, is that cucked or not, you tell me?

      Divorces galore, no, not cucked.
      The masses not allowed to read the bible, lest Truth hit them, not cucked?
      The Roman Empire cucked and perverted Christianity very early on.
      Hence the Reformation.

      Now you have two Popes for the price of one, well done, you just need a female and a black to go with the commie from South America, for a full house.

    • jim says:

      Been to the Roman Catholic Church. Fairly regularly. It preaches, not Christianity, but enlightenment doctrine.

    • peppermint says:

      One of the few times I went to church after reaching sufficient adulthood to be able to listen to a speech, the priest said that not a bird falls from the sky except at God’s permission. I guess he was trying to comfort the old people with talk of The Plan, but it really makes the world sound pointless.

      A priest at an atheist friend’s funeral said that it was great that it brought people to church as friend would have wanted and hopefully it would bring people closer to God.

      When I was in sunday school, first they talked about the Hebrews and tried to make them sound great, secure in the knowledge that I wasn’t going to open a Bible and read about Abraham pimping his sister and wife and then getting his friend Jehovah to demand satisfaction for kings fucking his wife, then as a teenager they told is Dawson’s Creek tier anti-drug propaganda, and then they told us that abortion is about using women and throwing them away, which is true, but the converse of that is not dating until you’re 30, which is even worse.

      Oh, and they made us do a mock wedding to show how beautiful the ceremony was. They didn’t even try to defend marriage, they said nothing about the pair bond or the family, they only said that marriage and the priesthood are equally valid vocational choices.

      If I was going to fix the curriculum, I would talk about the seven sacraments, the seven deadly sins, the cardinal and theological virtues, the saints and kings of our people. One big problem Americans have is that we don’t have saints, no one canonized Jefferson and Jackson, and consequently it isn’t blasphemy to insult them, it stopped being unofficial blasphemy at some point in the last decade, and instead we have saints like MLK.

      • StringsOfCoins says:

        Just today I was driving down Caesar’s boulevard. Cesar Chavez boulevard. All hail our saints. The worst among us are truly our best, and we will pay for them, during our worship.

  24. alf says:

    I really like this post.

  25. Anonymous says:

    I tend to think if Pride/Humility were switched as Vice/Virtue Christianity would be resurgent again. Women are attracted to a a sort of suave social/physical dominance that can only be attained with copious amounts of pride.

    And yet modern Christians are absolutely adamant about the importance of Humility, it seems to be the most important thing to many of them.

    • peppermint says:

      n.b. it isn’t pride, it’s vainglory, but the standard attack is to claim Atticus Finch style that everythung comes from ((g-d)) so there’s nothing a White man should be proud of

  26. John Q Public says:

    The irony is that the West was destroyed by evolutionary thinking, which was made fashionable by Hegel long before Darwin showed up. What is “Progressivism” other than than a belief that we are the end product of an ongoing historical process that is making the world better and better? “The ark of history is long but bends toward justice.”

    You and Moldbug need to look in a mirror. You are part of the problem.

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      “What is “Progressivism” other than than a belief that we are the end product of an ongoing historical process that is making the world better and better?”

      The problem is that we do have (things that are given high social status) and these things were getting better and better (science, order, intelligence, conquest). A bit hard to tease out (behaviors that civilization needs to survive) from those and declare that the latter are unchanging so we should never treat things as improving.

    • jim says:

      Hegel immanentizes the Eschaton, proposing that people can be perfected by government policy. Immanentizing the Eschaton is the opposite of Darwinism, the opposite of evolutionary thinking.

      • Michael Rothblatt says:

        Yeah, Herbert Spencer and Hegel are pretty much polar opposites. Not that Herbert Spencer wasn’t frequently wrong, mind you (though he got better as he got older).

  27. John Q Public says:

    The Puritan hypothesis bunk. Your characterization of Western history is a cartoon.

    • jim says:

      I read old books. You do not.

      The link between Puritanism and modern leftism was discussed by Marx at length. Moldbug was not the first to notice.

    • Alrenous says:

      Your ‘argument’ is random insults. Doubtless this is the best you can offer.

    • Mack says:

      The Puritan hypothesis is bunk in the sense that Puritan ideology did not drive the devolution from Puritanism to Unitarianism to Progressivism.

      The Puritan hypothesis is not bunk in the sense that a Darwinian power process did in fact drive Puritans to become Unitarians and Unitarians to become Progressives.

      If there were any Puritans still around, they could be held up as the coelacanth from which we all descend. But coelacanths didn’t evolve themselves into feminist intersectionality philosopheresses.

      • jim says:

        The Puritans were from the beginning, before they were called Puritans, engaged in a holiness spiral.

        Inevitably they would become holier than Jesus, and dump Jesus, then inevitable that they would become holier than God, and dump God.

        • Pooch says:

          Holiness spiraling seems to be the only flaw of the white race. And it is a major flaw at that.

          • Dave says:

            Sunni Islam has this flaw too because no one thought to ask, “Muhammad, after you die, shall our leader be the man who most faithfully follows your teachings, or the man most directly descended from you?” The Shia went the other way, toward a semi-hereditary priesthood, away from the holiness-spiraling of the Sunnis. No one out-holies the Ayatollahs!

            • jim says:

              The cure for Sunni holiness spiraling is a Calif with the willingness and ability decapitate anyone who is too conspicuously holier than himself.

              • glosoli says:

                We need a cure for Dox Gay purity spiralling today.
                A sad little man he is. Typical Puritan.

                • jim says:


                  I had not noticed. How is he purity spiralling?

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  Jim –


                  Someone in the comments offers up that girls actually do misbehave – Vox does not accept this claim.

                • jim says:

                  Blue pill denial of female misbehavior is puritanism, progressivism, and victorianism. It is not right wing purity spiraling, rather it is the opposite. The problem with Vox is that he is purple pilled, rather than red pilled.

                • glosoli says:

                  Well, he and his boys are arguing for current age of consents, and ignoring the bible’s teachings on these matters, so they are indeed purity spiralling, attempting to be holier than God.

        • Mack says:

          I lied. There are Puritans still around, and they’re called the Amish.

          They have no access to power, so they’re not subject to the Darwinian power process, they don’t suffer ideological innovation, and they have the highest fertility rate of any civilized breeding population in the world.

          • jim says:

            Amish are the opposite of puritan.

            Puritans hated Christmas, and violently suppressed it. Amish celebrate Christmas

            Puritans desecrated marriage. Amish marriage is sacrament.

            Amish are the last mainline protestants, puritanism, an ultra radical heresy of protestantism, having swallowed all the others.

          • peppermint says:

            The Amish are farmers. They limit church sizes to 20-40 families and hold services in private homes in rotation and bishops are chosen by lottery, so they have no professors internally. They avoid external professors, or professors emerging amongst them, by banning telephones and other information technology. They live according to an Ordnung under which the only question is is this good for the family, does this create social status for something other than being a family man.

            Unfortunately, without modern weapons, which can only be made with many factories, they can’t defend themselves.

            A militant revision of Amish Ordnung is what we need. We need to figure out how to have clean, sustainable cities.

      • peppermint says:

        Puritanism holds that individuals are Elect or not based on intrinsic moral quality and not merely correct doctrine, and the Elect should always preach to their moral inferiors. This is, of course, the professor class insulting the working class. The next step was to recognize Elect from outside of the people’s civilization so the people would have to debase themselves with more foreign gods, which is Transcendentalism, which could also have been adopted to adopt the Founding Fathers not just as war heroes but as saints despite their Luciferian belief in the sovereign rational man.

        Universalism followed Transcendentalism, and then we get to our two ruling religions of today, Christcuckoldry and Secular Humanism. The next step is that Lucifer cucks himself by instructing his votaries to worship the choice of choosing Dildolech.

        These people exist. They are old, Boomer or older, but married or widowed or single like Emily Dickinson women and men exist with this Luciferian belief who are not themselves into Dildolech. They were the moral core of the Movement, the leaders of the cult of Reverend Doctor Martin Luther Kong, Junior, and now they are old and dying in a country that is falling apart, and they will not recieve any social security, but only insults from us.

        • peppermint says:

          Every liberal under 40 used liberalism to get sex or other resources, but there remain older liberals who only ever used it for their own smug satisfaction. Sometimes the one using it to get much younger niggers for sex is the daughter of the one using it for self-satisfaction.

          That’s one reason the youth aren’t being recruited by dhimmicrats now. Dhimmicrats used to be richer, more self-satisfied, more well-connected, and had a core of smugly moral people, and on top of that permitted sex that wasn’t generally accepted. Now they’re a sex cult not only allowing but demanding virgin pussies and buttholes. Young women instinctively know that their pussies are valuable and giving their pussies to dhimmicrats in exchange for precisely dick is a waste, while young men want a group to join that will respect them and that they can grow to full manhood in.

          • Mack says:

            “The Amish are farmers.”

            The Puritans were farmers.

            “They limit church sizes to 20-40 families”

            The Puritans had small local congregations.

            “and hold services in private homes in rotation and bishops are chosen by lottery”

            Two steps away from public churches and cogelite bishops.

            “so they have no professors internally”

            They have no power and no opportunity for power. We saw public ed, cogelite leadership, and coercive conversion outcompeted everything before once given the opportunity; we have no reason to think that this phenomenon would somehow differ were we to have a second go-‘round the merry-go-‘round.

            “They avoid external professors, or professors emerging amongst them, by banning telephones and other information technology.”

            The Puritans suffered no external professors, nor professors emerging amongst them; nor did they have telephones or other information technology– besides books.

            “They live according to an Ordnung under which the only question is is this good for the family, does this create social status for something other than being a family man.”

            The Puritans lived according to a similar order.

            “We need to figure out how to have clean, sustainable cities.”

            It is ironic, is it not, that those most concerned with “sustainability” tend to be those least concerned with the sustainability of breeding populations.

            “Puritanism holds that individuals are Elect or not based on intrinsic moral quality”

            Intrinsic genetic quality.

            “and the Elect should always preach to their moral inferiors”

            Genetic inferiors.

            “This is, of course, the professor class insulting the working class.”

            This is, of course, the smart civilly serving the dumb.

            “The next step was to recognize Elect from outside of the people’s civilization so the people would have to debase themselves with more foreign gods”

            Have you ever been to Maine?

            “which could also have been adopted to adopt the Founding Fathers not just as war heroes but as saints”

            Why not just bring back polytheism, put Zeus’s mother at its head, and beseech an improbable virgin to absolve you of your sins.

            “despite their Luciferian belief in the sovereign rational man”

            Sovereign rational universe.

            “and now they are old and dying in a country that is falling apart, and they will not receive any social security, but only insults from us”

            Eat the old. Finely aged pork, mmm.

            “Young women instinctively know that their pussies are valuable”

            What’s the modal N-count nowadays?

            • peppermint says:

              Do you have a substantive criticism?

              > “Young women instinctively know that their pussies are valuable”
              > What’s the modal N-count nowadays?

              Today’s young White woman is vastly less likely to take anti-family and pro-racemixing propaganda seriously since happens next is obvious. Consequently young White women today have an increasing age of first sex. Boomers and Millennials are damned. GenZ is the recovery.

              • peppermint says:

                Maybe that sounds like empty bluster, but there’s a reason “asexual” and “demisexual” are now things. It’s no longer, have sex and make fun of ((Jesus)) or you’re missing out, the focus has returned to what is good for the woman.

              • Mack says:

                “Do you have a substantive criticism?”

                1. The Puritans were carriers, host victims of a memetic contagion undergoing advanced Darwinian selection for a high BRN. To blame “Puritanism” is to strike slightly closer to the mark, but even this is a decidedly shallow characterization.
                2. The Puritans had the highest natural immunity to the so-called “holiness spiral” effect of any group ever; i.e. they were a bunch of violently intransigent stodgy old prudes. The acid that dissolved other groups within a generation the Puritans survived for a dozen.
                3. At a practical level, blaming everything on “the Puritans” is exactly as effective as blaming everything on “ze Juden”.
                4. What is good for the woman is what is best for her man.
                5. Christianity believes in a rational, empirical Universe. That man, living in this rational, empirical Universe, is himself rational and empirical, is an entirely reasonable conclusion. It is irrelevant that men living before Darwin failed to accurately comprehend the true nature of his rational and empirical nature.
                6. Charles Darwin was the most Christian man there ever was. Holier than Jesus Christ, without a doubt.
                7. Catholicism hardly was Christian at all.
                8. When you ask for an Amish Crusade — with competitive military tech, naturally — what you are really asking for is literally exactly Cromwell In The New World.
                9. Today’s young rootless cosmopolitan is less likely to take prog ideology serious because today’s young rootless cosmopolitan is less likely to take any ideology seriously. Exposure inculcates immunity, and we’ve had quite a bit of exposure as of late. We’ve had our generational witchhunt moonbattery and now Salem is going back into its bottle for a little bit.

                • jim says:

                  2. The Puritans had the highest natural immunity to the so-called “holiness spiral” effect of any group ever; i.e. they were a bunch of violently intransigent stodgy old prudes.

                  The Puritans were the holiness spiral – they were called “puritans” by their enemies because they claimed to be purer than anyone else. Right away, before they were even called Puritans they suppressed Christmas, desecrated marriage, and smashed up statues of the Saints and the Virgin Mary. Does not sound much like “stodgy old prudes”. Stodgy old prudes maintain Chesterton’s fence. The Puritans enthusiastically knocked down Chesteron’s fence as a pagan addition to Christianity.

                • Mack says:

                  Presumably, just as there are progs, and then there are progs, there were Puritans, and then there are were Puritans.

                  As is evident from any honest reading of history, though it is written by the victors, nevertheless the “moderate” Puritans were more effective in their suppression of “radical” Puritans than any contemporary or modern group. The Puritans, and their spiritual descendants, had to resort to doing end-runs around the existing electorate by electing a new electorate. In no other sovereign polity has this ever been necessary.

                • mongoloid says:

                  >suppressed a blatantly pagan festival
                  >secularized marriage
                  >smashed the idols of semipolytheistic pseudodeities
                  >not the stodgiest things imaginable

                • jim says:

                  Saint Paul said that applying whitewash to formerly pagan festivals was fine, provided that they were seen to be now properly Christian. Condemning Christmas was holier than Saint Paul, foreshadowing that they would very soon become holier than Jesus

                  Secularizing marriage was desecrating marriage, foreshadowing what has now happened.

                  Saints and the Virgin mary are not semipolytheistic pseudodeities.

                • mongoloid says:

                  what if I told you…some people…

                  >make graven images of a “character”
                  >put those images in their places of worship
                  >make symbolic burnt offerings to those images
                  >pray to that character “through” those images
                  >deny this “character” is a god

                  i think it’s pretty creepy personally

                • peppermint says:

                  Young women get their political views from looking at their family and from the men they respect.

                  White Democrats have a TFR of 0.9. The few daughters they have, the daughter probably doesn’t live with the mother. Whether or not the father is actually a piece of shit, he is the one relative alpha male who will love her almost unconditionally. And he is relatively alpha, to the men her mother is fucking instead of him, because she is old and has a kid. The daughter will inherently resent the mother even if she isn’t fucking anything she can drag into her house and can remember to feed her in between working, simply for denying her access to her father.

                  It will be easy for a young White Republican to tell the daughter how much her parents and their political party suck. White Republicans, of course, have a TFR of like 2.6. Not great, but better than anyone else with the exception of first-generation immigrants, which is why the Democrats desperately need more of them.

                  Is this exposure leading to immunity? No, this is the pussies of the enemy’s daughters getting grabbed by marginal guys from our tem, as opposed to the other way around.

                  Exposure immunity would have ended progressivism in New England a hundred years ago. Biological evolution would also have ended progressivism in New England 100 years ago. Instead, the cities have always attracted the marginal women from flyover country so their pussies could be grabbed by progressives. Exposure immunity would at least have prevented progressives from going so crazy that the sons and daughters of Luciferians worship Dildolech and their sons and daughters come out trans.

                • peppermint says:

                  >secularized marriage

                  Marriage is the most sacred institution, period. Attacking marriage and confusing young men and women is the worst thing progressives have ever done, period. There will be mass executions over this.

                • mongoloid says:

                  the internets suggest that the Catholic church didn’t consider marriage a sacrament until the 12th century

                  the puritans were the first reactionaries

                  the protestants did nothing wrong

                • jim says:

                  Jesus on marriage: “What God hath joined together”

                  But, supposing that marriage is indeed not a sacrament, the puritans proceeded to holiness spiral by making it less, and less, and less, of a sacrament.

                  And by about 1720 or so, hard to give a definite date, they had made it so much not a sacrament that they started to have troubles reproducing.

                • Koanic says:

                  Marriage is the first institution in the Bible, for a reason.

                  It is Jehovah’s first gift to man.

                • peppermint says:

                  Typical Jewish “argument”, you’re just making fun of us with word games. Obviously White civilization has always had one man, one woman, for life marriage, how else would we have evolved our beautiful eyes and hair and our cooperativeness? ((Jesus)), as a feminist, thought that was a better deal for women than what the jews were doing, but it’s also a better deal for everyone.

                  Catholicism initally saw itself as the theological virtues added to the Stoic virtues of Rome, and the Christian marriage ceremony has one crucial difference from the Roman, that the priest cucks the patriarch, setting the stage for the current custom of the parents being completely uninvolved in their childrens’ marriages.

                  There’s this perception that religion is something that springs entirely from some book or other and is entirely synthetic, this perception was correct between denominational differences between White Christians except for retarded heretic cults, and is an evil lie applied to foreigners. Religion is also used to refer to the organic world-view and folkways of a people, used this way to advocate for the importation of alien customs under freedom of religion laws, ostensibly intended to prevent Federal power from choosing between deism, Catholicism, and Anabaptism, actually intended to check the power of Harvard.

                  But there is only one way to deal with professors.

            • jim says:

              You are giving a false account of Puritans and Puritanism

              Puritans were Harvard. Harvard was Puritanism. Puritans were the state and the state apparatus from the day they set foot on Plymouth rock to the day that their memetic descendents became holier than Jesus.

              Puritans and Amish are both protestants, but Puritans were radically different from Amish even before they were called Puritans, back when they were called Brownists.

              The Puritans desecrated marriage from the beginning, with the result that a couple of generations after the beginning they were hit by a fertility crisis starting around 1680 – 1740 or so. The Amish did not and do not desecrate marriage.

              Brownism argued that the holiest should rule, that the Bishops of Charles the First were insufficiently holy, therefore holier people (Brownists) should rule. Hence holiness spiral from day one, which holiness spiral is still today running full bore in Harvard to ever greater heights of holiness. Amish did not and do not argue this.

              Brownism, which gave birth to Puritanism, which gave birth to transcendentalism, Unitarianism, and then progressivism, had its origins in the Bishop’s war. This made it totally different from the Amish.

  28. Starman says:

    “And so did the son come unto his father, and sayeth he:
    ‘Woe unto me, for hath I nothing to eat. Father, give me that which I need.’

    And so didst his father give to him an iron chisel and sayeth he:
    ‘Go into the world, and Builder grant thee the fruits of thy labor.’

    The next day did the son come unto his father, and sayeth he:
    ‘Woe unto me, for I can do naught with this chisel. Father, give me that which I need.’

    And the father didst give him a hammer of fine wood and metal, and sayeth he:
    ‘Go into the world, and Builder grant thee the fruits of thy labor.’

    And so did the son return, and sayeth he:
    ‘Woe unto me, for I cannot eat these, I cannot use these to catch fish or gather crops. Father, give me that which I need.’

    And the father didst cleave the begging hand from his son, and sayeth he:
    ‘The Builder hath granted thee the fruits of thy labor, which is naught.'”

  29. Koanic says:

    I can resolve all the theoretical problems you raise in reconciling Darwinism (actually Hybrid Stabilization Theory) with the Bible.

    > whereas the story of the fall tells us that death only entered the world in the fall. We have to reconcile these positions.

    Simple. Adam was a divine DNA injection into earthly hominid development at a pivotal moment. Adam could’ve led man’s anthropological great leap forward. Instead he fell, due to the influence of another, demonic nation. The serpent is an animal motif for a tribe or nation. I suspect the forbidden fruit was miscegenation with the serpent tribe, learning their magic, or both. Thus Adam failed at the role that Christ eventually fulfilled, although Adam was intended as a genetic savior whereas Jesus is a purely spiritual one. With Adam’s fall, God withdrew his gardening influence over earth. We could’ve had a perfect techno-druidic empire under God’s direct oversight, but we Fell.

    Yet Adam still kept his birthright of the great leap forward, and thus today we are all sons of Adam.

    > But we cannot go back. This is the fall.

    We cannot go back because God’s curses are final, until the remaking of the world. Women desire their husbands. Men labor by sweat. And serpents crawl on their bellies.

    > God is three and God is one.

    The logically contradictory version of this doctrine is not found in the Bible. Jehovah, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are clearly separate, and it appears only the first two are people.

    > Christ is wholly man and wholly God.

    He is not wholly man. The Bible doesn’t say that logical contradiction either. He was born of a woman, yes. And he is not Jehovah. The Duke and his heir are both the Duke.

    > God has omniscience, but we have true choices and free will.

    The Bible doesn’t make the hard claim that Jehovah has perfectly detailed knowledge of the future. And Jehovah may be extra-temporal.

    > Predestination sodomizes your civilization and corrupts your culture.

    Verses on predestination apply to groups, rarely to individuals. Of course Jehovah predestined the Church. His planning horizon is infinite.

    > Which God makes absolutely no sense transcendeth human understanding.

    The nature of the God of the Bible does not exhibit logical contradictions.

    > Death did not literally come into this world with the loss of innocence.

    It did for the sons of Adam and his world of the Garden.

    > Christianity’s response has been to retreat from young earth creationism as literal truth and also to retreat from the moral, psychological, and spiritual truths of the fall

    Young Earth Creationism (YEC) is a discredited joke. Bishop Ussher’s calculations neglect that Biblical genealogies telescope and vary according to stylistic needs. When Adam arrived at the Garden, it was already surrounded by nations, represented by trees, a metaphor used elsewhere in the Bible, wherein the Garden refers to the Middle East and the trees to nations within it.

    The story of creation in Genesis was most likely relayed to Moses on Mount Sinai by Jehovah. Jehovah talks in a certain style about events very distant in time, either future or past. Interpreting such figurative language literally is illiterate to the point of retardation, but it does not therefore follow that the prophecies and histories are false.

    • jim says:

      > I can resolve all the theoretical problems you raise in reconciling Darwinism (actually Hybrid Stabilization Theory) with the Bible.

      Constantine faced no end of clever debaters with clever solutions. Cleverly resolving these theoretical problems does not seem like a good idea.

      > Adam was a divine DNA injection into earthly hominid development at a pivotal moment.

      Maybe, but with the earth revealed to be ancient, the Church has abandoned the psychological and spiritual truths of Genesis.

      > > God is three and God is one.

      > The logically contradictory version of this doctrine is not found in the Bible. Jehovah, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are clearly separate, and it appears only the first two are people.

      > > Christ is wholly man and wholly God.

      > He is not wholly man.

      Constantine had to deal with this can of worms. Let us not re-open it. If you say “not wholly man”, people are going to start arguing about how much man and how much God, and then its back to Unitarianism, which is a disaster. Constantine stuffed all this stuff back into the box, closed it, and put a big sign on the box “Reopening this box is heresy”. If you let people debate unverifiable questions that are beyond mortal comprehension and no business of mortals, bad things ensue.

      We conquered the world, founded science, technology and industrialization under those doctrines. Muslims and Jews did not. Why muck with what works?

      • Koanic says:

        > Constantine faced no end of clever debaters with clever solutions.

        These are not clever; they are correct. Clever is dancing around the problem to make yourself look smart. Correct is staring at the problem until the answer penetrates. Correct does not have an IQ. Nobody is thought to be intelligent for believing that the Earth orbits the Sun.

        > Why muck with what works?

        Because it stopped working, because it was obvious to the elites that it was wrong and could possibly not be right.

        The masses can believe erroneous nonsense. They always do. But Christendom collapsed due to elite heresy, not mass heresy. And elites will not die for a lie.

        > arguing about how much man and how much God

        Since I am not an idiot, I understand the difference between “truly a man” and “wholly a man”.

        “Man” and “God” are not mutually exclusive zero-sum categories.

        The Bible contains plenty of theology. Additions by men are superfluous. Constantine rots, and I care not what he or his said.

        • peppermint says:

          (1) i’m not a priest, i’m a professor
          (2) lol the warrior kings are dead and i’m not, therefore i’m a greater being

          • glosoli says:

            You don’t have an ‘off switch’ do you?

            If there was an Olympic event for snarky autism, you’d win by a mile. In the female section.

          • Koanic says:

            I am certainly no priest, and I am more knowledgeable than most professors. It comes with having a stratospheric IQ and reading daily.

            But you misunderstand. I did not mean I am better than Constantine. I meant that Constantine was merely a man who is now dead, whereas Jesus and Jehovah are Gods and live.

        • jim says:

          You want to re-open the debate that Constantine shut down.

          That debate was bad for civilization then, and it is bad for civilization now.

          If you deny that Christ was wholly God, you wind up with Unitarianism.

          if you deny that Christ was wholly man, you wind up with Unitarianism.

          And Unitarianism is disastrous in the same way that Mohammedanism and Orthodox Judaism is disastrous. It is anti civilization. If God too big, leaves no room for science. God has to be human, to leave room for humans.

          • Koanic says:

            You are insisting on nonsense that elites will not accept, which is what has lead to Unitarianism.

            Jesus was truly man, not wholly man. Otherwise he would not also be God, who was with Jehovah from the beginning.

            Man is made in the image of God. Therefore Jesus may be considered the first Man. In which case, it is humans who are not wholly Man.

            It is simple enough to dismiss the semantics and stone anyone who steps foot outside of Biblical theology.

            The God of the Old Testament is both vast and beyond comprehension, and also orderly and just, leaving room for the free will of man. There is no contradiction. It is a heavenly court, and the Earth His footstool.

            • alf says:

              Seems to me like the idea that holy texts ended in the 1st century is similar to Fukuyima saying history ended in the 21st century.

              As humanity evolves, so does our understanding of God & religion. The bible is a product of its time, as demonstrated by its failure to adequately account for Darwin.

              • alf says:


              • alf says:

                ended in the 20th century.*

              • Koanic says:

                It accounts for Darwin fine. You don’t know what you’re talking about. With all the extinctions that happen, God obviously had to design a mechanism for replacing species.

              • alf says:

                Where does the bible tell me how to handle the importation of thousands of immigrants into my homelands?

                Where does the bible tell me how to handle global warming?

                Where does the bible tell me how to handle technology such as tv, games and porn?

                Where does the bible tell me that it’s ok to be white?

                • glosoli says:

                  Just read it you dullard.
                  It’s slightly complicated, but not really.

                  Also, global warming, lol.

                  Do have a quick visit to iceagenow.

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  “Where does the bible tell me how to handle the importation of thousands of immigrants into my homelands?”

                  Exodus. You enslave them, kill their children and force them to build pyramids for you. The Lord works in mysterious dickish ways.

                  “Where does the bible tell me how to handle global warming?”

                  Joshua. If you need land, declare you have been given the rights by God and take it.

                  “Where does the bible tell me how to handle technology such as tv, games and porn?”

                  You really think pictures of naked women didn’t exist in biblical times? Anyway this was all considered hedonism which they did have ways of dealing with.

                  “Where does the bible tell me that it’s ok to be white?”

                  It doesn’t because God doesn’t give a shit. If you are strong you shouldn’t give a shit about others opinion of your people. You should conquer their lands and build a giant temple out of gold to glorify the LORD. Why are you not doing this?

  30. Aidan MacLear says:

    The way to save the church is sex.

    Churches are fundamentally successful because they allow young men to find and vet mates. Christianity is surging in China for one reason- it gives young people a social forum to meet mates and a tribe that ensures virtuous wives and shames those who step out of line.

    The church will be successful again when it starts promising talented young men with low status better wives than they can find in the wild of the dating market. That means that this church has to explicitly or implicitly exclude sluts and used up ‘reformed’ ex-sluts.

    Right now, beta males can get casual sex with ugly girls, and marriage with ex-sluts. Beta males will always take young and pretty wives over casual sex with ugly girls. Any institution that can promise that will succeed.

    Right now, the church is doing the exact opposite, and shaming men for not wifing up used goods, which makes men leave because fucking young plain sluts is a better deal than wifing up used goods. Marrying a pretty girl is better than having a harem of skanks, and even better than marrying a pretty virgin is having a harem of hot young women, but that is always the domain of alpha males only, and alpha males will do it whether the church says yes or no.

    • mongoloid says:

      low status men are not your target market what do yall not get exactly literally the only question is whether or not your top 5% female gene pool is poached by high status men offering girls scholarships to high status colleges and waitress clerk and barista jobs in high status cities. if people get to choose their own church same problem. oh and whether there are any good jobs for feckless and dull betas which there are few and getting fewer all the time so good luck with your dating program for the losers of humanity lol I’ll see you in hell with a lifetime DF (deflower) count in the dozens. your “shamed men” are barely men at all, low T and psycho impaired or they would have left your little funny farm already.

      • Aidan MacLear says:

        Sexual status isn’t everything.

        Alphas keep their women in line no matter the social situation

        Civilization requires cooperation in suppressing female hypergamy from beta males. Beta males are the nerds who keep society running. If you don’t give them a good deal sexwise, you have no civilization.

        I’m talking about how a church usurps informal power, not what to do when you already have power.

        If you like rampant hypergamy and high status men monopolizing 80% of women, move to the fucking jungle and join a tribe of cannibals. If you like civilization, you have a church that enforces and better enables monogamy.

        Civilization won over savagery because civilization gave beta males access to women and made them invested in the outcome of their society. Modern sexual market is like the jungle, we need someone to reinvent civilization.

        And fucking women who are missing chomosomes doesn’t count, mongoloid.

        • jim says:

          Monogamy and chastity was a deal made between males for more equitable sharing of pussy, which deal has to be imposed on women with a stick.

          What the alphas got out of the deal was soldiers and taxpayers.

          • Contaminated NEET says:

            >soldiers and taxpayers

            Yep. Alphas are great and all, but it’s masses of well-organized beta males that win wars and build economies. Too many alphas gets you Africa.

        • mongoloid says:

          young hot dumb country chiqitas don’t believe sexual status to be the alpha and omega of existence itself, he says

          you learn something new every day

          i bow before your wisdom, oh wise one

          truly you are a fount

  31. Cloudswrest says:

    Somewhat tangentially, it’s stated that man has eaten from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, but he is denied access to the Tree of Life (immortality, or at least agelessness). We have to earn that back via the singularity.

  32. BomberCommand says:

    The Muslim’s got one thing right, God needs to be a warrior and a builder, not a teacher or priest.

  33. Robert says:

    I am a christian and have pondered many of these things in my heart. I have a thought on the matter that may help us.

    Before we can talk about these things, time has to be addressed. If you take the bible literally, if you take the word day (hebrew Yom) in the creation story to mean 24 hours, there is no squaring it with Darwin, there is no saying “the earth is millions of years old’. So our options are 1.) say the bible is wrong 2.) say the evidence is wrong (fossils and such) 3.) say the word “day” is not 24 hours. If I had to pick one right now I would pick 3, but the problem with that is when do you decide the word day means 24 hours and when is it a million years?

    Now to my point. According to the bible, the Fall was about 6000 years ago, and the flood was 4500 years ago, and of course Christ was 2000 years ago. I propose that sometimes the words used in the bible are from a limited perspective, from the perspective of the Jewish people, and the Jewish people alone. What this means is that when the bible says God created mankind, it is speaking specifically of Jews. So how we would say this today is that God created Jews in his image at that time. The importance of this distinction allows the possibility of what we call mankind today, to have already been in existence prior to Adam and Eve. What this would mean is that Adam and Eve were the first Jews, not the first humans. This idea needs to be biblically tested, which I have not done, but it appears it is a way to both believe the bible and believe “darwin”, on this one subject anyway.

    This idea would not only apply to the word mankind, but also to other words such as earth or world. When the bible speaks about the world during the flood, it would be possible to interpret this from a limited perspective, so world would become the area inhabited by the Jews, not the entire world as we understand that word today.

    This is not a new concept, many Indians in america had a word for their tribe which was interpreted as human being, but it did not include every single homo sapien on planet earth. If these Indians were to write a creation story, they would say, “at such and such a time the first human being was created”. They would not mean it was the first homo sapien, but the first member of their tribe.

    I believe that the bible is the word of God, and that it is true. I also believe that our understanding of it is far from complete.

    • BomberCommand says:

      I think Judaism needs to be ejected entirely from a New Christain religion and replaced with medieval Christain Sants and Warriors. Too much one Jew Tricking another Jew or a Jew being afraid of fighting as God Commands in the old testament. And entirely too many rules trying to prove one person more holy than the next. Instead, I’d propose that the Garden of Eden was God uplifting Man from the savages beasts he came from. Man is not Perfect and never was, but he was he was given a gift from God above all the beasts of the field. He can only become perfected by standing at the right hand of God after death but only those worthy will be allowed to stand before him. Original sin is falling acting like the animals we were before God uplifted us.

    • glosoli says:

      Read sixdayscience.

  34. Issac says:

    The trouble with Christians of all stripes is that they prefer to be ruled by Jews. I find this as troubling today as I used to find it amusing, but I see no serious contention for power coming from the Christians. They are morally supine and self-sacrificial, playing out a caricature of their messiah. Love or hate the Jewish G-d, I see no way for the white nations to find their will to live without cleaving to some faith or ideology that puts their own tribe(s) first, as we do.

    • glosoli says:


      Britain (and a few other Christian nations) expelled your lot, Cromwell (was paid well to) let them back in.

      Stop lying, and be ready to leave.

      • peppermint says:

        Except Goebbels and a lot of others. Mixed people don’t have to side against us.

      • Samuel Skinner says:

        “Britain (and a few other Christian nations) expelled your lot, Cromwell (was paid well to) let them back in.”

        Edward expelled the Jews in order to seize their property and negotiate with parliament for more money. Prior to the 19th century Jews were used to extract money from the nobles/peasants and deliver it to the monarch/nobles and disposed of when they were no longer useful/the setup got too obvious.

        This isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement of Christian leadership and unity.

        • jim says:


          Usury was banned fifteen years before the Jews were expelled. Thus, not expelled as a money raising measure. Expelled either because they illegally continued usury, or expelled because without usury they were no longer a good source of funds for the king.

          The grounds for expelling the Jews was that they illegally continued usury – they were expelled for organized crime.

          Jews are overrepresented in organized crime now, and were overrepresented in organized crime then.

          • Issac says:

            Virtually all tribal cultures are overrepresented in that sort of enterprise. Westerners are simply too easily lead. How are you going to expel our diaspora when you can’t even expel the mestizos and muslims? As I said originally, the first problem (one the reactionaries and alt right have generally avoided) is overcoming the western christian gentile desire to be enslaved. This is not often addressed because it rather obviously implicates Christianity as the source of that subservience. A people with no personal god will always be universalist and self-destructive. The legacy of various pagan traditions and the revival of tribalism under nationalism kept the embers of self-preservation lit in western men, but those are dying and taking the western christian with them.

            • lalit says:

              That’s why I keep asking White Guys to go for a revival of Greco-Roman-Viking-Celtic-Germanic Paganism, but they stubbornly refuse (peppermint excluded) to look into a revival, instead asking for someone else to make the revival happen and then ask for it to examined after said revival. Go Figure!

            • glosoli says:

              The Jew trying to blame the West for being skinned alive by Jews.
              Take a high IQ and a penchant for business, subtract any morals, and millions suffer and die. Payback from Jehovah will he awesome.
              You killed God, now He hates you, but loves us.

              • peppermint says:

                you’re the most jewish person here, in the sense of subverting any rapport between other people and repeating the same arguments regardless of what was said against them the day before

              • Issac says:

                Even if that were the case, my point stands.

                • glosoli says:

                  It doesn’t stand.
                  Britain and many other nations expelled your kind, refuting your point.
                  I know you can’t help lying, but we see it.

  35. lalit says:

    This is a Godamned Masterpiece. I say this in spite of being a stubborn polytheist being irretrievably and violently opposed to any sort of Monotheism. This post should make the Hall of Fame. Perhaps you could be this new prophet, Sri MacDonald?

    • JoeBob_Walker says:

      Agreed. I have long believed Christianity’s rejection of Darwin was incredibly stilting, but this demonstrates what’s possible and how necessary that reconciliation really is.

  36. mikey says:

    Looking like the middle east would be an improvement over the current cultural marxist gyneocracy.

  37. If there must a formula ( or a religion – to “bind”) then why not just go for nationalism?

    Nrx neither had nationalism or religion (supernatural belief system) at the start and American nationalism makes more sense than Christianity. The religion of “Americanism”. Sure, the “story” or formula will require a good deal of rewriting (the Progressives have sinned and must atone for their crimes against America) but having a formalized state religion that is called “Americanism” is probably a better bet to go with.

    The question then is what will make up the religion of Americanism?

    Personal liberty for one.

    Rule of law for two. (The importance of contrasts, legal formalism and protection of property and persons.)

    Strong, government backed, “capitalist” economy (Hamilton’s American system.)

    American Imperial Energy and pragmatic can do spirit (science, technology, commerce and war.)

    • peppermint says:

      Liberty, order, and a functioning economy are indeed design considerations for a future government.

    • glosoli says:

      ‘Personal liberty for one’.

      Why do Nazis always support men in women’s bathrooms? Typical leftists.

      • JimB says:

        “Why do Nazis always support men in women’s bathrooms? Typical leftists.”

        Wut. Are you on acid or something? No “Nazi” (by that term I take your meaning to be National Socialist) would E.V.E.R. condone that garbage… or practically nothing considered Leftist, except maybe some environmental policies. No offense, but you are extremely ignorant about so-called Nazism.

        • peppermint says:

          Nazis has state-supported bastardy and cuckoldry. They had socialism and food shortages. Before the ’30s, everyone knew Nazis were of the left.

          Either the right is nomian – throne, altar, freehold, family, nation, race – or it has no meaning.

          Nazis were in on the villainous bourgeois plot to use the boorish pagan rednecks to smash the aristocracy.

  38. […] Fixing Christianity. […]

    • James says:

      Mormonism. You’re looking for Mormonism. A thriving patriarchy (it even openly calls itself a patriarchy), universal male priesthood. Much less infected with the poz than any other major religion. We can still save Mormonism if we, as conservatives, begin our long march through its institutions. The people born into the church are becoming proud, liberal, and wearing Mormonism as an identity that they can redefine against the will of its makers and its God. Righteous converts are needed to reinforce its righteous torch-bearers, to help separate the wheat from the tares.

      On top of that, for myself, personally — I’ve prayed sincerely to be brought under the dominion of the righteous, and to know the truth, and to be guided by God. And it has continually brought me to Mormonism. I just need to get off my ass and formally convert.

Leave a Reply