Jordan Peterson, controlled opposition

Jordan Peterson is on our side of the Culture War:

  • anti-political correctness
  • anti-identity politics
  • biological sex roles and traditional gender roles
  • meritocracy and meritocratic hierarchy
  • personal freedom and responsibility
  • angers our enemies

But this man is not an ally. The enemy of our enemy is not always our friend.

It is good that my enemy’s enemy is successful against my enemy, but much though I wish my enemy’s enemy was my friend and ally, I don’t get to choose.

Jordan Peterson is reaching a huge audience, and that is good news for us … but …

On sex roles there is a big difference between Peterson’s directive: “clean up your room” and my observation: “I must dance, and women call the tune.”

And similarly, he omits the truth on NAMs and Jews, crediting American Jews with an average IQ high enough to entirely explain their disproportionate influence, and completely failing to notice that whites are second class citizens to NAMs. He advocates hierarchy based on meritocracy, and conspicuously fails to notice major deviations from meritocracy.

Official truth is that Jordan Peterson’s target market is a tiny, ignored, underserved niche market … but it is, in fact half the population

Mass market service of half the market, which is what Jordan Peterson is supplying, does not go all the way with the whole truth even though that is what the customers hope to receive, because, surrounded by a barrage of propaganda, people like to hear truth that is compatible as possible with that barrage of propaganda.

Mostly they are content with the same old propaganda, minus the spitting at them and projectile vomiting over them.

I have tried lots of different personas on women. I know what persona works. Heartiste is correct, and indeed understates his case. Playing a really bad man, even worse than that recommended by Heartiste, works best. I can play that character convincingly because I have monsters inside, and I let them out to play, but I am not really that person. I must dance, and women call the tune. The solution is not to clean up your room, but to project the masculinity of the vicious psychopathic criminal, combined with the assets and material lifestyle of the respectable male, staying out of jail while superficially seeming the kind of man that they would find in jail. Jordan offers fatherless boys the same old blue pill solutions to dealing with women, which result in them living in involuntary celibacy.

Of course insufficient spitting looks to the left like hard core genocidal nazism, so you still get the same enemies. Peterson gets in trouble for saying that commies murdered a hundred million or so, and are entirely unrepentant. Jordan Peterson neglects to say that they hunger and thirst to do it all again, and that Democrats are on the same course, a course headed directly for the Red Terror of 1794, which eighteenth century horror prefigured the enormously larger mass murders of the twentieth century, and the extraordinary increase in war, state violence, and private criminal violence that we have seen starting with the French Revolution.

For women to reproduce successfully, they have to be under male authority, and in the modern world, they look for that authority and do not find it.

Female behavior, their attraction to very bad men, makes total sense from the point of view of evolutionary psychology when you reflect that the barista with an advanced degree in women’s studies and one hundred thousand dollars in college debt will probably become a cat lady, but if Islamic State was militarily victorious, and auctioned her off naked and in chains at public auction, would probably have seven children and twenty grandchildren. It also makes total sense according to curse of Eve: “thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee”.

In order that we can make men into sheep dogs rather than wolves, have to make women into property. For men to become sheep dogs, women must become sheep.

Jordan Peterson is pushing a new religion. Any new religion is going to be an improvement on progressivism, which hates us, and which is erasing our past and destroying our future, but his proposed religions lacks key elements of Christianity that made western civilization possible: The Trinity gives us a God who is both big and small. A god who, unlike Odin, is big enough to offer hope, and who simultaneously makes himself small (turning a blind eye in Eden to allow us to steal the knowledge of Good and Evil, and taking on mortality and death) to reach out to mankind, to allow room in the universe for more than one being with free will, choice, and responsibility for choices. The God too big problem prevents Muslims and Orthodox Jews from doing science and keeping promises, and the God too small problem let Odin worshipers be conquered by Christians. The gods of Jungian paganism, which is what Jordan Peterson is pushing, are too small to give us strength. Invoking the Christian God at mealtime grace gives fathers authority over their families. There is no Jungian equivalent, and there does not seem to have been a Norse equivalent.

Should Jordan Peterson’s religion succeed, the immediate threat to us of enemies in charge of us who wish our destruction will have been turned aside, but Jordan’s religion would not allow western science and empire to recover, nor allow white and east Asian fertility rates to recover to replacement. Christianity permits a culture of keeping promises and speaking truth, to which other religions are apt to be inimical.

With the collapse of truth speaking, science has collapsed, resulting in the replication crisis. Drug companies in the west are giving up on developing new drugs because of the replication crisis. Nobody trusts their research, and they should not trust anyone else’s research.

The Mohammedan says he will do such and such “God Willing” and then does not do it, while the Jew says he will do such and such, and then finds a novel and surprising meaning for his words and yours. Today’s Conservative Mohammedans and Orthodox Jews, whose fathers are armed with a very big God, are doing a lot better on patriarchal authority than today’s Christians, hence their fertility rate, but eighteenth century Christians did equally well, while at the same time giving us science, technology, industrialization, and empire. We are not going to recover western civilization without an official belief system substantially similar to theirs, to theocratic Anglican state Christianity as it existed from 1660 to about 1810.

201 Responses to “Jordan Peterson, controlled opposition”

  1. howdy! , Nice publishing pretty a great deal! proportion all of us sustain a new correspondence far more roughly this post for America online? We need an experienced with this place to deal with the dilemma Food Catering. Possibly that’s you! Anticipating assist you to.

  2. Mitchell McConnell says:

    Perhaps Peterson is being what Kierkegaard referred to as a “corrective”. It does no good to try and force the pendulum too far at one time.

  3. TBeholder says:

    The enemy of our enemy is not always our friend.

    For those who don’t read Schlock Mercenary —
    Maxim 29: The enemy of my enemy is my enemy’s enemy. No more, no less.

    And similarly, he omits the truth on NAMs and Jews, crediting American Jews with an average IQ high enough to entirely explain their disproportionate influence

    That’s thinking backwards due to ability to notice correlation and inability to understand cause-effect relationships, isn’t?
    In that IQ rather obviously is a measure of mental compatibility with an atheist of Jewish descent smart enough to become a doctor, but also slimy enough to sell variations of kiddie puzzles for more money than they are worth to bureaucrats, rather than doing something useful.
    Which doesn’t need effort to avert the eye (though possible), just mental laziness. Lack of habit to try and think more than one step ahead, alas, is way too common even among the otherwise clever people.

    Mostly they are content with the same old propaganda, minus the spitting at them and projectile vomiting over them.

    Indeed. Too few people look for more than being merely ankle-deep in the bog rather than neck-deep. But hey, a step up. As long as no one tries to drop anchor there, it can be movement in fairly small steps, just like it was in the opposite direction.

    Peterson gets in trouble for saying that commies murdered a hundred million or so, and are entirely unrepentant. Jordan Peterson neglects to say that they hunger and thirst to do it all again, and that Democrats are on the same course, a course headed directly for the Red Terror

    Practically, it’s irrelevant. Those willing to drink kool-aid will stick bananas in their ears and drink on. For others, well, sapienti sat — it isn’t hard to put 2 and 2 together, seeing how “digital maoists” rarely bother to cover their hammers and sickles with anything more opaque than a tiny fig leaf.

  4. Trent Denton says:

    1. The only people who agree with Peterson are loser white men. That tells you something right there

    2. heartiste is a childless 50 year old pervert who has probably never touched a woman. His followers are incel white nationalist racists

    • jim says:

      Heartiste’s expert knowledge of women demonstrates vast experience.

      I know women, and I know that Heartiste knows women.

      • Mils says:

        Question Jim, is your concern with Western Civilization treating 12 or 14 year old girls as if they have no sexuality solved by having them marry super young or just by keeping them in control of a good patriarchal father until he wants them to be married later? Does waiting to get them married at say, 17 or 20, risk them eloping or cucking you?

        • peppermint says:

          Waiting until 17 or 22 does risk elopement or other misbehavior, but, since the suitor doesn’t need to wait a few years before implanting a babby, and the girl is a lot hotter, she can get a better match.

        • jim says:

          When western civilization was actually functional, females of the better class generally got married around their age of maximum hotness, over eighteen, early twenties. Greek civilization during the time of its greatness, shortly before the age of maximum hotness, typically shortly after menarche, Roman civilization during the time of its greatness, around the age of menarche. However marriage at very early age was unremarkable, and a routine solution to problem cases – a wealthy female with no father being a problem case. I conjecture that very early female immorality was also a problem case, but if it was, no one mentioned the reason for the very early marriage.

          In England before 1820 or thereabouts, late virgin marriage (by which I mean virgin marriage well after menarche) was normal and normative. It was what was supposed to happen in non problem cases. However, extremely drastic coercion and extremely tight taliban style control was needed to make it work, and “hysteria” at that time meant female mental breakdowns caused by sexual frustration, which often manifested as extreme resistance to these extremely tight controls.

          Past experience is that what is needed to make late virgin marriage work is startlingly drastic and dramatic, and encounters startlingly drastic and dramatic female resistance. People who argue for late virgin marriage don’t seem to appreciate what past civilizations have had to do to make it work.

          If we want to restore virgin marriage, we have to go full Taliban, or go for marriage at very early ages, or both. I favor both, and then when virgin marriage is standard, carefully relax some aspects of the repression, honestly monitoring the results of the relaxation. Every hard working well behaved male, paying taxes and upholding order, should get an obedient and faithful virgin wife (an outcome that women find violently objectionable and are apt to very forcefully resist) and we have to make sure that any relaxation of standards for monogamy, female chastity, and early marriage, any concessions to female demands, do not undermine the sexual and reproductive opportunity of those males on whom civilization depends.

          • Mils says:

            Alright, ya I knew that especially in Ancient Rome, marriage was usually around age 12-14 if I am recalling it correctly. I just was curious if the “rules” got relaxed later, which it seems they did, but only with much overwatch and strictness.

            Do you think that the higher probability of humans living a long life impacts this at all? I.E, that since Romans lived to like 30 or 40, they had much more pressure to create strong family structures than a society in which everyone hits 85? I’m always curious about Moldbug’s assertion that, “technology will hide the decline”

          • The problem with very young wives is that they are not mentally mature enough to be the second-in-command of the household. The man feel not like he has a partner, a helper for the difficulties of life, a reliable first mate on the ship he captains, but more like raising a teenage daughter.

            Perhaps it works if the mental maturation of women can be brought earlier. It seems mental maturation for men is very plastic, back when working on the family farm was normal one saw mature 13 years old men, today in the schoolbook and videogame age we see 25 years old boys. I don’t know how plastic it is for women. I am fairly sure that todays typical 15 years old girl is entirely unsuitable for the responsibilities of motherhood, running a household and being second in command.

            One thing to factor in that large families help a lot in maturing. Basically you raise the first two or three kids and they raise the rest. If a girl has to play second-mother to younger siblings she may be ready by 15.

            • jim says:

              I don’t see a whole lot of maturation in women. They are always children, maybe more adult after menopause.

              By the time the kids are big enough for a man to need a second in command, she is mature enough for that role.

              And observing present day fatherless families, never mature enough to be first in command. Look at every divorce with children. The woman is a disaster for her children, behaving foolishly and irresponsibly.

            • peppermint says:

              25 year old boys? No, they are men, but men who have been convinced that acting like a man is evil and boorish, who don’t have a real job, who don’t have a house, who can’t get a girl to be theirs without dating far below their SMV, who have nothing to live for, to who any responsible actions are made thankless

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      Trent why are you reading this blog if you’re so lacking in empathy that you’ll condemn a man for being involuntarily celibate, or condemn a man for noticing that different races behave differently?
      Have you ever visited a working class neighbourhood or hung out in a modern night club?

      You come across like someone who’s lived a very (forgive the term, here used unironically) privileged life. That’s great and I’m happy for you, but what is it you’re searching for in these circles if you’ve already decided “fuck you Jack I’m alright”?

  5. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    How to understand women in a single meme.

  6. Psychomachia says:

    turning a blind eye in Eden to allow us to steal the knowledge of Good and Evil, and taking on mortality and death

    To allow Eve to presume the knowledge of Good and Evil, Adam to endorse rather than punish such presumption, and the consequential descent into immorality, shame, deception, and barren bewilderment – mortality and death.

    Eating the fruit provided no knowledge to Eve. It symbolized her desire to superordinate her judgement over God’s. And it was a desire unchecked by her husband – as was his duty. Adam was free to fail his duty to God. Eve was unsatisfied with Eden.

    The fall is the first revealed truth about humanity. Genesis is the first red pill.

  7. collen ryan says:

    NRX is controlled opposition.

    I was tinkering around in my garage thinking about how inevitable the saxon beginning to wake was. How tiresome i thought another pogrom. why does it always have to happen. then it struck me, what was good for the jews would be to get ahead of this reaction i anticipate Id need a catchy name and something that flatter those stupid goys. Ill tell them theyre special ………..

    • The Cominator says:

      “NRX is controlled opposition.”

      Oh yes yes please tell us how the real right are costume nazi larpers.

      How woke are you?

      • Alrenous says:

        Accuracy is hard. This guy can’t even handle capitalization and paragraphs. It’s a miracle if he gets anything right.

        • glosoli says:

          He’s correct though, they always play both sides, always therefore win whatever happens.

    • Honest Abe says:

      >I was tinkering around in my garage

      Your reference is noticed.

  8. Reziac says:

    Dr.Peterson understands women very well. Witness this short clip:

    • jim says:

      In this clip he is completely and radically wrong about women. His account is that you win the girl by losing at shit tests.

      • Honest Abe says:

        It’s worse than that.

        Dude was kept in the warming drawer until she’d received her thorough grad school dicking.

        • Oliver Cromwell says:

          I find this a little uncharitable. He is saying it without saying it; saying as much as anyone can to cheers in a public library, and far more than most can to cheers in a public library.

          Sure, his wife is unattractive, considerably less attractive than him, and they married late. Not clear how much he knew when he married her though.

        • jim says:


          Jordan Peterson was a Beta orbiter until many, many years later she was dropped off the bottom of the cock carousel.

          Not that I can afford to be all that picky in my old age, but I have never done any beta orbiting.

      • Reziac says:

        Not sure where you get that, but whatever. I will note that JBP won (and kept) the girl he wanted, and it’s also fairly clear he wears the pants in that household (if only because otherwise I doubt she’d put up with his notions of interior decorating, and his selections dominate the house).

        • Honest Abe says:

          Winning the girl when she’s 16….18…20…maybe even 22…that’s really something.

          Winning the girl when she’s 29…not so much.

        • jim says:

          Jordan Peterson’s wife is three points lower than he is. My wife was one or two points hotter than I was and even in my sixties, still nailing fertile age women, though a few points lower than when I was in my thirties.

      • Cloudswrest says:

        Did I miss something? All I saw was his recounting of women’s romantic fantasies based on romance novel surveys. Not stating what actually WORKs long term with women. And I can believe that a woman’s *fantasy* is to capture and tame a wild man, whereupon, in real life it’s “mission accomplished” and time to move on to the *next* “mission”. The mirror image of a man fantasizing about fucking a hot strumpet and moving on after “mission accomplished.”

  9. Javier says:

    It seems to me that once a person starts to think critically and ask question, the process leads them inexorably to the truth. This is why the left forbids even questioning the official truth on any level. Think James Damore; no inquiry into the nature of reality can be allowed. He must be destroyed, lest others follow his example.

    What Jordan Peterson is doing is providing a fairly safe and defensible way to wake up the normies, but then telling them to only take one step and go back to sleep. I don’t think that is possible. He can’t stand in front of the rolling boulder. It won’t work. Sooner or later his followers will ask the questions that get them into trouble, and they will have to face the red pill truths like we all have.

    Jordan’s followers may well outgrow him, which is fine. We put kids into kindergarten class to give them a safe space where they can’t hurt themselves, but the lessons are real. Jordan Peterson can be the kindergarten teacher of the alt-right.

  10. S.J., Esquire says:

    I spoke recently with a prominent Christian speaker who knows JBP personally, who opined that JBP is beginning to acknowledge various logical conclusions of things in a way that he would not admit before, and that JBP is “really close” to following Christ. If you are a pray-er, be in prayer for him – he would be a fantastic renegade against the Cathedral if we were really on our side!

  11. glosoli says:

    It got very little attention on the previous thread, but worthy of sharing far and wide IMO, the link:

    The comment (from Roberto):

    >’Christianity (including heretical sectes like the Mormons) and Islam are the only players left in the game. 100 years from now, the West is either Christian or Islamic, or perhaps both. Everything else is a distraction and a waste of time. Paganism is not happening, and a “new religion” is not happening.

    Only 2 horses in this race.’

    I’ll have more to say later, but think about which horse you want to win the race? Then buy and start reading the bible.

    • Oog en Hand says:

      For true understanding, learn Hebrew and Arabic.

      “Furthermore while the Axis powers before World War Two intentionally sent spies to America to learn certain Native American languages the language of the Navajo was not one of them.”

      Hans Naaktloper: “De oplossing is zo simpel, maar dat vraagt van links nederland een offer, namelijk de wetenschap te erkennen dat wanneer mensen bijeenkomsten organiseren en zich in geheimtaal met een beperkte groep wensen te communiceren, er dan een boodschap wordt uitgedragen die uitdrukkelijk niet bedoeld is voor algemeen gebruik. De oplossing is dat alle manifestaties in een taal worden geuit die verstaanbaar is voor de meeste mensen in dit land, nederlands dus.”

      Eric: “Nee Hans, dat is geen oplossing en al helemaal geen linkse.

      De enige werkelijke oplossing voor het probleem van de Grijze Wolven, ja voor fascisme in het algemeen, is strijd van onderop ertegen. Niet het opleggen van een standaardtaal, welke dan ook, aan alle inwoners van een land. Dat brengt nog meer narigheid: alleen door het element van dwang in je ‘oplossing’. Want dat betekent dat de staat, die dat dan zal moeten afdwingen, overal bij zal moeten zijn om mee te luisteren. Met jouw ‘oplossing’ maak je het nadrukkelijk alleen de Turks-Nederlandse fascisten moeilijker en niet de witte Nederlandse.”

    • Religion is probably one of the things where entropy is one-way, you cannot fix the decaying tree, you have to plant a new one. So it is a new religion. But the new religion can be Christianity.

      I mean, don’t tell me Christianity meant the same thing in 1200 Constantinople than in 1700 Scotland. It was the same brand, name, basic theology, Nicean creed, but it was precisely those aspects – such as moral ones – that matter for political-social life had a very emphasis.

      And since we – well, I at least – are interested in that part, I don’t mind if the new religion wears a Christian theological garb. It is probably the best option indeed.

      But we need a Dark Reformation as radical as the Reformation was.

      For example. The most important reason why the classical, trad, Augustine form of Christianity was healthy for the political right was the*consequence* of Original Sin – that human nature is *wounded*, people are easier tempted by bad things than good things. This is something my atheist materialistic brain 100% accepts out of experience and evolutionary thinking. Then the two alternatives were the Pelagian-Unitarian denial of Original Sin: “nah we good”. And the Calvinist view that human nature is “utterly depraved”, not simply “wounded”. IMHO the problem with that was that it is so dark and depressive that it made people rush the other, Unitarian-Roussean direction. I know I am “wounded”, akrasia and all that, I don’t do the good things I want to like keeping up the gym routine, I do the bad things I don’t want to, like smoking and drinking, it is absolutely true. But I am not utterly depraved, screw that.

      • glosoli says:

        If you’re honest with yourself about your thoughts and actions, you’ll admit to a certain level of depravity. Something keeps most of us from acting on our darker thoughts, that’s Christian moral culture still working its magic.

        The fact you deny the existence of Jehovah is in itself the ultimate depravity, and I pray you’ll come to know and love God, His truth and love and strength and glory.

        The way back from the abyss this time has to be theonomy. We’re too far away from Gods laws and commands now. There are only 613, not difficult.

        Time to ditch large nation states and replace them with small theonomic ethnic nations, as God intended.

        Or not and you all end up as Muzzie slaves.

        • Samuel Skinner says:

          We aren’t utterly depraved, which is important. If we were, there would be no differences between the races, no differences between the sexes and no difference over time. I don’t have the words to explain properly, but we need to be aiming to be better over time with the understanding that better does not mean there is a level of goodness and purity we are approaching and would be freed. It is the better of sandcastles built higher and higher not the better of eliminating all contaminates from a clean room.

          • peppermint says:

            Calling them puritans and prudes implies we hate purity and prudence, when the doctrine of total depravity is hatred of purity and prudence. The correct names are joymops and fun sponges.

            Elezeer Yudkowsky tied Big Data science to a mechamilennialist cult. There isn’t a logical connection, both are things intelligent young White men were thinking about at the time.

            Post James Damore and Charlottesville, those iyWm’s feel hemmed in. Faggotry wasn’t supposed to be like this.

            They’ve given up on politics. Jordanetics is their despair: just clean your room and try to act normal. Maybe they’re not getting it from JP, maybe they’re as afraid to talk about JP and Andrew Anglin.

            • TheDividualist says:

              This is some next level postmodern poetry. I have no inkling what you are talking about but it sounded kinda smart and cool.

              • peppermint says:

                Did I leave out too many words? I’m saying the people who were LessWrong are now officially normalfags or may secretly be into Jordanetics. Also going forward we don’t have to dignify joymops by calling them puritans.

      • jim says:


        Also, we have to reject predestination as heresy. God has omniscience, but we have free will. If God is all powerful then he can play solitaire, which means he can shuffle the deck and not know how it is shuffled, and lay the cards face down on the table and not know what their faces show. And he has to do that to create an orderly law governed universe with more than one being with free will and moral choices.

        • The Cominator says:

          Most rational intelligent people eventually come to conclusion that causality leads to determinism. You yourself probably think this.

          I don’t think they should be deemed heretics for that it would select the ruling class for either liars or idiots…

          • jim says:

            Quantum mechanics and thermal noise is indeterministic. Why should people be different from the physical universe, particularly when we don’t feel different?

            • Koanic says:

              It is only indeterminate from the perspective of the observer, using grossly inadequate methods of observation.

              Nor does predetermination invalidate free will, any more than a 3 dimensional perspective controls a point propelling itself along a line.

              • peppermint says:

                John Milton has God prophesy that man will fall despite having the opportunity not to, but, since the fall of man would be due to Satan’s deceit, God would give mankind grace.
                Total depravity and irresistable grace contradicts free will so that the joymop can insult anyone and fuck any woman, the same goal by different means as (mecha)milennialism and sex positive feminism. Since those religions turned on White men, they are forced into Jordanetics and the Alt-Right.
                QM is inherently nondeterministic. Thermal noise is practically nondeterministic, where practically means entropy, and chaotic simple systems are practically nondeterministic cf the Lyapunov exponent. You’re not conversant in modern physics because school sucks. Try reading Laudau&Lifshitz, or Griffiths for QM and I’m not sure exactly what for thermodynamics.

            • Alrenous says:

              The correct term is ‘stochastic’ not ‘indeterministic.’ Stochastic processes are meta-deterministic. Two-face has to follow what a coin says: we don’t say he is free. QM is exactly the same.

              • peppermint says:

                Indeterminism is perfectly cromulant where nondeterminism is more standard. You pin too much meaning on stochastic: random can mean arbitrary or stochastic.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            There’s so much here that would benefit from Dan Dennett.

            This ‘incompatibilist’ thing is such a total red herring. Channeling Dennett, basically all the types of free will *that are worth caring about* are completely compatible with absolutely rigid determinism of the very strongest variety.

        • Alrenous says:

          Predestination is impossible even for God, unless it’s a deist God that never answers prayers.

      • Steve Johnson says:

        >Then the two alternatives were the Pelagian-Unitarian denial of Original Sin: “nah we good”. And the Calvinist view that human nature is “utterly depraved”, not simply “wounded”.

        Exactly that.

        Calvanism is back to “inshallah”.

    • BTW if you think it is a good idea for people not properly trained in theology, exegesis, patristic texts etc. etc. to go read the Bible on their own, at some level you are part of the problem. It was this rejection of (Papal) authority that led to the rejection of royal authority etc. etc. If we are smart enough to make our own exegesis, we are smart enough to rule ourselves. Etc.

      • glosoli says:

        We don’t need Kings, we need Judges. The best period for Israel was under Judges, Kings took them down.

        We just need God, not men-rulers, once you realise that, clarity ensues. And blessed times.

        • jim says:

          If judges have authority to rule on equity, that is a kingly power, and then you find yourself with a thousand kings in the same kingdom.

          • glosoli says:

            Just one King, and He’s in heaven.
            Small is beautiful, you yourself argue against power being centralised, or rather the power to dictate laws. With God’s laws, Judges locally is ideal.
            613 laws, a few judges, patriarchy, English countryside. Ideal.
            One day.

            • peppermint says:

              Just one Constitution. Many judges. Oh, but your Constitution is a perfect living document.

            • The Cominator says:

              Without one king you get many competing kings.

              The purpose of the king is to be jealous of other’s usurping his authority and to prevent them (except in cases of dire necessity like total war when such things must be delegated) from doing so.

              A king in heaven cannot do so.

              The king needs to be here on earth so he can order a judge who rules Christians must bake a cake for homos to be burned alive.

              • glosoli says:

                >’The purpose of the king is to be jealous of other’s usurping his authority and to prevent them (except in cases of dire necessity like total war when such things must be delegated) from doing so.

                A king in heaven cannot do so.’

                I’m guessing you’ve not read any of the Old Testament? Sad.

                Jehovah dishes out His authority and then punishes transgressions, every time.

                Just read it, it’s brilliant.

                • peppermint says:

                  we’re supposed to avoid getting to the point where Jehovah punishes us

                • The Cominator says:

                  >Jehovah dishes out His authority and then punishes transgressions, every time.

                  For a couple millennia he has kept strict radio silence though… so we need a king on earth since the one in heaven is not talking and even when he talked he talked generally only to priest class of Temple Judiasm.

                • james says:

                  Since the king of heaven would be repeating himself and there is nothing more noteworthy theology wise to be said.

                  Of course there is on the whole no new revelation.

                • Dave says:

                  “The divine wrath is slow indeed in vengeance, but makes up for its tardiness by the severity of the punishment.” – Valerius Maximus c. 30AD

                • jim says:

                  His punishment of transgressions is apt to be alarmingly delayed.

      • jim says:

        Yes, but what do you if the Pope is a heretic?

        Well you look at the community of saints – Christianity in those forms that survived and flourished for a very long time.

        • Alrenous says:

          Seems like historically, the Pope has been a heretic more often than not. Doesn’t seem to be a major issue.

          • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

            Even the most asinine Arch-Bishop would not be capable of perpetrating as stupendously hair-raising memetic mutations as would be perpetrated by the feedback loop of a ‘priesthood of all believers’ bouncing increasingly reductive categorical imperatives off each other.

            • Alrenous says:

              You seem unfamiliar with eastern orthodox christianity.

              • The Cominator says:

                Orthodox Christianity is a suitable creed for a neoreactionary state with its national bishops.

                Roman Catholicism as the Holy Roman Emperor’s in the Middle Ages learned the hard way really is not. Luckily Phillip the Fair kidnapped the Pope and people started taking him less seriously but Ultramonatism is something that China rightly doesn’t tolerate.

              • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                None of us are as stupid as all of us.

            • peppermint says:

              In the East there are national bishops, in the West the national bishops look up to the pope. Turns out the pope became a rival power center in a way that Mount Athos or the Αρχιεπίσκοπος Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, Νέας Ρώμης και Οικουμενικός Πατριάρχης never was, but instead of simply restricting the authority and taxation of the pope to the Papal States, we ended up with empowerment of universities, which ultimately subverted the papacy itself. Since the religion of the future will scupulously avoid subverting the king, it will be like Orthodoxy, since it will in many places be forced to coexist with Islam, it will consider the example of Orthodoxy, since it will be of people who look up to Russia, the youngest nation of the West, as the savor of the West, it may well be Orthodoxy.

    • Simon says:

      Jesus was the greatest philosopher. The four gospels are contradictory and inconsistent because Jesus knew that the content of his life was not important but how he existed in life was.

      Millennials are using fentanyl because childless faggot philosophers created systematic theologies on Christianity instead of leaving empirical questions to be answered by empirical means. Existential truth is subjective, and when we understand that feeling is the guide to life can we begin to exist as Jesus did.

      When Paul says women should cover themselves and that redemption comes through Christ it means exactly what he says and we do not need anyone to interpret it for us. The same God who told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac also created the universe, so we know the creator of the universe can talk to us too.

      If every philosopher who introduced category errors by wedding Christianity with Plato, Aristotle or nominalism, was burnt alive along with his work, Millennials would be negging women like Jesus and condemning faggots like Paul, rather than cutting off their dicks and adopting Somalian migrants.

    • pdimov says:

      It matters much more which race/ethnic group wins the race than what religion wins the race. White Islam will be more white than Islamic, and black Christianity is more black than Christian.

    • Roberto says:

      >buy and start reading the bible.

      Says Canine-Cheetah Man who only discovered religion last year to someone who spent the good part of 2009-2012 studying the Bible “ecstatically.”

      • glosoli says:

        ‘Buy the bible’ was aimed at the peanut gallery rather than you.
        It was 2016 I became red-pilled, including faith.

        (They do have doggy features, but let’s not rake over that again!)

        • peppermint says:

          The Bible is as relevant to Christianity than Mein Kampf is to the Alt-Right

          • TheDividualist says:

            That surely sounds reassuring for the Polish:

            Yes I am trolling. Understand me. Various flavors of high-IQ Outer Right heretics discuss in Jim’s threads and the communal outcome isn’t anything productive and constructive, it is teenage girl bitchy catfighting. Jim could turn off the comments and little of value would be lost.

            So when I feel tired I troll. Either lets have keks and lulz and unproductive fun. Or get serious and takes more than pushing personal fetishes, muh whytes, muh bible, muh demonic joos, even my muh moldbug-de maistre.

            What do we really really want?????

            I say: a good life for our kids, survival for our genetic and memetic heritage, and strong eugenics for the human species.

          • peppermint says:

            Nazis say Mein Kampf is a Good Book, they also say it’s boring and Hitler was a German from the beginning of the 20c. Summa Theologica and Paradise Lost are better than the Bible except as a Good Book.

    • Roberto says:

      And the serious reply is that I prefer Christianity to Islam, but perhaps — maybe! — Islam is simply what’s needed to un-cuck the West off its puritan-feminist delusions. As a commenter (disgustingly but accurately) wrote on one of my blogs, the West is full to the brim with shit, and Islam may simply be the laxative required to unclog it.

      • glosoli says:

        How does one find these blogs of yours please?

      • Theshadowedknight says:

        Christianity can get the same thing done without turning everyone into a copy of dirt-world goat-fucking sand niggers. Get a proper Inquisition started up and put someone like Jim in charge, and the shit will get flushed very quickly. The problem is not the religion, it is the moral cowardice of the elite.

        • james says:

          Comparing the religious texts of Islam with the Bible. The bible is far superior.

          Islam is a religion of an orphan that despises father and fatherhood. A quick youtube search of acts17 apologetics on Muhammad’s daddy issues really explains many pathologies of Islam.

          That and his general actions as a criminal warllord pedophile(See my comment above about Aisha).

          And his demonic possession like out of the movie “The exorcist” that induced suicidal attitudes and thoughts.

  12. Glenfilthie says:

    No, Jordon is most definitely NOT “controlled opposition”. Anyone that says so has no idea of who the man is – or who the enemy is. He’s a heretic, a mutineer, a blasphemer and a crime thinker. Same as you – the only difference is more people will listen to him than will listen to you. He is a major crack in the foundations of liberalism. He scares the progs shitless while they laugh at guys like you and Vox Day.

    Sure he still clings to liberal ideas but he will abandon those too. He is on a journey to our side of the political divide. He has his flaws but even so you could learn from him, Jim.

    • jim says:

      When he completes that journey far enough to refrain from pissing on those that have completed it, then I will welcome him.

      • Glenfilthie says:

        I’m just spitballing here Jim but bear with me – I see value in this guy beyond his threat potential to the lunatic left. The biggest problem they have over there on that side of the political spectrum … is the stuff of high comedy. They have no diversity!

        Stop laughing and hear me out: their ideology combines the worst of fascism and socialism. Those guys think and act with the precision of a Swiss watch. Go against them and they will lock shields. You will be systematically tried, sentenced and thoroughly punished. You’ll be un-personed and hurled into the void for your heresy. They did Peterson like they did so many others: but this guy was different. He was one of theirs. When he was accused he didn’t apologize. When they threatened he laughed. When they put on the airs of noble social justice warriors, he responded with contempt and derision and exposed their lunacy that is obvious to everyone, but nobody could seem to articulate. Now they’re melting down over him because none of their dirty tricks work on him. He’s smarter than they are and he proves it every time they clash with him.

        We need guys like that just like we need guys like you and Z and Derb and Vox. We will argue, debate and reprove and correct ourselves based on merit. We need to do that; it forces us to test our ideas and keep us intellectually honest with ourselves. Guys like Peterson? Currently there is nobody on the right better than he is for a job like that.

        I suppose it depends what your priorities are. Are you out to promote yourself or your ideas? This is why Vox can’t handle Peterson – he is right far more often than Peterson is, but Peterson is smarter and more convincing to the casual fence sitter than Vox is. Vox wants us all to march in lockstep the way the left does with him leading the parade. If we did that we might gain some short term victories, but ultimately we would do what he himself does… which is win battles and lose wars. Yes we damned well SHOULD punch right, as we did when Vox had his hissy fit and attacked Gab. Or when Spencer undermined the alt right with his Hitler Youth antics. Or when a degenerate like Milo clowns for the cameras.

        We are better than that.

        • peppermint says:

          JBP is the new Yudkowski with less polyamory or mechamilennialism. Vox is pushing his version of Christianity. I like Vox because, since he must disavow Anglin and Spencer, he attacks them from the right, calling them UBI communists, pan-White globalists, unserious trolls, and suggests that they convert to Christianity. I’ve said the same things about them to normies.

          • pdimov says:

            What I don’t like about VD is that he seems to first decide who to attack, and only then how.

          • Glenfilthie says:

            Vox is the pot calling the kettle black. If you watch him you’ll notice other things about him. He lies, he doubles down, and he projects. By his own definition he’s the gamma male he sees in all his work enemies. He’s a poseur that resonates with unsophisticated youngsters that don’t see through the act he’s putting on. You’d be better served by our blog host here to be honest.

            • Piers says:

              Glen is still butthurt that Vox banned him from commenting on the blog for acting like a little bitch

        • The Cominator says:

          Glen exactly, Peterson being a Cathedral insider AND a public figure who is gradually becoming more and more of a heretic is a real threat to them in a way that even Trump (Trump may be an openly heretical president/king but he can’t quite proclaim a new creed for new priests to preach, as Trump is many things but a priest he is not) is not. Trump can cause apostasy but he can’t replace the progressive faith, Trump tries to somewhat replace the progressive faith with ancestor worship in America’s fallen military heroes but Americans are not Prussians and not Japanese and probably won’t go for it.

          Big mistake to say he is controlled opposition in the way that say Ben Shapiro (I cringe when anyone says they like Ben Shapiro) is controlled opposition.

  13. Alrenous says:

    Jordan Peterson neglects to say that they hunger and thirst to do it all again

    This part gives me great keks. He studied nazo-communism precisely because he’s aware it’s likely to happen again…and yet he fails to recognize the #1, glaringly obvious likely next source of such things. Apparently reason is so far from mechanistic that studying things does not cause understanding. And indeed I can cite several examples where understanding precedes reason.

    It’s as if licenses to understand are handed out at birth, and all one can do later in life is realize them or reject them. Which I find utterly bizarre.

    the God too small problem let Odin worshipers be conquered by Christians

    But the Christian god is still too small to avoid being conquered by Sophists. Christianity survived from 500-1100 intact because Sophist writing was lost. When the reconquest of Toledo reintroduced it, Christianity immediately and (so far) irrevocably began decaying.

    There’s also the experience of the Mohammedans, in which the size of their god appears not to have been a defence against Sophism at all, but rather further aggravated the infection, resulting in today’s swarm of inbred incompetents.

    • Dixon says:

      Peterson is a great recruiter for the culture war. He brings in all sorts of smart college young men who wouldn’t otherwise be involved. He provides enough intimations of badthink that the more curious among them, if aided along, will begin to find their way. I have noticed the Peterson discussions I’ve seen getting more right wing, and figuring more things out as time went along, with a little outside help. Snare people with the self help, fatherly advice, and standing up to the more egregious SJWisms and the ones who are curious can figure out more from there. He might not be an ally but he can be a help.

      • Alrenous says:

        Yes. Gateway drug.

        Pro: Edgelord Peterson says to tell (and think) the truth. This means, since he’s on the edge, his followers will be terribly prone to going over the edge.

        Con: Peterson himself will necessarily disappoint those who think he’s scrupulously honest. This sometimes results in petit nihilism, discrediting honesty for some individuals.

      • Peterson is a great recruiter for the culture war. He brings in all sorts of smart college young men armed with a butter knife to a nuclear war. […..|…]

  14. Ron says:

    I think the problem of orthodox Jews in science is less an issue of philosophy and more an issue of necessary focus. The main focus right now is in dealing with the Socialist culture war. As said war is steadily being won with numbers, you see more and more leeway being given to young men who for example go to the combat, something unheard of twenty years ago. Even aside from the combat units, many of the married seminary students go to support units or hitech units in the air force.

    When the State was first created, the war was in many cases a literal war. The only people that did well from ww2 were the socialists, and I leave it to others to realize why. In any case, most of the Jewosh community was shattered psychologically and the socialists attempted to fonish the job woth a brutal system of repression going so far as to take choldren away from parents to be indoctrinated in their schools. Under those circumstances the Haredi community adopted an extremely insular and rigid policy. Basically a siege mentality.

    In my opinion, it was the correct call. However it was not meant to be a permanent state of mind, but would naturally fall away as they began to regain lost ground and build their communities back up. And as I pointed out above we can actually see signs of that occurring.

    Perhaps you are right, and it is not God’s wish for us to engage in science, but for the Gentiles to build up that aspect of the world, which is why He gave us this system of laws and principles and to the Gentiles He gave the Noahide principles. I suspect however, that as time goes on we will see more and more Haredi Jews engaging in the sciences.

    • jim says:

      Jews are no longer in exile. Judaism is still in exile. Needs to come home.

      Plenty of Jews do immensely impressive work in the sciences, but they are atheist or progressive Jews.

      You are going to have to build a temple of steel and stained glass that out Cathedrals the Christian Cathedrals. Trouble is that it is noticeable that any synagogue that is nice looking and focuses the mind on holiness and the transcendental was built by non Jews. Jews are naturally priests, but synagogues lack something.

  15. Entropy itself is death and can only be radically renewed, not gradually fixed. But the higher-entropy forms of life it causes can be gradually fixed. If a farm is neglected and overtaken by weed, higher-entropy life, you can fix that gradually.

    So I think Progressivism, as enthropy, as death, can only be dealt with suddenly and radically. But it is not true of all the people it affects. As I mentioned elsewhere, white-knighting frogs require gradual deboiling.

    What I am saying probably sounds like mysterious bullshit. The point is roughly that if JP is mostly dealing with the effects of poz on people and not poz itself, gradualism makes sense, a moderate position to be made more rightist later can make sense. And I think he does. He is a clinical psychologist. Almost like a doctor. His job is to fix people.

    And if someone is clinically weak a doctor won’t throw 120kg on his chest “bench it you faggot” because the result is a clinically weak guy with broken ribs.

    So maybe. Dunno.

    But in that case if JP is mostly about healing the effects of poz, of fixing high-entropy lives gradually we need someone else to target the poz, the entropy itself, radically and suddenly.

    • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

      One reorders a disordered engine, and disorders an ordered disordinating-engine.

  16. Oliver Cromwell says:

    Jordan Peterson is the mainstream circa 1995. His advice on women, which is now apparently unspeakably rightwing, is the advice the centrist dad character would have said in a film made in 1995. The religion Jordan Peterson is pushing is the Christianity of the Defence of Marriage Act, which almost everyone currently alive once supported but which is now unspeakably right wing.

  17. The Cominator says:

    Peterson’s religion would be a MASSIVE improvement in that it doesn’t hold that white males are unholy and evil and should be destroyed or enslaved and minorities are saintly and good. He also often hints that he is much more redpilled on female nature then he openly states and if successful will gradually boil the feminist frog slowly to death.

    Him going as far as you want would probably hurt his marketing the way Luther would have had trouble if he went around denying the divinity of Christ.

    I think we should treat him as a friend… don’t go full Vox Day on Peterson.

    • jim says:

      Sure, I said it would be a massive improvement on our existing religion, which as you say, holds that white males are unholy and evil.

      And sure, going full red pill would hurt his marketing. Most people don’t want the truth, and cannot handle the truth. I said that also.

      But no one who punches right is my friend, no one who deceives his followers is my friend.

      • The Cominator says:

        You don’t have to be a mindless follower yourself but we don’t have any other candidates to replace progressivism which are catching fire.

        Peterson is gradually doing a Luther, his religion is not perfect but if it succeeds will destroy or at least massively weaken the current one which is awful…

        To paraphrase Winston Churchill if progressivism invaded hell I would at least make a shitpost in favor of satan on /pol…

        • jim says:

          Never be friends to the left with someone who will not have friends to the right.

          If Peterson wants to be the friend of those who views resemble my own, rather than denouncing on demand anyone whose views resemble my own, then I would be glad to be his friend. Not going to support those who denounce me.

          When he is accused of being a fascist, he says “no, see I punch right”, ritually denouncing the proposition that whites are entitled to have their own spaces and to rule in those spaces, and that males should rule over women. By denouncing people like me as evil, he supposedly proves that he is good.

          Denouncing supposed evil is a cheap way of proving that oneself is good. When Vox Day strays onto women, game, and the red pill he is useless. But Vox Day does not denounce red pillers as pedophiles etc, though he might well think it. Scott Peterson does denounce PUAs as dishonest, etc. Those supposedly wicked men are supposedly deceiving naturally virtuous and good women into doing bad things that women, being naturally chaste and virtuous (women are wonderful) do not want to do.

          Vox Day and Jordan Peterson are both deceived about women, but Jordan Peterson punches right at those that give a more accurate account of female nature, blaming them for female misconduct. I don’t see Vox Day accusing people who give a more accurate account of female nature.

          Jordan Peterson attacks people who take my position on women, on race, and on many other issues. Not my friend.

          Never be friends to the left with someone who will not have friends to the right. Milo is a gay Jewish coalburner, but he is on my side. Milo has friends to the right. Jordan Peterson is not and does not.

          Jordan Peterson opposes “white supremacism”, with a definition of white supremacism so elastic that if not for unprincipled exceptions, anyone who pays a lot of money to live in a “good school district” would be a white supremacist, and he opposes “pua” – meaning anyone who speaks the truth about female nature. Milo not only speaks the truth about female nature, but even speaks the truth about gays, a topic on which he has far more expertise.

          Don’t be friends to the left with those who do not want friends to the right. I support Milo, even though many of his positions are less than perfect. (Did I mention that he is a gay Jewish coalburner?) I am happy to see Jordan inflicting woe upon my enemies, but he is on his own, for he will leave people like me on our own.

          The basic question you should always ask is “Whose side are you on?” I am on Milo’s side because he is on my side. I am not on Jordan Peterson’s side, because he is against my side. When he denounces “white supremacists” he denounces those whose position is scarcely distinguishable from my own. When he denounces puas, he denounces me. If he denounces me, I will denounce him.

          • The Cominator says:

            “. But Vox Day does not denounce red pillers as pedophiles etc”

            Vox day hasn’t commented on some of your views on super early marriage and how to deal with badly behaving early pubescent girls specifically… but I do not think he would be favorable given what he generally says about treating children (without defining the age).

            Keep in mind Peterson needs to dodge outright heresy charges up until his final break with the Cathedral, after he has his Diet of Worms moment he’ll likely get more flexible.

            Give the man some leeway until then. Trump himself has to say and do cucky things for political reasons (he issued a nice progressive Ramadan statement today). When you are in the public eye sometimes compromises must be made. Purist don’t get very far in politics.

            Peterson makes token statements opposing “identity politics”, he spends 20x as much time denouncing feminism and progressive postmodernism lately… reading between the lines its easy to read that as him opposing leftist identity politics.

            There is also a very good non cucked reason to oppose EXTREME ethnonationalism (as opposed to lite ethnonationalism), it led to a couple of very terrible world wars in the early 20th century and with modern weapons if such wars were repeated almost nothing on earth would survive. This is not to say that progressivism wouldn’t start a world war (they seem to want to start one with Putin) but extreme ethnonationalist do not have a good track record in this respect either.

            • alf says:

              It is dangerous to give the benefit of doubt to men who do things that earn doubt. For instance, of Peterson were seeking to break with the cathedral, he would not be cozying up to Russell Brand and Bill Maher. That he is cozying up to them tells me to keep him at distance.

              It is like sports; Peterson is almost scoring a goal for my team, but almost does not count as an actual goal.

              • The Cominator says:

                Mahrer genuinely hates feminism and extreme SJWs despite being otherwise a good liberal a gun control fanatic and having a bad case of Trump derangement syndrome. Cozying up to him makes some degree of sense from a divide and conquer POV.

                Not too familiar with Russell Brand.

                • alf says:

                  No, Maher looks on SJWs and feminists like reactionaries look at the alt-right: misguided, but heart in the right place. Maher quite onviously wants to see me and my loved ones dead.

                  Russell Brand is your run-of-the-mill hypersexual communist.

              • Frontier says:

                Peterson is not seeking to break with the Cathedral. I suspect he genuinely believes there’s a chance to fix it into a stable meritocratic form by making it so leftists who play identify politics are ostracized.

                Peterson is likely however to be forced to break with the Cathedral as it accelerates in excommunicating him. While he’s not an ally he has a great capacity for damaging our enemy expanding the overton window in our favor.

                • The Cominator says:

                  >That’s why he chose Ben Shapiro as an ally. They’re both more concerned about policing the right edge of the Overton window than with defeating the left.

                  This is EXACTLY what Ben Shapiro is but Peterson does not act this way.

                  First of all he is more in the philosophical/religious arena of the Cathedral and the right edge of the Overton window there would have gotten you executed for “left deviationism” under Stalin.

                  The right edge of the Overton window in the political arena is temporarily (in the United States anyway) much further to the right because a man who is almost one of us (and Stephen Miller his chief domestic policy advisor is one of us) won the Presidential election.

                  I don’t see that Spandrell, Jim or Moldbug appear on video for debates. Vox Day might debate him though but given the one sided lies Vox Day has told about Peterson I wouldn’t want to debate him.

                • jim says:

                  What Vox Day says about Jordan Peterson is one sided, but is half truths, not lies.

              • Reziac says:

                Peterson will discuss/debate with anyone; they need not be in agreement, or even close to it, merely interesting to talk to. He’s also not too proud to guest on small channels, when he has the time. He’s said repeatedly that it’s important to hear and understand the views of those you oppose, in case you might learn something (even if that’s how to better oppose those views).

                • alf says:

                  So why hasn’t he debated Spandrell, Jim or Moldbug once, but Sam Harris multiple times?

                • Honest Abe says:

                  Because he’ll never not be the rightmost person in any given public performance.

                • Reziac says:

                  Same reason he hasn’t debated Vox Day, who made the same snide complaint: he’s probably never heard of them.

                • chedolf says:

                  Peterson will discuss/debate with anyone…

                  That’s why he famously no-platformed Faith Goldy and had a brain seizure when asked to comment on Solzhenitsyn’s “Two Hundred Years Together.” (It’s hilarious that he urges people to read Solzhenitsyn and then flatlines at the mention of his ideas.)

                  The entire point of Peterson’s political shtick is to stop people even from considering ideas significantly to his right, which is why he generally won’t even name badthinkers, let alone debate them. That’s why he chose Ben Shapiro as an ally. They’re both more concerned about policing the right edge of the Overton window than with defeating the left.

                • jim says:

                  > They’re both more concerned about policing the right edge of the Overton window than with defeating the left.

                  Exactly so. Not a friend, not an ally, merely the enemy of our enemy.

                  The left wing program “no enemies to the left” works for them. Enemies to the right catastrophically fails to us. Unironic nazis are allies, even though they are wrong about women and disastrously wrong about socialism, which error led to the usual socialist terror and mass murders. Milo is an ally even though he is pro gay. Temple Jews are allies. Jordan Peterson is not an ally. Whosoever has a policy of a big tent on the right belongs in the big tent. Whosoever wants to throw some people out of the big tent because leftists wag their finger at those people, does not belong in the big tent. We don’t let leftists decide who we may associate with, and we don’t let it look as if we let leftists decide who we may associate with.

                  We don’t whore for leftists approval (the infamous “strange new respect”) and we do not let leftists police who our allies are. Any time someone denounces someone else on grounds that make him look good, or at least less unacceptable, to leftists, he is signaling that his is an enemy to all decent people. Do you see Dalrock denounce Milo, or even Heartiste?

                  I am an ally to those that choose to be allies to me, an enemy to those that choose to be enemies to me.

                  Obviously Dalrock’s oft stated views imply that Heartiste and Milo are very bad people, but he is not going whore himself out to earn left wing brownie points by saying so.

                  And perhaps Vox Day’s oft stated views imply that I am a very bad person, though this is less clear, but I am going to wait for him to whore himself out for left wing approval by saying so before I get indignant about it.

              • The Cominator says:

                I like what Spandrell tweeted about him.

                “You go on jihad with the prophet you have”.

            • jim says:

              Vox day hasn’t commented on some of your views on super early marriage and how to deal with badly behaving early pubescent girls specifically

              Lots of red pillers are “pedophiles” by progressive standards, and quite likely by Vox Day’s standards, but I don’t see him going out of his way to prove superior holiness by loudly announcing this, even when he is disagreeing with them on the woman question. Maybe he would if a red piller attacked him from the right, but so long as he does not attack puas from the left, no pua is going to pick a fight with him from the right.

              There is also a very good non cucked reason to oppose EXTREME ethnonationalism (as opposed to lite ethnonationalism), it led to a couple of very terrible world wars in the early 20th century and with modern weapons if such wars were repeated almost nothing on earth would survive. This is not to say that progressivism wouldn’t start a world war (they seem to want to start one with Putin) but extreme ethnonationalist do not have a good track record in this respect either.

              Fair enough, but what is his excuse on pua? No one thinks I am in the extreme ethnonationalist camp, but I am definitely in the heartiste camp.

              The fallacy of those you are calling extreme ethnonationalist is that they took a Hobbesian view of the anarchy of princes – that everyone was supposedly in a state of war with everyone else – therefore Hitler declaring war on the nation with the greatest capability to build weapons and supply and transport armies at the same time he was at war with the nation with the greatest supply of conscript cannon fodder was supposedly no big deal, because everyone is supposedly always already at war. I, like Moldbug, support the peace of Westphalia. Every faith and every ethnicity should have their own space that they rule. In particular, the best races, whites, east Asians, and Jews, should have their spaces that they rule. This, the peace of Westphalia and the old laws of war, is the big difference, but it is not apparent to me that Jordan Peterson notices that difference.

              The problem was not ethnonationalism. The problem was ethnonationalism plus Hobbes’ views on anarchy, which views imply that the anarchy of princes is necessarily a state of war.

              I would like to see Jordan Peterson link the Nazi view on the anarchy of princes, with today’s progressive enthusiasm for war with Russia, rather than linking the alt right ethnonationalism with Nazi ethnonationalism. Nazi ethnonationalism was not the problem, though arguably accepting the Hobbesian view on the anarchy of princes was part of, and a result of, dialing ethnonationalism up to eleven.

              • The Cominator says:

                I’m unaware that he has denounced “game” at all?

                If Jordan Peterson has denounced “game” its not a point of emphasis. I can only say if he has that Roissy himself has said in a proper society, in a society where “poolside” wasn’t the rational choice he’d be mostly out of business.

                Game is a lot less important when women aren’t the ones deciding who they get to fuck (with the exception of married women who sneak off to do so, which unless you want to go full Saudi Arabia you can’t really prevent).

              • The Cominator says:

                Pan-slavism was the main cause of the 1st world war, Nazi/German ethnonationalism and Japanese ethnonationalism were the main cause of the 2nd (with of course the threat of the communists in the background giving them so well justified paranoia)…

                Extreme ethnonationalist believe their ethnic group should rule the world or at least that they should have an ethnostate which is the primary world power and they will go to war to get it and judging from history will risk war to get it even when they are not all that likely to win. Japan attacking the United States was the most extreme example… so yes that is a big problem with the kind of extreme ethnonationalism that arose in the late 19th century.

                Alt-right ethnonationalism is not so bad because right now it is primarily defensive in nature (stop letting in these hordes, out with the barbarians) but that is not to say that late 19th century style ethnonationalism is good… history has proven it inevitably leads to terrible wars.

                • jim says:

                  The reason those you are calling extreme ethnonationalists keep going to war is that they delusively believe they already at war, so they delusively think their actions will not have large effects. Hitler thought that declaring war on the US would not make much difference, that it was merely a symbolic gesture that would have no consequences. Similarly, Japanese and Pearl Harbor. The emperor asked them what was their exit strategy for war in the pacific, and they did not have an exit strategy, because they thought they were already at war.

                  World War I was not caused by Pan Slavism. It was caused by Germany invading France via Belgium, which is a long way from the Arch Duke. The assassination of the Arch Duke was caused by Pan Slavism. Invading Belgium in response was a choice.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I never thought I would see you endorse the Woodrow Wilson version of history in regards to the 1st world war (I have great respect for you but this is a bit shocking).

                  France was going to attack Germany from the West period as soon as Russia got involved, they wanted revenge for the Franco Prussian war. And Russia got involved to protect a terrorist sponsoring state that had it coming (Serbia) and so they could grab more land in Central Europe animated by Pan Slav ideology. I suppose Germany could have avoided the lowlands but realistically the Germans did not know how unprepared Russia was so they thought they had to crush France quickly to have any chance against Russia.

                  Germany was the aggressor in the 2nd world war but was fighting a defensive war in the 1st.

                • jim says:

                  Given the cost of war, and the fact that one would prefer to deal with as few enemies as possible in any one go, surely it would have been wiser to wait for Russia to actually aggress, and France to actually come to Russia’s aid? Russia might, very likely be content with bailing out Serbia, and who cares about Serbia? And if bailing out Serbia proved expensive, they might not even have done that.

                  If Germany had waited for events to take their course, they would have had the moral high ground, and might well have had a small and short victorious war. Attacking Belgium was not the moral high ground.

                • jim says:

                  Germany was sinking American ships in sight of the American shoreline. It was not Woodrow Wilson who dragged America into World War I.

                  Sinking US ships in US waters is what dragged America into that war. Sinking US ships in sight of the shore, and invading Belgium is what led Germany to have to fight the entire world at once in World War I. Maybe the entire world would have attacked Germany anyway, but the other powers don’t seem to have reacted very energetically to gross provocations by Germany.

                  In particular, Germany might have won if America had stayed out, but seemed to be doing her best to drag the US in.

                • pdimov says:

                  Germany was clearly an aggressor in WW2 but it didn’t attack the US, Japan did, without bothering to ask Germany (and of course Italy decided to attack Greece without bothering to ask Germany).

                  All that had nothing to do with extreme ethnonationalism. It was just the Japanese being Japanese and the Italians being Italian; or, if you prefer, Japan severely underestimating America and Italy underestimating Greece. (Japan being significantly more deluded.)

                • jim says:

                  Japan was not severely underestimating the US. Rather, they did not expect the strong response that they got. They misjudged the nature of the world, and the nature of the English speaking peoples, not the strength of America. This was made entirely clear in the discussions before they attacked Pearl Harbor, where they completely realistic about American strength and resources. Similarly, Hitler did not expect the American reaction to his declaration of war.

                  Wars are always the result of errors by one or both parties, no matter how ethnonationalist they may be. You have to ask what were the misjudgments that caused the war.

                • jim says:

                  For Pan Slavism to be the cause of World War I, Russia would have to have invaded, leading to a war between Germany and Russia. But, instead, Germany invaded France via Belgium.

                  Yes, German Ethnonationalism was the cause of World War II, but what caused the Japanese war is that Japan wanted its fair share of empire, not that Japan wanted the whole caboodle.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  France planned to attack Germany from the start, and invaded Germany and planned to invade Belgium itself before Germany invaded Belgium. Germany did not really have a choice to wait to be attacked.

                  I am not sure aggression is a very useful concept in practical terms, but WWI was a choice on all sides, and really was largely driven by self-interest in an anarchy of princes. In that time even nominal democracies like the UK and France were run to a great extent by cabals of princes focused on international military strategy.

                  It was a mistake of the Germans to extend that analysis to countries like the US in the 40s. But perhaps more understandable with hindsight. The US was an unusual country and 1918-1940 wasn’t actually a very long time.

                • jim says:

                  You don’t know what France would have done, and Germany did not know what France would have done. Germany did have choice to wait to be attacked. During World War I, defense had an advantage over attack. The attacker suffered more attrition than the defender.

                  Meanwhile, we can be pretty sure that without Germany killing American sailors in sight of the American shore, America would not have entered the war, which would have made an enormous difference.

                • Alrenous says:

                  If Germany had not attacked, they would have been nicked and dimed through the back door, suffering what Rhodesia suffered. Just as today, paranoia about Jews is an effective cover for genuine Progressive subversion, Nazi Original Flavour paranoia about Jews was a result of misdiagnosing the cause of genuine Progressive subversion.

                • pdimov says:

                  >This was made entirely clear in the discussions before they attacked Pearl Harbor, where they completely realistic about American strength and resources.

                  Japan did not underestimate American strength or resources, they underestimated the American will to fight.

                  As for Germany and Italy, by declaring war in response to America declaring war on Japan, they just did what they were (in their understanding) obligated to do by treaty.

                • glosoli says:

                  WW2 explained: the world was still in a Great Depression, despite the heroic efforts of our overlords to engender a recovery (more profits) by inciting WW1. The two Royal Families were related you will recall, lol.

                  So they inserted Hitler, bought off Churchill, stirred up the Japs, and hey presto, another stimulus package, sorry, world war.

                  Worked a treat. Millions killed, mostly Christians and Europeans. Racked up billions in new debt, plus the rebuilding debts, plus the launch of socialism afterwards to a demoralised Britain, plus enabled the launch of the EU project.

                  It’s genius, really, they are very good at their plan, which is simply to own everything and humiliate God.

                  Next up….ah, it’ll wait.

                  You guys need more red-pills, you actually believe their history of it all. Heh, stupid, so stupid, just like buying into Trump and Q. Bought and paid for by the Roths, years ago. Excellent planning.

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  The people who run the government and the people who run the arms companies are two different groups of people who don’t like each other very much; remember that the Senate blame munitions makers for world war 1 and Eisenhower talked about a military-industrial complex (as if the government was something pure being corrupted by them).

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  “You don’t know what France would have done, and Germany did not know what France would have done. Germany did have choice to wait to be attacked.”

                  Maybe Germany didn’t know at the time but I do know because I have the benefit of hindsight and declassifications.

                  “During World War I, defense had an advantage over attack. The attacker suffered more attrition than the defender.”

                  That is really overstated. It is always true in war that the defender tends to take fewer casualties than the attacker so long as his position holds, but it’s really not true that in WWI this ratio was disproportionately high. WWI battles in the west tended to see Entente casualties about a third higher than those of the Germans whether on attack or defence. People see that little ground was taken and assume that therefore few defenders died holding it – not true. Meanwhile the Germans drew a substantial advantage from sitting on France’s main mining and industrial territory, taking economic advantage and also forcing the Entente onto the offensive, which they would not have had had they simply waited to be attacked.

                  “Meanwhile, we can be pretty sure that without Germany killing American sailors in sight of the American shore, America would not have entered the war, which would have made an enormous difference.”

                  That is probably true. The Germans probably overestimated how much the U-boats would damage the British. To be fair, though, so did the British, and it was a new weapon.

                • glosoli says:

                  @ samuelskinner,

                  Its foolish to believe anything a politician tells you.
                  Maybe one or two somehow get into power with some semblance of morality, but I’d be surprised.
                  Munitions are a small piece of the pie, it’s all focuses on the debts and the currencies.

                  The period from 1920 til 2032 will be known as The Great Inflation.

                  Usurious contracts must be unenforceable. First step in our new nations.

              • Roberto says:

                >I don’t see him going out of his way to prove superior holiness by loudly announcing this

                VD absolutely goes out of his way to announce that anything sexual with 14-year-olds and 15-year-olds is sick and immoral “pedophilia.” As such, he’d consider your views about the sexuality of 9-year-olds to be a horror of horrors.

                Milo, Spencer, and Anglin can be made to accept your views. VD cannot. I earnestly contemplate using some of my “dirty tricks” to bring him down, as I see him as a bitter enemy, a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

                That he has convinced his sperg followers to talk about alpha, beta, gamma, delta, epsilon, sigma, lambda, and whatever other other types of “males” shows that he is a charlatan.

                This glorified book-seller has revealed his true colors in a debate he had with Richard Spencer, in which he failed to substantially address any of Spencer’s points, choosing instead to blurt his half-baked talking-points in an almost robotic manner.

                Like a Jew, he has his own unique interpretation of reality; after his debate with Andrew Anglin, from which of course Anglin came out as a laid-back cool guy and VD came out as a jealous and insecure seeker of “leadership,” VD announced that he totally, totally PWNED Anglin’s ass, despite it being the other way around.

                As has been noted, VD tells his followers to accuse their enemies of pedophilia whether or not the accusation has any merit to it; when he himself was accused of pedophilia, he freaked out about it so badly as to earn the moniker “Dox Gay.”

                I really, really hate him.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Vox day is very deluded in some respects but Spencer is a charlatan (and probably a government agent) and an enemy ala David Duke. Slapping down Spencer doesn’t make anyone a charlatan.

                  His role much like Duke is to make anything to the right of Ben Shapiro (who is another true shill) seem toxic to normies.

                • Roberto says:

                  >probably a government agent

                  I dunno. This guy makes a decent argument for it:


                  But if Spencer is CIA, then the case is settled: the alt-right itself is a psyop. Which, in all likelihood, it is. But then, it’s definitely not the worst one.

                  Why do you consider Spencer a charlatan?

                • The Cominator says:

                  >Why do you consider Spencer a charlatan?

                  If hes not an enemy agent he could probably do worse.

                  I have numerous reasons.

                  I was on /pol all throughout the election (which isn’t the most psychologically healthy thing but unlike normal elections which don’t matter we had to win this one… I never had a real war but I considered it my duty to fight this one) and we had barely heard of him and all the sudden after his retarded nazi salute larping to convenient media coverage he was “the leader of the alt-right”. Fuck him. Scott Adams despite not being really far right at all has a much better claim to the title of being our leader then Spencer ever will.

                  Like David Duke he is just drudged up by the Mockingbird/Cathedral media whenever they need to scare normies away from moving further right.

                  Also he is basically a communist when it comes to economics.


                • The Cominator says:

                  >VD absolutely goes out of his way to announce that anything sexual with 14-year-olds and 15-year-olds is sick and immoral “pedophilia.” As such, he’d consider your views about the sexuality of 9-year-olds to be a horror of horrors.

                  Yes Vox tends to accept a feminist conception of age of consent laws which were not widely accepted at least here in the United States at least before the 1980s, from the 1970s in before nobody cared much as long as the girl was postpubescent.

                  Public opinion on the Polanski affair back in the 1970s was that it was bullshit and that he didn’t do anything wrong (and what Polanski did was a**fuck a 13 year old girl in Jack Nicholson’s bathroom).

                  Public opinion today is far different.

                • Dave says:

                  Some day a million jewbucks won’t buy you a blowjob but a half-eaten sandwich will.

                  My position on pedophilia is that no one seems much bothered by it in third-world countries, where poor children are literally starving to death, and that when America becomes a third-world country, pedophilia won’t be a big deal here either. See Arthur C. Clarke in Sri Lanka.

                • Erel says:

                  Thanks for the info. Anyone who doesn’t like a 14- or 15-year-old girl and calls himself a straight man is mentally ill, they have a psycho-sexual disorder. O is just a liar. They have tits and pussy ready to fuck and give birth, and they must be fucked as nature stipulates. You must want to fuck them. They’re not children. To think of them as “children” is a reality disorder, a child has no tits or hips. This insane liars you say should be removed at once as much as any feminist, they are a tumor in masculinity.

                  We need to make a new civilization based on the fact that we must have relationships with pubescent people. That is the first thing a human male must do to create a healthy civilization, with healthy families, with healthy values. If you delete this step, the current society will return again. What healthy society can exist where you need a female to be 18 years old (and fill her brain with feminist crap after years of “education”) to fuck and get married? Do you need a woman to be “of legal age” which is basically a passport to aberrations like to go on porn, divorce, abort, drink and get on drugs and do whatever it takes to destroy everything in her path? It’s stupid, that’s what modern society is all about. In modern society in fact the only women who can be valid today are minors.

                  Take a look at this blog, by the way:

                • Roberto says:

                  When one says: “legalize rape, violence against women, pedophilia, child prostitution, child pornography, and child labor,” people get triggered like a bunch of sissies.

                  So instead, one should say: “I am exploring an alternative to modern sex-crime legislation.” That is what we are all about, you see? We are merely exploring a possible alternative to the bad and unnatural state of affairs of modern society.


                • jim says:

                  True, but somehow his targets are always powerful people to his left, not vulnerable people to his right.

                • Spencertown says:

                  “Age of consent”
                  “(and fill her brain with feminist crap after years of “education”)”
                  “aberrations like to go on porn, divorce, abort, drink and get on drugs and do whatever it takes to destroy everything in her path?”

                  You’re conflating very different things.

                  “Age of consent” theory is rooted in the idea that a woman of a given age is competent to responsibly govern her own sexual activity.

                  These “aberrations” you talk about will fuck everyone of any age in any society with any “age of consent”.

                  In a sane society the earliest legally marriageable age could be 22, 6 to 10 years after female puberty, and everything would still be fine, virgin brides and all.

                • peppermint says:

                  > They have tits and pussy ready to fuck and give birth, and they must be fucked as nature stipulates.

                  For the last time, no. 13 isn’t hot, 15 isn’t hot, 17 can be hot, 19-24 is prime hotness, 24-28 is still hot, 28+ looks like she should be the mother of a young child. Fertility doesn’t just turn on at 13 and off at 45. You don’t think 35-45 is hot either.

                • jim says:

                  18-24 is prime hotness.

                  Yes, 13 is not hot, but 13 is horny and wishes she was hot. 28-35 is not hot, but can still get casual sex, and 9-14 is not hot, but can still get casual sex. And that is the problem.

                • james says:

                  He stood for Roy Moore. Who pursued a 14 year old woman with the permission of her mother in 2017.

                  But his position may have changed.

                • Roberto says:

                  >In a sane society the earliest legally marriageable age could be 22, 6 to 10 years after female puberty, and everything would still be fine, virgin brides and all.

                  Not a sane society.

                  >For the last time, no. 13 isn’t hot, 15 isn’t hot, 17 can be hot, 19-24 is prime hotness

                  Women get horny at 10 or so, and become sexually attractive at 12 or so.

                  Modern society is in total denial of the first part, and is in partial denial of the second part. Between 1660 and 1810, was not in denial of either.

                  Need a state religion that renders sentences such as “15-year-olds are not hot” not only unutterable, but unthinkable.

                  Denying that a woman who started adrenarche has sexual desires, sometimes quite intense and forceful sexual desires, and denying that a woman who started developing secondary sexual characteristics is sexually attractive, often very sexually attractive, should be on par with denying that 2 + 2 = 4.

                  Agecuckery should not only stop being fashionable, as it is now fashionable to pretend that 13-year-old sluts who run away with their demon lovers are “victims of child sexual trafficking,” it should be considered as low-status as “pedophilia” is right now considered low-status, and people who pretend (against all evidence) that teen sluts who run away with their lovers are “sex trafficked” should be treated as gibbering schizophrenics who pose a danger to society.

                  Age-denialism, denial of the reality of age, will be made as low-status as race-denialism and sex-denialism. In the future, the notions that men and women are equally competent, that whites and blacks are equally intelligent, or that 15-year-olds and 5-year-olds are equally sexually attractive (because both are “children”), will all be literally unthinkable.

                  Truth speaking about all subjects existed between 1660 and 1810, and

                  Indeed, age-cuckery will be lower status than even race-cuckery. If you live around Talented Tenfers, it is understandable why you may think that whites and blacks are equal in intelligence. You can’t see their inner thought-patterns all so easily. Meanwhile, that teenage women are both horny and sexually attractive is something you will have no excuse to be in denial about, because it’s something that physically cannot escape one’s eyesight.

                  You feel that denying the sexual appeal of 15-year-olds makes you holier than those who recognize their sexual appeal, in the same way that the guy who wants the age of marriageability to be set at 20 feels that he is holier than those want to set the age of marriageability at 10 or abolish it altogether.

                  And indeed, in modern society, that makes you holier, and the puritan-feminists always seek to escalate their puritan-feminism, have escalated it insanely from the 1900s to the 2010s, and are still going strong.

                  You deny the obvious, just as VD denies the obvious, and your memes will be as relevant 20 years from now as his memes, which is to say, your memes won’t be relevant.

                  The punishment for agecucks like you will be forcing you to watch 15-year-olds having sex, carefully measuring your penile blood-flow throughout, and beating you over the head with the results, until you admit that 15-year-old sex indeed turns you on or until your skull cracks.

                • james says:


                  The age of marriage is governed by the permission of the father and puberty.

                  Generally the minimum that is acceptable to Hebrews is 12.5-13 years. Corresponding with sexual development and menarche.

                  What Muhammad did with Aisha is horrific child abuse.

                  ”and what Polanski did was a**fuck a 13 year old girl in Jack Nicholson’s bathroom). ”

                  He sodomized her while she was drugged. If that is not a perverted act that would rain down a sane father’s wrath I don’t know what is. In a sane society he will be executed.

                • james says:

                  And the permission of the bride as well. The prerequisite is that both man and woman burn with passion for each other as well as the father’s blessing.

                • jim says:

                  There is no support for your position in the New or Old Testaments, or in the community of saints from the time of the apostles to anno domini eleven hundred.

                  The proposition that the consent of the bride is required appears with Romance, with celebration and sanctification of adultery.

                • peppermint says:

                  > Need a state religion that renders sentences such as “15-year-olds are not hot” not only unutterable, but unthinkable
                  Listen, numbnuts, when was the last time you saw an *average* 15 year old? The ones you noticed in high school and see on TV are the more developed types, who you still wouldn’t want to take responsibility for sticking a baby in until they’re 18.

                  “Grass on the field, play ball” isn’t courage wolf, it’s insanity wolf.

                • The Cominator says:

                  >He sodomized her while she was drugged. If that is not a perverted act that would rain down a sane father’s wrath I don’t know what is. In a sane society he will be executed.

                  I just used the case to show how opinions have changed.

                  Nobody (including the girl who maintains to this day that she didn’t want it but she didn’t never thought it should have been a big deal and that while she initially resisted she didn’t resist much) at the time really thought it should be a big deal except the judge and the prosecutor who were trying to grab headlines.

                  Nowadays public opinion would take a radically different course if a guy a**fu**ed a 13 year old girl he had given drugs to and who said no.

                  In the 70s public opinion was more along the lines of well she was postpubescent and although she may have said no did not run away or make much physical resistance.

                • Oog en Hand says:

                  Vox Day is pulling a Geeert Wilders. Geert Wilders is accused of instrumentalizing Jewish suffering at the hands of Muslims. That is, Geert Wilders uses an earlier group of immigrants as a stick to beat later immigrants with.

                  Vox Day can be seen as an Iroquois viewing Gangs of New York, who then approaches a WASP and says: “Shall I protect you from the evil Irish?”

                • james says:


                  Reduces chance at defection.

                  Also there are groups who will put a stop to those marriages:

                • jim says:

                  The people who are saving ten year olds from child marriages don’t want sixteen year olds to get married, don’t want twenty four year olds to get married, and want thirty year olds to adopt cats. They tell nine year olds that they can fuck around, they fight wars so that they can teach nine year olds sodomy and how to put a condom on a banana, and they tell twenty nine year old women that they have all the time to party and work on their careers, and romance, marriage, and kids will come in their forties and fifties because they will be so attractive to men thanks to their career and educational success.

                • jim says:

                  The same people who are rescuing sixteen year olds from child marriage are immunizing nine year olds against sexually transmitted diseases, teaching them anal intercourse, and teaching them how to put a condom on a banana.

                • james says:

                  ”For the last time, no. 13 isn’t hot, 15 isn’t hot, 17 can be hot, 19-24 is prime hotness, 24-28 is still hot, 28+ looks like she should be the mother of a young child. Fertility doesn’t just turn on at 13 and off at 45. You don’t think 35-45 is hot either.”

                  Depends on the woman. Plus there is definitely a distribution of men who are attracted to younger women than 18 as well as those who prefer older than that.

                  Teen marriages by women were not the majority of marriages even from the beginning of Christendom. Although it was accepted and not regarded as evil.

                • jim says:

                  Seventeen is hot, sixteen is sometimes hot, and eighteen is the start of prime hotness.

                • james says:


                  All you need to do is a internet search and you will find many stories of those kinds of arranged marriages not working and the bride in question fleeing such a thing.

                  And of course NGO’s and other advocacy groups that seek to lobby government and by themselves put a stop to the marriages.

                • jim says:

                  > you will find many stories of those kinds of arranged marriages not working

                  Will I? Find me some poster girls.

                  Indian marriages are generally arranged, and have a success rate much higher than western marriages. Marriage by abduction seems to have a very good success rate. Progs go looking for poster girls to depict marriage by abduction as horrible, don’t seem to find any good poster girls.

                • james says:

                  1 Corinthians 7:9

                  ”Now to the unmarried and widows I say this: It is good for them to remain unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion. 10”

                  Unless such passion exists its better to be unmarried.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  If you have lived in multiple countries it is hard not to see that this is mostly social conditioning. In most countries the age of consent is lower than 18 but almost all Americans think 18 is a meaningful cutoff just because it happens to be the law in their country (and even then not in all states).

                  Pedophilia, as deviance, is being sexually attracted to girls who do not yet have female sexual characteristics. Anything else is just contract law.

                • peppermint says:

                  Fucking a 13 year old has never been and will never be normal. 13 is young for a whore. Her father should have killed that kike personally. At any time but right now, the consent of a child is irrelevant, let alone retroactive consent.

                  In the 70s, feminists believed that since rape was pretty much exclusively done by niggers and jews, it wasn’t a big deal. Congress pushed back with a legal requirement that rape stats be reported to the parents by university police. Germaine Greer recently tried to bring back this early form of sex-positive feminism due to the overrepresentation of influential jews getting #metoo’d.

                  Also in the 70s kidfucking was as normalized as it ever would be. The 80s pushback has the left butthurt to this day.

                  The connection between Star Trek and kidfucking is that both are loved by communists, because communism is the philosophy of a child.

                  NAMBLA was Buckleyed and the slogan Safe Schools was whitewashed to be posted in all schools a decade later. In this and all subsequent decades, talking about your inner child makes you sound like a faggot and possible kidfucker.

                  I remember the yawning attractiveness gap between the girls in my class in middle school and high school and the student teachers from college (gf informs me the girls all wished they were them) and also the younger teachers. Very few of the freshmen or sophomore girls could come close to competing. By junior or senior year the average girl was attractive enough to get my attention, but everyone knows college age girls are the hottest, they pretty much all looked amazing except for the fatties, lady professors had nothing on them.

                • glosoli says:


                  The vast majority of men and women have those passions, as sex within marriage is a gift from God, He also told us to be fruitful and multiply.

                  I just discovered, to my dismay and sadness, that biblical marriage doesn’t exist in the UK any more, as in the late 90s marital rape was invented as a crime. So no more mutual satisfaction of spouses desires, now women call all of the shots.

                  Present a conundrum for me, seeking a wife and wanting some children. Please God, burn it all down tomorrow, allow us to rebuild according to your laws and commands.

                • Dave says:

                  This report shocked me, I didn’t even think Sweden was this bad:


                  TL;DR Israeli men accused of rape or domestic violence are presumed guilty, and women are never punished for lying about it, even if it’s all on video. This has fostered a reign of terror where women openly threaten to imprison husbands, boyfriends, bosses, taxi drivers, etc. who don’t give them everything they want.

                  They say it’s hard for women to find husbands because so many men avoid them entirely, and politicians laid off all their female staff after President Moshe Katsav got seven years in prison for “rape”. Even the Pence Rule won’t protect you there. Many accused men go visit relatives in Russia and never come back.

                  There’s a brief clip of Orthodox Jews in synagogue, but not a word about how they deal with the problem.

              • The Cominator says:

                Pan-slavism was driving the Tsar (who was seeking some way to restore his popularity at home) to want to dismember Austria and Germany knew if it happened they’d be in a position similar to that of Czechslovakia in 1938 relative to France and Russia.

                Germany could have perhaps waited for a Russian and French attack but the General Staff believed to have any chance (they overestimated the power of Russia) they had to eliminate France almost immediately.

                Hence when the Russians mobilized and France refused to promise neutrality (and the French WERE going to attack if Germany did nothing) the Schlieffen plan went into effect.

                • jim says:

                  Possibly they were – in which case Germany would have been able to fight them defensively and without attacking Belgium.

                  And quite possibly they were not.

              • @jim the belief they are already at war was correct. There are many kinds of war, not only shooting. Economic war: the embargo. Psy-ops: the Cathedral. Them assuming that Stalin and Roosevelt are memeing them into a democratic revolution sounds about correct.

                The Cathedral originated as a psy-ops weapon of the Anglosphere, which later on got turned against itself. The classic example is the Black Legend of Spain. Spanish colonialism is evil and racist, British colonialism is good. It is not hard to see how it originated some of the current narrative.

                Once upon a time I’ve read a very weird text from 1914, just before the war. A dude from A-H, as liberal as it gets, assimilated jew and all that, goes uncharacteristically patriotic and says he wants a war and wants A-H and Germany to win it. Because what happened in the Balkans about 1912. London diplomacy somehow managed to kick the Ottomans out of the Balkans with some kind of memetic-economic-diplomatic warfare. New Balkan states immediately began fighting each other and ethnic cleansing each others minorities, because ethnonatinonalism. Bad things ensue. So the dude is like, maybe A-H is next. Maybe London Magic will incite the nationalities to rebel, then maybe the Czechs will kill the Sudeten Germans, the Serbs the Croatians, the Romanians the Hungarians or whatever, bad things will happen. The a Serbian agent kills the heir apparent. And London acts all like they already owned the place, Lord Grey is basically like “wait, we will investigate this and tell if you can declare war on Serbia over it”. So the dude realizes if A-H and Germany doesn’t go to war then, the mysterious power of London diplomacy – Cathedral psy-ops – gonna break them bad.

                So it can easily be true they were already at war. The mistake was likely about whether they can win it. But there are situations when there is no choice, as economic and memetic warfare will weaken them and later it will be even less winnable.

                • Roberto says:

                  >The Cathedral originated as a psy-ops weapon of the Anglosphere, which later on got turned against itself. 

                  True, but as Moldbug would tell you, the Cathedral has actually been more destructive to those outside the Anglosphere, who lack any natural defenses against the hostile memeplex. See: the collapse of Japanese fertility.

                • Spencertown says:

                  Pretty much. The idea of Germany as innocent defender being successful is predicated on the notion that the English weren’t monomaniacal badasses ever on the totalwarparth to Absolute World Empire.

                  In both cases of German aggression, they simply made explicit what Englishmen held implicitly. Needless to say, they were outmatched on every front, although everything considered, Hitler was extraordinarily successful at immunizing the Germans from the Anglo propaganda.

                • jim says:

                  Full scale war is an inappropriate response to psyops war.

                  This is the way you do defend against psyops war:
                  The right way is to attack the enemy’s status and the status of their belief system, rather than shooting them. Fight a psyops war with psyops.

                • The Cominator says:

                  RE: Japanese fertility.

                  It would be somewhat depressed even in traditional Japan (and Japan only ever adopted first wave feminism as it was imposed by the occupying forces, they have rejected 2nd and 3rd wave feminism totally) because the Japanese by and large live in megacities which don’t give themselves well to large families and the Japanese know they can’t do the war of conquest thing at the current time.

              • jay says:

                At what age do you think that children transitions into adulthood?

                When they are no longer children anymore.

            • Mycroft Jones says:

              You are deluded. Extreme ethnonationalism didn’t cause the world wars. The impulse to form EMPIRES (New World Global Order) is what caused them. EMPIRE is the death of nations. Not one single nation that became an empire has remained. The Romans bred themselves with the beautiful people from every part of the Mediterranean until the original stock no longer remained.

              • Alrenous says:

                Fact check: true.

                China exists to show that it is true. China expanded to the nearest natural barriers, then stopped. As a result, although its ruling philosophy is flawed and has to reboot every ten generations, because it isn’t expansionist the reboots succeed.

            • Samuel Skinner says:

              “There is also a very good non cucked reason to oppose EXTREME ethnonationalism (as opposed to lite ethnonationalism), it led to a couple of very terrible world wars in the early 20th century and with modern weapons if such wars were repeated almost nothing on earth would survive.”

              World War 1 involved multinational empires on both sides slugging it out.

              World War 2 did have Hitler claiming the mantle of Darwinism. Notably he had people killed so he could take their stuff- the same thing the communists were doing.

            • Reziac says:

              Dr.Peterson is actually quite vehemently in favor of strong borders, and against importing incompatible persons:


              And just about everything VD has said about JBP has been at best disingenuous, at worst outright calumny.

              • jim says:

                Yes, half the truth, but it has not been outright false.

                • Reziac says:

                  Only if you don’t count as false making a lie of omission, then filling in the omitted part with your own innuendo (lately shading into calumny). It’s basically making shit up to fanservice his little coterie of nutjobs. And in the process VD has opened my eyes to a new truth: his Three Laws apply just as well to himself.

                • Alrenous says:

                  his Three Laws apply just as well to himself.

                  Sophist gonna soph.

                  Vox doesn’t like JBP because he hangs out with Ben Shapiro and makes bank. It’s understandable.

                  JBP is dad to a dadless generation, and he’s also dad to Vox, who is now having daddy issues in public. He sounds betrayed, which is strange. Vox of all people should know you can’t expect too much from someone who still has his Cathedral-funded job. Of course I know better than to expect deep understanding from a sophist.

                  Maps of Meaning is a genuinely terrible book. I saw a good summary of it: “Turgid.” No more needs to be said. However, the fact Vox laser-focused on it speaks poorly of his character. Although again the temptation is understandable: when you want to character-assassinate someone, obviously you pick the weakest part of his work and pretend it is the best part.

            • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

              FDR and Winston Churchill salivated at the thought of butchering their fellow whites in cataclysmic war; Churchill ‘merely’ because he was shortsighted like many unfortunately useful idiots and saw Germany as a perennial rival to British supremacy on the globe (not seeing how such conflict ultimately sawed off the branch you’re sitting on even if you win); FDR because he was a wild-eyed true believer earnestly dedicated to the blood sacrifice of aryan peoples for his demon god, ‘making the world safe’ for demonocracy, much like his predecessor Wilson.

              Easy light splitting prism; both gommunist russia and the German Wehrmacht invaded Poland together to divvy it as a buffer between each other; why did ‘the west’ go to war with one but not both? Why did they ally with the further but not the nearer?

          • Javier says:

            Basically, Peterson is not a “wartime consigliere”

      • Alrenous says:

        no one who deceives his followers is my friend.

        Vox Day deceives his followers. He’s the proof that Sophism isn’t limited to the left wing. Though I must admit the deceptions are minor as regards to actual behaviour. Of course the benefits regarding actual behaviour are also minor.

      • collen ryan says:

        Bullshit this is his religion I think that might even be a picture of him interrogating himself, well worth a read its sort of the back story on american malverne

        christianity is cuckism the cucking used to be intra racial so kinda served us but the worlds smaller so its interracial now and morbid.


        I found that looking for american malvern again every couple of years i look for it and it gets ever harder to fins though MM and others have drawn ever more attention to it it still recedes down the rabbit hole curiouser and curiouser

    • The Cominator says:

      Basically in essence don’t let the perfect (which is not available, barring unironic divine intervention uncucked Christianity in the West ain’t coming back. Even Mormonism has been cucked.) be the enemy of the good.

      Maybe we can get a better religion after Peterson’s religion destroys progressivism but the immediate priority is to destroy progressivism.

    • pdimov says:

      Never go full Vox Day.

    • Aidan MacLear says:

      You can’t boil the leftist frog to death. The methods for effecting entropy are not the methods for creating order.
      Zeus did not slowly boil the primordial chaos to death. He put a big fucking axe through Kronos’ skull and said ‘I am King of the Gods, disobey me and I will put an axe through your skull’, and then order reigned and human civilization was allowed to develop.

  18. […] Jordan Peterson, controlled opposition […]

Leave a Reply