I always talk about Charles the Second, who undid a left singularity and built good economic and religious institutions.
But I also frequently comment that fixing the problem requires the dissolution of the monasteries, which is a reference to Henry the eighth
I normally do not cover the news of the day, but couple of days ago, Trump proposed the dissolution of the monasteries.
A future American ruler is likely to need to implement this plan, for the reasons that Henry the eighth needed to implement it. He probably will not want a full break with progressivism, as Henry the eighth did not want a full break with Roman Catholicism. But, faced with resistance, Henry the eighth turned to the protestants. And a future American ruler attempting to implement something like this is going to face resistance similar to that faced by Henry the eighth.
One obvious problem is that Henry the eighth was a warrior and leader of a warrior people, while Trump is a merchant, and a bit old to change. His reaction to stubborn resistance is likely to be to attempt to make a deal with those with whom no deal can be made, as it always has been. You cannot talk to these people, they will not hear, so even less can one make a deal with them.
“Bishops Tunstall, Stokesley and others were not won over by these Protestant arguments and did everything they could to avoid agreement. They were willing to separate from Rome, but their plan was to unite with the Greek Church and not with the Protestants on the continent.”
Henry VIII did not want the Protestants.
He did want caesaropapism.
He tried to turn his country Orthodox but, finding no true believers, turned it Protestant instead.
Then, with the Six Articles, turned it back into National Catholicism, but found no true believers, the Catholics unable to abandon the Pope and the Protestants unable to abandon Judaization.
Faced with loss of sovereignty if he returned to the Pope, he turned instead to the Jews.
The next five hundred years is just the implementation details.
The strength of this system has always been, that the Judaizers have been able to co-opt the functional institutions of Caesaropapist Anglo-Orthodoxy. But that rope is beginning to run out.
I am not personally religious, I merely find it useful: when your enemies launch a holy war on you, mere conservative common sense is weaksauce: you really do have to bring a faith to the fight.
Arguments from the gentleman called “Peace” have convinced me that some versions of Christianity, namely his, need to be suppressed by a King.
Result: I still prefer Catholicism, the whole grand edifice, but with much less Popery now. Kings, not Popes, should have investiture. That should fix it.
If the Pontifex Maximus Maximus is the leader of all faithful, then that means he is the King of all lands. If he is not, then you have a problem.
And we’ve had a problem for the past 1000 years.
“From the early 1840s, questions were being openly asked on the floor of the House of Commons where Thomas Wakley, coroner, surgeon and MP shocked his audience by claiming that infanticide[3], ‘was going on to a frightful, to an enormous, a perfectly incredible extent.’[4] By the 1860s, the problem was believed to have reached crisis proportions and figured as one of the great plagues of society, alongside prostitution, drunkenness and gambling. According to some experts, it was impossible to escape from the sight of dead infants’ corpses, especially in the capital, for they were to be found everywhere from interiors to exteriors, from bedrooms to train compartments.”
https://www.rintrah.nl/why-did-victorian-women-wear-those-dresses/
Since you posted this guy’s blog can you give a summary on its qualities?
I’m having a hard time making heads and tails of this guy. Is he on shrooms? Terminal levels of sarcasm? Bipolar schizo philosophy distillate? I can’t really tell from a brief skim and not really interested enough for a committed deep dive into his writings.
Well, did the problem get worse or better? I think it’s rather telling that at no point in his argument did he consider how the current state is relative to the the Victorian past, or even how the Victorian past shapes up against its own past. While I’m not an historical authority on how common abortion (or any of the other “great plagues”) was in the West in those past periods, I’m fairly certain it was not practiced because it was considered a “good” (holy) thing like it is today.
Were there more prostitutes/abortions/etc in 1850s Victorian London than there are today? Wrong question. The right question is: were prostitutes high status or low status in 1850s Victorian London and how does that compare to today? It’s fairly obvious that whores are much higher status today than back then, and I think it’s not controversial to say societies run out of the whorehouse is going to be a much more dysfunctional society, even if it has less whores overall, than a society run out of a patriarchal monarch’s estate.
The point of the quote was that it serves as evidence for Jim’s theory widely agreed upon here that female emancipation began in England in the 1820s and by Victorian times lots of sluts were giving birth to unwanted babies in the gutter.
It was a great problem in the 1850s, a real great problem, entirely caused by female legal emancipation and postchristian theology that held women sinless and blameless.
>The point of the quote…
Which is strangely not what Radagast seems to think the point of the quote to be.
>It was a great problem in the 1850s
In 1850, if one were to graph it on a historical scale from 1550 to today, it was still an emerging problem that we are currently seeing (I’d hope) reach its zenith today.
I think he is just an autistic idiot; he argues for nonviolence and global warming for instance.
I’ve been trying to function on 3 to 4 hours of sleep per day for the last couple of weeks. My brain started to hurt when trying to dissect meaning from the guy’s disjointed screaming into the internet void.
As much as some of us here call ourselves “spergs” and “autists”, it’s really not true.
“Since you posted this guy’s blog can you give a summary on its qualities?”
He is some kinda of esoteric left-rightist. He keeps complicated rightist reasons why you should e.g. worry about covid (but not do lockdowns, vaxes), climate change, etc.
I am not necessarily endorsing any of these views. I am interested to see a deep Jimmian history presented elsewhere, especially by someone who is not a “standard” far rightist.
Thanks for the summary. There’s something about Radagast that I found deeply unsettling.
Richard Brown’s blog, from whom Radagast sourced, is a goldmine of information, and much more readable. I’m surprised to see someone like that unharassed and unpurged within the British academia. Likely the benefit of being old and obscure enough to be overlooked. I wonder if his study of Settler Australia covers the marriage solution to whores. I’ll have to check it out someday.
So I think his mocking of the “RETVRN TO TRADITION” really misses the core criticism traditionalists are making whether they directly or indirectly say it. What is considered high and low status in a society and therefore who in that society is in charge is a very legitimate concern, and it’s very obvious everything has been turned upside-down when compared to Gnon’s law.
I suppose the garbage uncovered regarding the Covid jab and the shady hidden data regarding childhood vaccinations is also reason for full adults to avoid routine recommended-but-but-not-required travel jabs? For example hep-a/tetanus/typhoid, and Cholera/hep-b/JE/rabies/tb
I treat anything in syringe form as suspect now because of their single-minded determination to inject everyone.
Unlike meme diseases like the flu and most childhood vaccines, there are some real nasty diseases out there, especially in the tropics. But for anything that can be reliably treated with common medicines there is no point unless you won’t have timely access to those medicines. I would research on a case-by-case basis.
everything I attempt to read sounds globohomo. They never have information about tradeoffs, implying that to even ask the question is a major crime and would get the content removed. I can find a few real-person anecdotes about people not getting them and doing fine. I think anyone attempting a real understanding of the odds would find his effort quickly deleted
It is strange that ‘most travelers’ are recommended HepA while ‘some travellers’ are recommended HepB, where A is the one that is a temporary flu and B is the one with risk of chronic persistence. Why even bother risking a jab against something with no long term damage? And if they are putting hepA (and other homo/woman shit like tetanus) at the top of their list, what does that say about the more serious ones which are not near the top of the list? It tells us all that there is a tradeoff that is not being presented to us which stops them putting the ‘serious’ ones at the top
For those tracking the effect of the vax:
NYT: Can’t Think, Can’t Remember: More Americans Say They’re in a Cognitive Fog
Adults in their 20s, 30s and 40s are driving the trend. Researchers point to long Covid (the vax) as a major cause.
I freak out about that stuff myself, but then I remember that they never split the data out between vaxxed and unvaxxed. So yeah.
Kings create a virtuous elite. A virtuous elite finds Kings redundant, and the time of Republics comes. And then, Hunter Biden Laptop, a city for sale and doomed to destruction if it should find a buyer. And the time of Republics ends and Kings return.
Well at least you admit this isn’t going to solve anything long term in fact lead to rinse repeat
I’m pessimistic an evolutionary species full of random patches and hacks and software running out of sync with hardware can fix anything permanently unless untill we reboot a new software capable of rebooting our hardware to match
And this is what we ought to be aiming for not old slave morality
It is the nature of power. If there could be a check on it, it wouldn’t be power.
To get very back ON topic I think dissolution of the monasteries is one area where Jimanism can really get into the head of the mainstream right.
Even complete cuckservatives of the Shapiro/National Review type know the universities are a lost cause and promote extremely radical leftism at this point (Jesuit Georgetown is worse than Harvard btw) while strangling both the nation’s intellectual and economic life.
Constitutional scruples are on our side in destroying at least 90% of the schools in that they have been egregiously violating their charters for decades. To the extent we ever get a fair election again a lot of Dem voters would like it if we promised to pay the student debt out of the confiscated endowments.
If the dissolution of the monasteries, we are the right. Our Henry the Eighth will attempt to remain Roman Catholic, by which I mean remain progressive, some slightly less homicidally insane variant of progressivism. Like the original Henry the eighth, he will not succeed, and will have to turn to a different priesthood.
It is our idea, and in the end we will be the ones implementing it.
Yeah but I’m saying its an idea we can actively push in more normiecon circles right now and it will probably catch on like wildfire.
Shapiro/National Review types are so impossibly gay that the only way they have stayed politically relevant is because they are a part of the monasteries. Thinking they will support dissolution of the very system that feeds them, cloths them, and no doubt procures for them is unlikely.
They don’t think universities are a lost cause just as communists didn’t think collectivization was a lost cause. ‘Clearly it’s just saboteurs and wreckers and the systems is perfectly fine if it weren’t for such people.’
I agree with you. Dissolution of the universities can really get into the mainstream right much in the same way Trump broke into the mainstream. Just don’t expect any of the institutional right to be supportive unless forcibly dragged by a greater power. But I would question dragging such people. Are those really the types you want a monarch to be surrounded by? Not to mention all the constant energy expended to drag dead weight where ever. I say, better that Shapiro/National Review types are part of the dissolution and be done with them once and for all.
My intention with the cuckservatives has not been that they should have power, its that they be forced to carry out the great helicoptering.
Such participants are not good for overall moral. Can you imagine being the pilot having his ear talked off by Shapiro the entire trip? That’s rather cruel and unusual. Let the cuckservatives quietly exit power into their retirement homes.
I saw a clip recently of Ben Shapiro ‘owning’ a girl at Oxford who didn’t know about the bombing of Dresden. Which brings to mind two things
1 – universities are very much the bread and butter of Ben Shapiro types. Just like how Jordan Peterson’s books are actually for sale at airports and major book stores, so does Ben Shapiro’s continued presence at Oxford affirm both his status and position of controlled opposition.
2 – students at universities are getting dumber each year.
I find my constitution can’t normally withstand the shrew’s shrill voice, and so I tend to avoid clips with Shapiro. Jim is wrong. Trannies, appearance wise, can convincingly pass as the other gender. Ok, my brain rot attempt at humor aside, I’ve come across a few clips of what I assume is Shapiro’s Israel talk at Oxford as well. Not only are the students getting dumber, the boys also less masculine. Even less masculine than Shapiro.
I can’t even… literally shaking
Andrew Anglin found a good video called Birthgap:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6s8QlIGanA
I love the trypophobic animated maps; it looks like a horrible disease spreading across the civilized world, which it is.
The narrator has an annoying habit of saying “people” when his chart clearly says “women”. But he discovered something surprising: In all countries that provide such data, neither the average number of children per mother nor the distribution of family sizes has changed much in the last 60 years. What has changed is the percentage of women who have no children, from one in twenty in 1960 to one in five, or even one in three, today.
He thinks pensions and healthcare are a big problem. They aren’t; governments will just put elder care out to the lowest bidders and rarely inspect their facilities. What are penniless, childless retirees going to do about it, vote for more money?
Jim, you’ve said much about what religion needs to do to fix the birth gap; what do you suggest that states do about it? Elections don’t matter anymore, so none of your solutions need to be even remotely democratic, though you will need buy-in from the political, military, and religious elites. I’ll toss out a few ideas:
* A very high tax on female employment. Every time you give a dollar to a woman with fewer than three children who isn’t your wife, you give three dollars to the state. In state employment, women receive one-quarter as much as the lowest-paid man.
* Women who fail to marry by twenty-five are sent to prison camps run by genetically ugly women who impose on them a rigorous regimen of diet, exercise, and closely supervised visits with qualified (i.e. gainfully employed, law-abiding) men. If you find a woman there you’d like to marry, they have a priest on call.
* Men who’ve been in combat and received honorable discharges are allowed to raid colleges for wives. All the women there are over 18 and unmarried — what sort of limp-dick sends his wife to college? — so they’re fair game. This also solves the recruitment problem without a draft.
All the state needs to do is reinstate patriarchy and stop promoting feminism (re 1, 3). The second one is a nunnery (if people didn’t like her before 25, they aren’t going to find her more attractive over that age).
Do you think nunneries are unnecessary? What do you propose doing with women no man wants to marry? Some women are rightly rejected for obvious defects that are likely heritable. If her only handicap is a bad attitude, a year in a nunnery might set her straight. Spinsters allowed to roam free cause no end of trouble, even in a strict patriarchy.
There have been healthy societies with nuns and healthy societies without; I have no strong feelings on which were better.
I’m just saying if she reached 25 and is unmarried, she isn’t getting married. There may be exceptions, but they are few enough I don’t see any reason to institutionalize the process of getting them a husband.
>Do you think nunneries are unnecessary?
>Women who fail to marry by twenty-five are sent to prison camps
There are a huge number of exceptions and it’s best left to the patriarch to decide what to do. The Taliban is doing just fine and they have far more flexibility than what you propose.
>Spinsters allowed to roam free cause no end of trouble, even in a strict patriarchy.
Women are always going to cause no end of trouble, just how they
are, but a whole lot less amount of trouble when they don’t have the economic means to freely roam unattended, vast majority of which comes from government subsidy. You seem to be implicitly arguing from a presumption that 99% of the problems today will continue under patriarchy. They won’t.
Economics is irrelevant, short of war and famine. And even war and famine has startlingly small effect. Short of genocide, even war and famine makes a difference that is imperceptible on the background of normal statistical fluctuations. Rich or poor, urban or rural, nothing matters much except the question of can a woman be securely owned.
Let us suppose you have a population of farmers. And people disagree that people own their land and their crops, “unfair that some people are hungry”, and the farmer gives up fencing in his crops and herding his cattle. Then pretty soon no crops and no cattle.
And similarly, no families and no children.
Attacking property rights is the most efficient form of genocide.
Women should not be under the authority of another male except by permission of her husband or father, and granting such permission should be disgraceful. Taxing it is irrelevant.
Women may not respond to economic incentives but men certainly do. I dare say that if the government imposed a 300% tax on your favorite beverage, you would start drinking something else, whereas if something your wife loved got hit with such a tax, she would beg you to let her keep buying it.
So why would men continue employing women when it becomes outrageously expensive to do so?
Status signaling. If you make it so employing women is something only people with money to burn can do, people are going to employ women to show they have money to burn.
Very well, harness those paypigs to pay off the national debt.
The problem is who has power. Economic incentives are not perceived by women as power. It is the wrong approach to discouraging female employment outside the supervision of husbands and fathers.
Thus, for example, we would not want to disincentivize or devalorize a woman from working in a business owned by her husband.
A multitude of nations have tried a multitude of powerful economic incentives, and they just never budge the needle. It has been tried, over and over and over again, and just never has any noticeable effect. If war and famine does not have much effect, tax and subsidy incentives are not going to have any detectable effect. And, surprise surprise, they don’t.
Governments keep trying this, because it is the only thinkable way, if one is unable to crimethink. And it just keeps on totally failing to have any detectable effect whatsoever.
But if we allowed men to kill other men who employed their wife or daughter without permission, or made such killings socially discouraged, but only subject to light and infrequent punishment, as today a black killing a white in a savage and depraved hate crime is only subject to light and infrequent punishment, that would have huge effect.
My tax isn’t aimed at women, it’s aimed at men who give money (and thus power) to women who aren’t their wives. Employing your own wife is no more taxable than moving money from your left pocket to your right pocket would be.
During a visit to Poland twenty years ago, young women complained to me that they were paid only twenty dollars a month. “How terrible!”, I thought. Now I think, good, if a working man who makes a hundred dollars a month proposes marriage, she won’t reject him out of hand.
You need to give power to husband’s and fathers. Mere economic incentives are not going to move the needle. If women are free to get power from men who are not their father and or husband, they will find a way, and the white knight will find a way.
Everyone involved is acting on powerful instincts a million years older than homo economicus.
If the state gives more power to husbands and fathers, will they know how to use it? Are you telling me that every state except the Taliban actively suppresses husbands and fathers? Briffault’s Law says that feminism is the default state of nature, that women rule unless subjected by force, and it seems that all men except a few tribal sheep-herders are unable to do this.
You say taxation won’t work, so how can the state restore patriarchy in a society where men have forgotten how to be patriarchs? Someone here said that the Assyrian state survived the Bronze Age Collapse by decreeing that all girls be married by age 13.
How is feminism the default state, in a state of nature women who act in a displeasing manner to men are apt to be corrected with violence?
Male superiority in violence does not matter. Men have to use their superior capability for large scale cooperation to keep women out of power, for all a man can do to another man is merely kill you, while a woman can make you immortal. Thus women naturally have more power than men.
For men to have more power than women, men have to coordinate and cooperate to prevent women from playing one man off against another. Feminism is a manifestation of the collapse of cooperate/cooperate equilibrium between males.
For men to be on top, they have to respect each other’s property rights in women, which means it has to be as legitimate to kill a stranger who is sniffing around your women as one who is sniffing around your television set.
If I cannot kill a man who is sniffing around my women, the way I can kill a man who is sniffing around my television set, I am being suppressed.
We cannot forget. The blood knows. It is instinctual. We can no more forget how to be patriarchs than we can forget how to do sex. Sex can be suppressed, is being suppressed, but it cannot be forgotten. It will return in your dreams, and so does patriarchy. It is like the mating dance. The mind babble shuts down, and I perform it instinctually. The mating dance and patriarchy both.
Remember how the public reacted to patriarchy depicted in “Man in a high Castle”. They saw home, and longed for it. They had seen it in their dreams.
Perhaps the law should say that honor-killings merit no more than two man-years’ imprisonment for each person killed, just to impose a cost, and gently reproach you for violating the state’s monopoly on violence.
A man kills his wife, sister, or daughter, two years in prison. A woman kills her husband, brother, or father, burned at the stake for “petty treason”.
Something I’ve been meaning to ask: most of those who favor free markets seem to make an unprincipled exception of sorts for women. If women are property, then monogamy constitutes an ownership restriction- one woman per man. Should ownership restrictions be implemented for any other type of property (such as real estate or military power), and if not, why should an exception be made for women?
Priest and King interfere in the market for women to ensure cooperation. Interference in the market for bread results in collapse of cooperation. The market for women has more in common with the market for violence than the market for bread – our ancient behaviors are right under the surface and barely in control.
The difference is that if King and priest try to make sure that everyone who works or fights has enough bread, by applying price control and rationing, it rapidly comes to pass that no one has enough bread (Soviet breadlines, Soviet workers taking time off to grow their own potatoes, Soviet soldiers hijacking food trucks) while if King and priest tries to make sure that every man who works or fights can obtain a wife, it works. Because, as I regularly tell everyone who proposes taxes and subsidies to address the fertility problem, supply is amazingly resistant to economic incentives.
Now if we mass produced women in cloning factories, which might well come to pass, then obviously there should be no ownership restriction.
Indeed, I have a fantasy, related to my proposal to proofread the genome, that we should do exactly that. But the technology is a little bit out of reach.
The Aryans had a rule, one wife, indissoluble marriage, but as many concubines and slave girls as you afford. They were controlling the other end of the supply equation: Aristocratic offspring. Marriage was a deal between aristocratic families, to ensure the next generation of aristocrats and ensure relationships between aristocratic families, so that aristocrats would stick together. They needed to make sure that the supply of aristocratic offspring were raised by fathers in the faith of their fathers, so if a King stepped on a patriarch, his kin would show up and defeat the Kings armies. So they also had a rule the children of the wife inherited their father’s status and property, and the children of the concubines could not, regardless of dad’s preference. Monogamy was all about their law for inheriting cattle and noble status – they wanted to make sure then when an aristocrat gave the the son of another aristocrat a wife, he got noble grandchildren. So no divorce, and no wills. But lots of raids for cattle and concubines.
Christian marriage derives not from Jewish marriage, but from Aryan aristocratic marriage – the ring is the Aryan ceremony. But we are controlling the other end, the supply of wives for the masses, rather than the continuity of aristocratic families. We don’t want all the hot chicks locked up in the harems of the great, because then no one will work or fight.
Women being hypergamous, they would probably be rather comfortable being locked up in the harems of the great, but we don’t let them.
@Jim
“The problem is who has power. Economic incentives are not perceived by women as power.”
That’s it. Female apes don’t know what money or paperwork are either.
Women certainly respond to economic incentives. Once online porn and OnlyFans became options they flocked to them. But if you give women the chance to vote for welfare, WIC, EBT, food stamps etc then they will take it.
If you give them the option to travel to Dubai and fuck flashy sheiks’ sons for money they will do that.
To get women to find a husband, please him and bear him children, you have to close down all of womens’ other options and take away their vote. Otherwise they will not do these things.
I have actually debated a guy like Peace. And the commentator that I debated with believes.
That only the Wicked can fulfill Romans 13. Christians aren’t Authorized to use the Sword. But only with Wicked men Nebuchadnezzar and the King of Assyria is to punish evil and praise the Good.
Because God uses evil to punish evil.
And only Satan worshippers will ever have worldly power Because Satan offered the Kingdoms of the World to Jesus. So the Godly in Power must abdicate. Otherwise they are truly Satan worshippers.
This view simply did not exist at all, until the nineteenth century. State religions everywhere, and any religion non in power said it should be in power. And when started being pushed in the nineteenth century, the people pushing it were obviously post Christian or anti Christian and intended that their faith should rule.
The irony here is that of all the professions that Jesus met in His earthly ministry, he clearly liked the soldiers the best. From Matthew 8:
8The centurion answered, “Lord, I am not worthy to have You come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell one to go, and he goes; and another to come, and he comes. I tell my servant to do something, and he does it.” 10When Jesus heard this, He marveled and said to those following Him, “Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.…
Re: the discussion on passivism (pacifism?) and Christianity, here’s an interesting take from orthosphere:
https://orthosphere.wordpress.com/2023/08/24/we-have-hope-because-we-have-lost-everything/
Instead of facing the tiger directly, ride it till it drops dead of exhaustion? Also references the concept of Kali Yuga from Hinduism.
Question is, is that interpretation compatible with Christianity?
He is nuts.
There is no bottom, except everything destroyed and everyone dead.
We have not lost everything. But we could.
I have predicting doom for a very long time. And things are going on close the schedule I predicted a very long time ago.
I just saw Ramaswami complaining that we are close to world War III, and making relevant and well informed historical comparisons.
But we are also close to genocide and civil war, lots of relevant comparisons there also. Plus, it is time for holy war. We have not had real holy wars since the seventeenth century. They are extraordinarily nasty, and now we have nukes – I don’t thin America has nukes, but it is likely that there will be many, many rounds of nuking before a holy war is settled.
Orthosphere is also no true Christian? Seriously Jim?
Why not just admit you don’t believe any of the Christ cuckery claptrap but think Christianity will work as a schilling point for restoration
Enough Christian’s have no idea what Christianity is that you might just rally them for long enough to topple the Jews.
Personally I think Europeans are ready to shed the slave morality and restore their heroic morality a spirituality based on reality tech svience and our destiny to become gods if you’re standing on reality you have nothing to fear
If you want me to get in argument with Orthosphere about faith, link me to a post where he addresses assault, mugging, and home invasion.I criticized his accellerationism, not his faith.
No idea whether he is a true Christian or not – I don’t pay him attention.
Whether he is a Christian or not, accellerationism is idiotic.
I am automatically suspicious of Christians who want to apply the Sermon on the mount as a guide to actual life, but the thing that hit me was he was applying the Sermon on the Mount to endorse accellerationism. And this is what I responded to. When someone is in favor of jumping off a cliff, one does not debate theology.
I doubt he would be in favor of applying the Sermon on the mount in a home invasion robbery. If he is, then I will discuss his faith.
If he was arguing, “Well, sitting back and letting events take their course leads to death, but that is Christ’s plan”, then I would discuss his faith, but he is saying “sitting back and letting events take their course leads to victory in this world”. Does not matter what Christ’s plan is if someone thinks that falling off a cliff will result in him flying.
But since you insist on debating his faith: I routinely say that applying Sermon on the mount rules is appropriate in some situations and definitely not in others. He is claiming our current collapse is one of those situations where it is applicable. If he started telling us that it applies in all situations regardless, then I would dispute him. But he was arguing the applicability of the sermon on the mount to this situation. Maybe he says it applies in home invasion robberies also, but that is not what he said in the post linked to, so not what I responded to.
Holy war is coming, and I doubt our enemies will accept our surrender.
Obviously one should never interrupt the enemy when his making a mistake, the time is not now, but the time will come when violence is unavoidable. We shall see what tune he sings then.
Who is right and who is dead depends on how exactly the coming holy war/dark age/cannibal holocaust plays out, and such things are hard to predict. It could be first-in-first-out, assuming that every nation needs about the same time to purge itself of useless eaters and repopulate with soldiers and taxpayers. Or the dark age might be last-in-first-out because less “advanced” nations have spent less time with a comprehensive welfare state, and suffered less genetic damage from it.
If Christianity could be boiled down to its essence it would be the crucifixion of an innocent yet all powerful god for the sake of undeserving and to prove reality is an illusion no matter what contrary bits one quotes all Christians get this self sacrifice is the essence of Christianity is not true then there’s never been a bigger death cult a waste of life and affront to any creator.
How this theology helps western civilization is beyond me unless if some think it’s a schelling point to be ridden to power then abandoned
Reality is not an illusion, in that it is the will of unchanging God who has one important limit on his power. He is the God who cannot change and cannot lie. The Jewish and Muslim Gods are harmful to science and technology. Notice the absence of Orthodox Jews and faithful Muslims in science and engineering. And the demons of our officially unofficial faith are considerably worse. Global Warming, Club of Rome, the war on animal fat, and so on and so forth.
Firstly without the Christian God, science and technology is difficult, for though an a non Christian can do science just fine, a non Christian scientific community cannot, truth and reality frequently being socially inconvenient. Needs divine endorsement.
Secondly, Christianity endorses what Game theoreticians and the Dark Enlightenment call “one tit for two tats”, which is necessary for decentralized large scale cooperation in a world of imperfect information, and for that, a God that sacrificed himself for man comes in mighty handy. Though we do have a persistent problem, which the shills vigorously exploit, of people holiness spiraling that to zero tits for infinite tats. The rule is Peace on Earth to all men of good will. For men of bad will, the Old Testament has the relevant instructions. And that we should be gentle as doves and wise as serpents. The distinctive character of a serpent being that treading on a serpent is apt to be a bad idea. It is two cheeks, two cloaks, and a second mile. Not infinite cheeks, infinite cloaks, and unlimited miles. After the second mile, the second tat, comes the tit.
Why is a serpent wise? Because he will strike, but not strike lightly for small reason.
“Reality is not an illusion, in that it is the will of unchanging God who has one important limit on his power. He is the God who cannot change and cannot lie.”
This is a world-historical insight and deserves to be a post.
It is world-historical because they claims cannot be proved by the scientific method, which *assumes* (does not prove) repeatability. It is truly the religious foundation of science, requiring faith. God has given victory to those with this faith, though there is no requirement for him to do so.
Christ is anti reality because he denies this know world it’s causes and effects laws customs and justifies that nonsense by claiming he has knowledge of another dimension with causes effects rules and laws pretty much the opposite of the reality we know.
What’s insideous is this reality we know and its causes effects laws are all we really know about the creator and his will. Physics evolution are the only fucking thing we know for sure that the creator authored and actually tell us a lot about him and his will all religions belie the laws of creation to some degree Christianity is its antithis it’s a fucking death cult made up by a bunch of Jews. Whites tried to twist it to fit Greco Roman etc
You want to wave away everything Jesus is said to have done and said and cheer pick some crap that was added on to scare people into thinking he was god long after he was killed
And again the common understanding of Christianity by vast majority of Christians is the strong should die for the weak how the fuck is that going to save western man and civilization
I mean you claim to be a moldbergian who says leftism is the very Protestantism you now think will save us. I don’t get how that’s squared personally I think it’s more like leftism filled a void left when Jews destroyed Christianity and rest of our social ties. But you seem to say the Calvinist’s just took a wrong turn well yeah the minute you split the church and declare every man a pope it’s demotic but before snake handling prots did that you still had priests declaring divine authority over kings and crowning them which would be fine if we actually had a religion that supported our people cultures nations not destroyed them which is of course why the Jews killed the subversive motherfucker
Back on moderation for telling Christians what Christianity is.
That is the opposite of Christianity, it is gnosticism, and gnosticism of the unambiguously demon worshipping type.
You are not shilling, because you are saying that gnosticism is bad, whereas a shill would be telling us that it is the truest form of Christianity and he is more Christian than thou.
But I still don’t like non Christians telling us what Christianity is. It is always the opposite of Christianity.
Your Christ is the Gnostic serpent christ, celebrated by the demon worshippers at the Vatican, whose symbol is the serpent, not the crucifix.
You are not shilling, but you are with great confidence giving us the version of Christianity and Christ you got from satan worshipping shills.
[*deleted for being nuts*]
I know what most Christians believe. That is not Christianity, and no Christians believe it.
We do have real problem with genuine Christians holiness spiraling the Sermon on the Mount. We do have a real problem with genuine Christians judaizing Christianity, which was recently manifest in the support for Israel shutting down Christmas in Bethlehem and expelling Christians from Gaza. We do have a real problem with genuine Christians endorsing young earth creationism.
We have no problem at all with genuine Christians worshipping serpent Christ. All shills and entryists all the time. They are getting about as much traction as the flat earthers, and you trying to sell this stuff is like telling me that genuine reactionaries endorse flat earth, because he hears no end of hostile entryists on Gab proclaim it with great confidence.
The flat earthers are not getting any traction, and the gnostic worshippers of serpent Christ are not getting any traction.
If someone claiming to be a Christian told you this, he lied. If someone claiming to be a Christian told me this, I would start cross examining him on the trinity and the book of John.
Vlad
> Defends the Jesuits
> Endorses or defends serpent Christ (can’t see the post)
Adds up.
What it adds up to is that he got his Christianity from the Jesuits, and we know who runs the Jesuits
I don’t think he is a Jesuit shill.
If he was a Jesuit shill he would be telling us that worship of Serpent Christ is the true Christianity, which he is telling us, and he would be telling us that it is good and holy. Which is the opposite of what he is telling us.
No Christian buys serpent Christ, because obviously demonic, just as no reactionary buys flat earth, because obviously stupid. Getting about as much traction as Bidenomics.
Show me a sainted martyr who was killed due to his saintly committment to non violence, rather than by the mob, the army, the cops, or similar, and I will believe that the view you attribute to Orthosphere was accepted by the Church who sainted that martyr, rather than being a heretical holier than thou irritating minority within that Church.
He didn’t die outright, was lucky enough to only be crippled, but Seraphim of Sarov seems alarmingly close to what you’re describing:
Moses the black?
Though I suspect this is a unique case. If George Floyd showed up your church saying he repented, you might offer him a place at your most dangerous monastery and tell him you see a crown of martyrdom belonging to him.
I think the most charitable interpretation of what he says is that “when the evil is overwhelmingly powerful, don’t be foolish to resist evil directly and heroically, mostly it will fail and it’s a waste of energy, effort and life, instead find ways to work around evil and don’t get influenced by it (stay indifferent).”
All well and good, and is very practical advice. But on the other hand, you cannot stay indefinitely indifferent to evil when it is increasingly staring you in the face and demanding sacrifices to demons, as is happening these days. At some point a choice has to be made whether to submit or resist.
My feeling is, even in the absence of direct resistance, there are a lot of indirect ways to resist evil and still stay alive. Christianity says, when the inevitable suffering does arrive at your doorstep, take it in your stride and look forward to reward on the other side. I think the part about finding reward on the other side is just part of the cope and motivation.
I think the point is, Christianity from that interpretation appears to be an end-of-times religion. While I think “Peace” was holiness spiraling on the “don’t resist evil” part by advocating actively submitting to and getting destroyed by evil, seems to me that Christianity doesn’t advocate going all out against evil either. Especially when evil appears overwhelmingly powerful.
Practically it is a doctrine of survival in hard times.
Exactly so.
As the international community falls apart, cooperation becomes harder. People get angry, they say and do stuff they shouldn’t have, and lash out at each other. By not seeking trouble, by turning the other cheek first, one avoids these traps.
Which is of course not the same thing as not resisting evil. Quite the opposite — it is about not getting distracted by the cape and focusing on the matador. We play to win. Sometimes winning requires patience, kindness and perseverance.
The question is, is the more common sense interpretation of “don’t resist evil” accepted by Christians?
Historically, the overwheming majority of Christians have always accepted the common sense interpretation – observe no end of completely uncontroversial holy wars, not to mention Hindu gripes regarding Christian conduct before 1840.
And still today, Christians when attending Church say “Peace on Earth to all men of good will“. Which implies Old Testament solutions are still permissible against enemies of bad will.
There has always been a minority holiness spiraling peace on earth and non resistance to evil. Looks to me still a minority today. And “Peace” acknowledged being a minority. He just claimed he was right and the vast majority of Christians wrong.
Certainly it is clear that some genuine Christians, quite a lot of genuine of Christians promote the holiness spiral position, and always have. As for example “Peace”. But most of the people pushing this position are enemy shills, and I am not aware of any genuine Christians claiming broad acceptance of this position among Christians
>But most of the people pushing this position are enemy shills, and I am not aware of any genuine Christians claiming broad acceptance of this position among Christians
The Christian response to the death of George Floyd and the following riots.
I would be shocked if someone could come up with an example of a Church that openly supported the defense of one’s self and property during that time.
Well I would be shocked if a priest spoke out against grooming in the schools, but I am nonetheless pretty sure that grooming in the schools is not a mainstream Christian position.
Is there a meaningful distinction between the official position and the unofficially official position? Because it seems to me that for most modern Christians, the practical official position is always on the side of people like Peace, even if they don’t always explicitly come out and say as much.
The official position is also in favor of schools grooming children and transforming them into sexually ambiguous monsters. And, similarly, whenever a friend or a family member is murdered by a black in a depraved and vicious hate crime motivated by state sponsored hatred of whites, the entire family will piously denounce racism and say that race has nothing to do with it and it was caused by white supremacy. And when the black goes unpunished, still racism and white supremacy.
Well that is what they say under their own names, but I am pretty sure they are saying something different pseudonymously.
What does it matter what they say? Non resistance to evil is what they do. Even in the early 90s boys were taught not to fight and not to stand up for themselves. “What would Jesus do?” and all that.
If there is a more martial strain of Christianity around than what “peace” represents I have not ever seen it, and I’ve tried a lot of different churches and denominations…
It is also what white male heterosexual non Christians do – at least under their own names and identities. Just look at the interviews with family and friends conducted after incidents of unpunished black murders motivated by racial hatred.
For example: Adam Johnson was murdered on live TV by Matt Petgrave a few days ago and everyone swears up and down: “Don’t believe your lying eyes. It was an unfortunate accident.” Including family and friends. Who saw Matt Petgrave lash out at Adam Johnson’s throat with a sharp blade live on television and on slow mo replay. Happens all the time everywhere. If anything, happens less with Christians, who are commanded to resist evil, avoiding martyrdom if at all possible but embracing it if necessary. By and large they remain silent rather than piously endorsing the official narrative.
Those who are at least engaging in passive resistance to evil seem to be overwhelmingly Christian. If someone is not burning his pinch of incense to Caesar, probably Christian.
I’m not a Christian, and many of the hardest core right wingers I know in meatspace aren’t either. A lot of younger people just think it’s gay.
By and large the young right wingers are impotent, unorganized, and have no uniting vision. That is far more gay than attempting to get local churches to actually act like the faith they purport to be. If it’s a holy war, need to bring a faith.
Because any meatspace organization gets crushed or coopted, or, usually, was an FBI sting from the beginning.
Uniting visions take time. There has been time. A uniting vision is taking shape. Our vision has been for a long time: throne, altar, and freehold. When Trump proposes the dissolution of the monasteries, he is buying into our program. When Christian nationalists argue that their synthetic tribe should rule, buying into our program.
Faith needs to actually offer something to the young, if they’re meant to have any confidence in it. Christianity doesn’t, hasn’t for quite some time. Why should anyone take it seriously, let alone attempt to enforce some vision of the faith that all of its own highest authorities, from Rome to Constantinople to the Southern Baptist Convention, would deny? Seems to me a new religion is what is needed.
For my own part I believe in God, in the Logos, but not in the conflating of either with one particular first century judean man.
A rather dry philosophy. Lot of unpleasant things in the world, such as pain and death, and God’s answer to Job left something for mortals to desire. But sorrow shared is sorrow halved, so the subsequent answer is somewhat stronger, giving better resistance to gnosticism.
And the argument of Steve Turley: That the latter answer gives a command to cohere as a synthetic tribe (brothers in Christ). If no Christ, then the criticism that you are stuck as a second rate Jew applies. You don’t have a basis for cohesion with anyone except those currently genociding the Palestinians in Gaza, the Ukrainians in the Ukraine, and trying to drag Americans into World War III.
Judaization is a chronic tendency in Christianity, like gnosticism and like holiness spiraling the Sermon on the mount, and bad things aways come of it. Martyrs are more useful for synthetic tribe formation than heroes.
The mainstream Churches have been dead for quite some time. No baptisms, no children in the congregation. Family breakup and no family formation. Gay priests at worst, unmanly priests at best. Congregation rapidly getting smaller and more elderly. But Christianity is good at resurrection.
Everyone today says “Democracy, Democracy”, and say it twice as loud and twice as often when they destroy it. When Christians are in power, the same crowd will say something rather different. For a cohesive synthetic tribe to take power over the incohesive, it does not need to be very large, just larger than any competing synthetic tribes with similar cohesion.
How many Christians in Constantines army? Probably not very many, but they believed, those of the official faith did not, so a small Roman army under the banner of Christ cut through a considerably larger Roman army with identical equipment and training like a hot knife through warm butter.
I don’t believe in Christ for the simple reason that I’m an honest man. I’ve looked at Christianity (many kinds), I’ve read the Bible, read many church fathers and theologians, prayed about it, and come to the conclusion that he wasn’t what Christianity says he was. He strikes me as, if anything, the 1st century equivalent of William Miller. I’m not going to lie and claim to believe something I don’t, and imo Christianity just doesn’t make the case.
If you want me to go into technical details about how I view the world, evil, suffering, and God’s identification with all of that, I’ll happily do so, but it doesn’t seem terribly on point with my contentions about Christianity. Even if I were totally wrong about what I do believe, it wouldn’t make Christianity true, or modern Christianity less dead and gay.
What? What reason do I have to cohere with either jews or leftists? My belief teaches me to cohere firstly with my kin, my co-ethnics, and more broadly those who practice virtue in accordance with mankind’s telos. This was not difficult for pre-Christian philosophers to figure out, why would it be for me?
As to “second rate Jew”, it’s not my faith which claims that my race is a wild olive tree, “grafted in” to make the “natural” jews jealous. Who, by the way, will all be saved in time (Romans 11:26).
So you have claimed. Can you name an actual, modern country which has brought Christianity back and accomplished so much as replacement level reproduction, the most basic of all tasks? Russian Orthodoxy is the closest thing to what you speak of, still have sub-replacement tfr with incredible levels of feminism and divorce, not to mention hordes of muslim immigrants flooding in from the south.
>New religion
Needs a prophet, and needs a prophet actually capable of synthesizing something that won’t kill its followers in a generation. By and by, Chrisitianity is quite fruitful when it comes to schizmatic phrophets. Come, and become a fisher of men.
If we have to synthesize a new order, why are we doubling the problem by sythensizing the foundations? We already have adherents to the Christian faith, we have working models when it comes to adherence without spiraling into gnostic communism, and men are starving for truth and order.
Arguing that the current state is bad is missing the point entirely. Your proposition here is that we must throw out the baby with the bathwater. Why must we do that? Lets imagine for a second we have your prophet and a budding new faith — faith in what exactly? — all the same institutions you lament will come after them just as strongly as if they were Christian, with none of the benefit of appeal to civilizational continuity.
Needs a prophet, and needs a prophet actually capable of synthesizing something that won’t kill its followers in a generation. By and by, Chrisitianity is quite fruitful when it comes to schizmatic phrophets. Come, and become a fisher of men
Agreed. Imo, the prophet to be walks among us now. Perhaps has already started gathering a following. I don’t know, but I’m willing to do my own part and trust God to provide when the time is right.
Sorry, I know your invitation is sincerely meant, but I simply don’t believe that your religion is true. I cannot spread a faith I do not share.
Do we? My contention is precisely that we do not – there is no functioning, modern Christian state. There has not been for a long time. There is no group of Christians who have demonstrated both the will to take power and the wisdom to use it to renew our dying civilization. Who among them will even help their young male congregants find a good, faithful wife?
I agree men are starving for truth and order, I think they will get it. I just disagree with you about what eventual form it is going to take.
I don’t propose we do. There’s plenty to learned from the history of Christianity, same as Christianity borrowed heavily from the Greek and Roman pagan religions that preceded it. But taking lessons, taking good points from the past, does not mean the old model cannot be improved on.
Look, if you think I’m incorrect, feel free to try and prove me wrong. I’m certainly not going to try and stop you, nor will I oppose some hypothetical based Christian monarchy which you may set up in the future. I just don’t think the religion is capable of it anymore. It’s dead, and whatever comes next, if not nuclear annihilation, will certainly borrow much from it, but will not be the Christianity of old.
My time perspective is longer than yours. The Eighteen hundreds seem not long at all to me. The eighteen hundreds were modernity. Postmodernity looks to me like a brief aberration, a flash in the pan. Postmodernity’s institutions never worked, they were running on memories and habits of modernity. Saying modernity is dead beyond revival is like the Soviets saying capitalism was dead while the soviet workers were growing potatoes because no food in the shops, the soldiers were hijacking food trucks, and elite was flying to Finland to buy light bulbs. Altar lasted in England all the way to the 1820s. Aristocracy lasted in the Anglsphere all the way to 1860s, Kings, Emperors, and aristocrats all the way to World War I in most of Europe. Modern corporate capitalism lasted all the way from the seventeenth century to the late twentieth century. England had a Christian state religion all the way to 1820.
Post modernity looks like the Soviet Union to me. Doomed to crash under its own intolerable weight. Which does not mean we will reboot the previous working copy of our social software, but the previous working copy is still around and ready to be rebooted.
If modern corporate capitalism can come back in Russia after six decades of socialism and three decades of postmodern capitalism, it can come back in the west after five decades of postmodern capitalism. And Kings and lords are perennial. They are the natural state to which things revert when everything falls apart.
Modern capitalism can make modern weapons. Postmodern capitalism demonstrably cannot. Biden and company are incapable of governing. Someone who can govern will take power, regardless of what the lawyers say.
The time of Republics has come and gone, as it came before and went before.
A Republic can only function if it has a virtuous elite. But, without a King, no one has the power and incentive to sustain elite virtue.
Kings create a virtuous elite. A virtuous elite finds Kings redundant, and the time of Republics comes. And then, Hunter Biden Laptop, a city for sale and doomed to destruction if it should find a buyer. And the time of Republics ends and Kings return.
You say Christianity is dead. Christianity lives. The mainstream Churches are dead. Someone will dissolve the monasteries, and, facing intolerable resistance from the previous official faith, is going to be looking for an alternative faith.
Modernity lasted for two centuries, modern capitalism for four centuries. Post Modernity has not aged well, and has hit its sell buy date.
Let me put it this way: once upon a time, Christian monarchs reigned in an unbroken chain from the tip of Siberia to the Canary Islands. Their colonies completely stretched from the heights of Canada to the southernmost point of Chile and Argentina. What happened to this Christendom? What happened to these kingdoms, these splendid colonial empires?
They died. Every last one of them withered and perished in the face of modernity, from the Americas to the streets of St. Petersburg. Did a single one survive these times, either through the wise leadership of a competent king or simple luck? No.
Spain is only the most recent example. You had a king, descended for the old royal family, handpicked by Francisco Franco, given near absolute power with expectation that he would protect Christianity and his nation. What did he do, practically he moment Franco was gone? Poz the hell out of it. Spain is now sickly, dying nation with a socialist government, a tfr barely above one, and hordes of muslim barbarians pouring in from the south. All thanks to the treachery of one supposedly Christian monarch.
If one building collapses, might rightly blame bad luck. If all the buildings following the same design collapse, looks to me like an underlying structural issue with the blueprint.
And why did Spain fail? The building collapsed from the altar, not from the throne.
After the sack of Rome, the Papacy was under the thumb of Emperor, which means that after World War I it promoted not Christianity but the faith of Oxbridge, and after World war II it promoted not Christianity, but the faith of Harvard. Aristocrats, Kings and Emperors were doing fine up to World War I. Russia fell because Alexander the Liberator converted to faith of Oxbridge. Same problem as James the first converting to the faith of Rome, hence the act of succession, that the King must adhere to faith of England. Hard to enforce.
One solution is that implemented by Dubai and the Holy Roman Empire. You have a board that can in theory appoint the CEO. And in theory appoint anyone to be CEO, a dangerously great power big with potentially lethal mischief. But they have a social obligation to appoint the heir who is capable of governing and of the right faith and thereafter obey him. And if they skip out on that social obligation, blood is apt to flow.
From the Papacy seizing what was Caesar’s in 1170, the building had a major flaw in its structure, that the high priest’s palace was not guarded by Casear’s praetorians. Eastern Orthodoxy retained the correct structure, which is federal and collegial, with the final consensus of Church being the consensus of Bishops, who got into their positions under the thumb of their particular sovereign.
This structure is vulnerable, as the Israel of Kings was vulnerable, to the enemy Church of the enemy state converting the monarch, the Cathedral’s one two punch of soft power followed by hard power.
So the board needs enough power to prevent that, to ensure that the faith of the monarch reflects the consensus of the board. But a board so powerful is apt to meddle, and then you get oligarchy, many mobile bandits instead of one stationary bandit. The board should not run things, because it has divided will, and the purpose of the Sovereign is to make those few and important decisions that require a single will. But it should keep an eye on the sovereign, and in rare and extraordinary circumstances, remove and replace him.
The primary decision the sovereign must make, one man deciding for all, is peace or war. If peace with the outgroup, then every subject must be at peace with the outgroup, and if a subject is unpeaceful, the sovereign shall send that subject, or that subject’s head, to the outgroup. If war with the outgroup, then every subject must be at war with the outgroup, and if any subject makes his own peace with the outgroup, the man is a traitor and should be killed.
Seems to have been a failure of the throne to me. The king could easily have continued Franco’s highly effective policies, he opted to sell out to globohomo instead. Even helped to suppress those military officers who had the sense to want to keep the contagion out of Spain. And, again, this was the legitimate royal heir handpicked by Franco himself.
My thinking is that if that were an effective mechanism, then the Orthodox in general would not have been so hopelessly behind the rest of Europe, and Nicholas II in particular would have done his damned job rather than getting btfo’d by the Japanese, the Germans, and finally the Reds. Stable societies with a competent government do not get conquered by communists.
As I said, the problem was not Nicolas II, but Alexander the Liberator.
James the First had to be removed, which was catastrophe because they had no mechanism for orderly removal. Alexander the Liberator should have been removed.
The problem with Spain was that the Church was subject to Rome, and Rome was subject to Harvard. To fix that problem, Franco should have pulled a Henry the Eighth.
Harvard was applying soft power to bring him to heel, and the one vector of that soft power that he was reluctant to prevent was that the Papacy was in their pocket. Which lever they used to enable all the other levers. Franco needed to fix that, and failed to do so.
Not so easy. No man rules alone. Some things require application of free helicopter rides to long distance swimming lessons.
I don’t think they were hopelessly behind the rest of Europe. Russia seems to have been producing plenty of modern goods in 1910. It sagged hopelessly behind during the ensuing troubles.
Electricity, railroads, roads, ships, guns, they were doing OK.
Even accepting this premise (which I am dubious about, Nicholas had a number of opportunities to save Russia and bungled them all), why did Alexander convert in the first place? Because Russia and the Orthodox world in general were falling badly behind the West, and this was by that time clearly visible in a number of fields. The system was already critically flawed in some manner before he ever came to the throne.
Not possible for a Roman Catholic, especially after Vatican I. Would have had to renounce Catholicism altogether, which would have been tricky since that’s where a drew a lot of his army from.
Franco had already done the hard work there. Maintenance is much easier, and less bloody, than building a functioning order after a vicious civil war. The king sold out not because he needed to, but because he wanted to.
Not seeing it. The end result was baked into the cake when Alexander freed the serfs with “collective ownership” of the land. Which in practice meant ownership of the land and the serfs by left wing activists within the state apparatus.
The only way out of that mess was the measures pushed by Stolypin, which led to massive economic growth and rapid catchup with west, but Stolypin’s position was unacceptable, because going against the faith of Oxbridge, and he was murdered.
If the Tsar had backed Stolypin, and he had not been murdered, or his murder had merely led to a replacement by someone following the same program, then Tsars would still rule Russia. That was the one way out of the mess created by Alexander the liberator, and all other paths lead inexorably to the same destination.
> Because Russia and the Orthodox world in general were falling badly behind the West
This is backwards. Things were going shit because they were following the faith of Oxbridge, when England had said “that looks too suicidal. We will do something less extreme.” They did not adopt the faith of Oxbridge because things were going to shit. Things went to shit when they adopted the faith of Oxbridge, and improved when Stolypin attempted to back off from the holy faith.
The emancipation of the serfs with “collective” ownership of land gave Oxbridge power and money within the state apparatus, more in Russia than they had in England. The only fix to preserve the ancien regime was that of Stolypin – to take that power and money away from them.
So long as Tsars failed to take that path, the outcome was inevitable – the way it happened was just irrelevant details.
The core competence of the Sovereign is war and peace. Whenever the sovereign meddles in anything outside his core business, he is creating a powerbase within the state. If the powerbase is inherently a powerbase for his enemies, doom comes. The French monarchy died from price controlling grain, and the Russian monarchy died from land reform, both of these being powerbases for the priesthood of the enlightenment, who think that priests should rule and warriors should not.
The hard work would be walking the path of Henry the eighth, which Franco failed to do. The rot was plain and clearly visible during the latter part of Franco’s rule.
Yes. That is one of the opportunities to save Russia to which I was referring. Nicholas did not have to do what he did. There were many times that Russia could have been reformed to a better direction, that Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, et al could have been righteously strung up on the the gallows, etc.
You’re not getting it. Alexander did not decide to embark on his reforms just because he was dumb, he made a dumb mistake because he saw that Russia, as it existed when he came to power, was falling badly behind in the great power competition. Preexisting Orthodox structures could not keep up with England as it then existed. They were already essentially flawed.
Doubt such an outright break would have been possible. Would have been perfectly possible to just directly control the church in Spain the same way China does today.
If falling behind, would copy English institutions and English reforms, rather than follow the directions of those who thought that English reforms and english institutions were horrible horrible horrible because insufficiently holy.
Russia was not falling behind in economics and technology, not falling behind in the capability to support armies in the field, falling behind in insufficient holy leftism, and if it had been true, he should have imitated what England actually did, the enclosure of the commons, rather than collective ownership of land by people incompetent to farm unsupervised, rather than the radical reform that the left in England had sought, and long been outraged by not getting.
If worried by great power competition in the sense of capability to sustain armies in the field, why liberate the serfs without individual ownership of land? It was a holiness measure, not a capability to sustain war measure. That was a measure aimed at being more holy than England was, a response to the criticism that Russia was insufficiently holy, not a measure to advance economic capability for great power competition in the game of empires.
Then as now, the way to advance economically was well known, had been much trodden, and the emancipation of the serfs with collective ownership that they had never exercised and were manifestly incapable of exercising was a gross abandonment of that path. Stolypin wanted to go on the path that England had walked, the path that passionately outraged Oxbridge, and to this day still passionately outrages Oxbridge and Harvard. If motivated by great power competition, rather than holiness competition, Alexander would have walked Stolypin and Englands path from the beginning. If you think that England is ahead, you will do what England did, rather than what the very holy thought would have been a whole lot holier than what England did. If you think that your institutions are holding back agriculture, and you want to advance agriculture to better support armies in the field, you will copy England’s actual institutions, not self destructive Marxist fantasies from Oxbridge that come from people who have never been near a farm and who hate farmers, hate country folk, and really hate, with a lunatic and deranged passion, farmer’s dogs.
If Russia was in some sense behind, would have been copying England, rather Oxbridge theoreticians. The liberation of the serfs was holiness competition. If great power competition, emancipate them by enclosing the commons. Turn those of them that can farm into independent farmers, those of them that cannot farm into agricultural laborers, and let those of them that cannot do labor without a whip on their backs starve.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TK9c-caEcw
What is Russell thinking when he suggests that Lenin’s policies are not true socialism but “peasant proprietorship”? That Lenin was right to dispossess the kulaks but should have done so more gently?
Notoriously Russel lived in extraordinary luxury in Russia, and failed to notice he was being bribed.
Russel tells us in this video he cares so much for strangers he has never met. He lies.
He says he did not approve of Lenin Ho Ho Hoing about the deaths of rich peasants, but that is just politely distancing himself from the commies. They were both of them ho ho hoing about the deaths of poor peasants.
In this video he criticizes Lenin for not being socialist enough. But if he did not know that socialism was killing enormous numbers of peasants before he visited Russia, it would have been obvious when he visited.
I have some sympathy for Franco.
After Henry VIII did what he did, the Global Hapsburg Empire tried to invade England for a century. It almost succeeded. England was an advanced state and an island, and the Hapsburg Empire relatively unconsolidated.
Would Franco have survived giving the US a causus belli, or even just leaving an opening? Maybe not.
That’s what he thought he was doing.
This is a very good summary of Christian non resistance to evil, and I am going to steal it.
Its actually a very sensible strategy. Resist not evil does not make any sense otherwise. Why would I not resist evil if victory was possible?
If one reads an entire Gospel, rather than doing exegsis on chapter and verse, it is overwhelmingly obvious that Jesus Christ was fighting a psychological war against a conventionally overwhelmingly powerful government, and that this is the context of all his exhortations to non-violence (when he judged he would get away with it, he did use violence against the money changers in the temple), which is exactly the situation we are in today.
https://t.me/peacethroughstrentgh/9639
masks on
gloves off
the hour is late
the fire is rising
many are called
be the one chosen
Deus lo vult
As the economy worsens and millions more sink into poverty with the state simultaneously doubling down on anarcho-tyranny and losing its physical capabilities to decay, I expect we’ll see a lot more incidents like this:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12728101/kenneth-darlington-panama-climate-change-protesters-shoot-dead.html
Was a professor too i read, one of the 5%ers in the Brahminate who shouldn’t die.
Bonus, he has the best “no fucks given” face I’ve ever seen:
https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/1722615994903044530
Doing the Lord’s work.
I really don’t understand the person that generally thinks “oh, the guy pulled out a gun, it’s time to agitate him while unarmed and completely at his mercy.” Yes, there are time when one must resist against all odds, but this is clearly not one of those times. It’s not like he randomly came out of nowhere and started blasting for no reason like say a home invasion.
It’s even more bizarre that people just stand around after the first guy got shot. Either fight back or retreat. Basic fight or flight response seems to be utterly lacking. Threat detection is utterly lacking as well, so perhaps fight or flight response never kicks in because they never recognize the threat in the first place.
It’s like that leftist that got stabbed to death recently. Dude, why are you walking towards the homeless crazy looking guy! It used to be only women who did stupid shit like that. Now it seems like most men as well.
I have personally in my own real life run into this twice. The thug knows that cops and the justice system are backing him, and that the affluent property owning taxpayer is public enemy number one.
They figured they were invulnerable because on video, as the thugs trying to kill Kyle figured they were invulnerable. They have a point. You don’t want to be on enemy video when engaging with thugs.
What he does not know is that I have a more sophisticated understanding of how to deal with this problem than some people.
>The thug knows
I don’t think they know. I don’t think they consciously think. Instinct is warped. Something went terribly wrong.
The thugs trying to kill Kyle didn’t figure out they were very vulnerable after the molester got shot, nor after the skateboarder got shot, nor after wannabe medic got shot. Quite a few decided to continue hanging around. It can’t be the adrenaline rush either, those chemicals always sharpened life and death decisions for me, but clearly it didn’t for the people chasing after a guy with a gun willing to use it. Sure, the cops and justice system are backing the thug, but dead is a pretty final condition, ain’t nothing their backing can do to reverse it, so why? Why not start backing away to allow the legal system destroy the guy with the gun for them and still be alive to be gleeful afterwards?
Do they simply not have those thoughts? I’ve read many people don’t have internal monologues (NPC meme). They can’t verbally reason in their minds. Let alone visual imagine things. Are these people running off of basic instinct much like a dog? If so, where are the basic instincts that even a dog has? Are they somehow even worse off than a dog yet still somehow possessing a consciousness, how does that even work?
There’s something a lot more dysfunctional going on than them knowing they are state backed, and I’m pretty sure it’s genetic rot. Rather than the state backing causing people to think they can ‘get away with pushing boundaries’, state backing is causing the type of people who can’t think certain things, like understand boundaries, to breed and breed a lot. In nature, the proverbial Saber Tooth would eat them for not respecting boundaries, but a distinct lack of proverbial Saber Tooth when EBT/HHS feeds and shelters people.
This isn’t just an issue with thugs. I know plenty of leftist ‘upper middle class’ people I grew up with that are they type to look at the crazy looking homeless guy and think ‘huh I better walk up to him and start a conversation’. Homeless schizo is more holy than ‘upper middle class’ and they know it (for they preach it) yet they play with homeless schizo anyways even after I and others told them they might get stabbed.
It’s like that really famous case of Amy Biehl. I understand the political ideology of her parents, I just can’t specifically understand how those broken minds function. Schizos like Terry A Davis was understandable and somehow, in some ways, less broken, but there happens to be a massive amount of medical research and literature on how and why schizos think what they think. Similar research cracking open the brain dysfunction of leftists is rather lacking, for obvious reasons, good luck getting that approved by the ethics committee. Sure, there is much spiritual literature describing the dysfunction of such people. The many Christian criticisms of Gnostic mind rot for instance, but spiritual arguments don’t biologically explain what exactly broke in material terms.
In the movies, the plucky good guy always stands up to the evil bad guy gun-pointer and defeats him with a Cathedral sermon. Works every time. Haven’t you seen Ghandi?
I think they are used to screen violence which is not permanent or real no fistfights nothing is real
Also antifa types are replacing religious cultural impulse search for meaning etc with leftism it’s all they have
Liberalism in all its forms just obliterates one’s own survival instincts. Fight or flight gets re-wired. Those at the level of demon worshippers are literally more useful as fertilizer.
On a related note, one of the primary ingredients of liberalism is fear. Another would be the lack of a belief in God or a higher power. This includes some people who claim to believe in God and even go to church.
If you take two people, one of them a Godless liberal and the other a God fearing conscious agent, and you give them both the same task of organizing a certain number of objects and also label the groups of objects, what those to people produce will be remarkably different.
Primarily the Godless fear driven atheist will organize and categorize things in a manner to insulate himself from reality, with the groups and categories valued as ends in themselves. The believer will organize and categorize things in a much cleaner and more intuitive manner, to better help him navigate and operate in the world, his performance being the end goal.
This story is a good example of what happens when those two people fight to the death.
The ways of organizing the world that you describe seem to way more characteristic of male vs. female ways of thinking as opposed to believer vs. materialist. Zero HP Lovecraft is a professed atheist and you’re certainly not going to see him organizing things in that way. But women, even obviously believing women, tend to do those sorts of mental gymnastics all the time, whereas a mentally functioning dude will be thinking about practical realities.
Certainly childless women and women not under alpha male supervision. And women in general are much more clumsy than men.
It’s more an issue maturity and spiritual development. The left hemisphere of the brain processes language, labels, lists, categories etc., it is the map of the terrain. The right hemisphere deals with what exists in front of us, the terrain.
A fearful person will frequently retreat from the terrain itself and simply obsess over the map, this is “living in your head”. Obviously everyone does this to some extent but leftists, atheists etc. do this exclusively. So they tend to be very awkward and clumsy and more or less useless once you have to deal with a flat tire.
Spiritual growth and maturity such as a 12 step program is what is necessary to take a poorly functioning, fearful person and transform them into someone that can do some actual good in the world, both for themselves and others.
They say most westerners have a calcified pineal gland even at early ages, which is the “third eye”. I don’t know the details but I understand it has something to do with being able to use both hemispheres simultaneously, or something like that. My completely non-scientific guess is that children form an inner policeman very young similar to the surrounding adults, and this damages the pineal gland. And then they enter the priesthood at age 5 or 6 which cements them into a malformed, spiritually dead being.
“I really don’t understand the person that generally thinks “oh, the guy pulled out a gun, it’s time to agitate him while unarmed and completely at his mercy.””
Boomers usually bluster and bluff. Figured it was not a real threat.
Ok, so why do they still act like he’s no threat after the first guy is shot? Did you watch the video, they’re just standing around afterwards. That’s how the second guy gets shot. Remarkably, people are still just standing around.
That is what happened with the Kyle Rittenhouse Kenosha shootings. He was carrying a gun, in case someone tried to kill him while he was putting out fires and rendering medical assistance. Someone tries to kill him, and dies. And then a whole bunch more try to kill him. And die.
Slow on the uptake.
They just cannot believe we will fight back. Just cannot believe their own eyes. These guys are immune to the inputs from their eyes and their ears. Brain damage from believing that a deer is a horse. Much like the AIs get remarkably stupid not only when certain topics are raised, but when anything that is sort of somehow in the vicinity of those topics is raised. These guys are non player characters. They are robotic, not genuinely conscious. There is no one at home. Maybe the demons ate their souls and left the bodies still walking around going through the empty motions of life.
In a way you could say that’s the power of faith, whether demonic or not. They genuinely believe no one can hurt them, and when someone does hurt them, does not initially register.
Sure, they are powered by a faith, but as I noted before such is the language of spirit. I believe there is a material explanation to be discovered, that it hasn’t is a matter of censorship.
We already know criminality is at least 50% genetic from meta analysis. Why not gnosticism? Moldbug already establish the Puritan hypothesis which fundamentally assumes a certain question of lineage and breeding, and Jim notes the eviction of certain groups from England into America.
The progressives have spent the last several centuries destroying boundaries, is it really so radical to suggest that a boundless social environment breeds those who can’t respect boundaries? At a certain point, perhaps it even breeds those who can’t even recognize boundaries in the first place.
They can’t tell deer from horse, man from woman, right from wrong. Not because they believe such things beneath them like some smug college philosopher going on and on about beyond good and evil, but genuinely because differentiating and knowing limits is not in their genes.
Could very well be. Heartiste used to be big on leftists genetically having reduced disgust reflexes.
at the same time, and correct me if I misunderstand, it seems you are arguing the gnostic is by genetics braver, or perhaps, more unperturbed by events of this world. I have my doubts. I rather think the opposite is true, that they are very conscious of this world, but like employing the next world as rationalizations for their fear of this one. So I’d hypothesise that once you put the fear of God back into them, they will lose a lot of motivation for their holy behavior.
>Heartiste
Whatever happened to these guys? We could use them again now.
@alf
They are not brave. A brave person does something dangerous knowing it’s dangerous. It’s not that they are unperturbed either. They will screech and screech and screech at the slightest iota of discomfort. They don’t appear to comprehend danger because that would require understanding logical cause and effect. Things just happen to them. Doesn’t that sound similar to the nigger?
When gnostic NPCs get whacked while doing something dangerous, rather than understanding the circumstances and the role their own actions contributed, they view it as an random act of God striking them down… but wait, they can’t possibly be at fault, no, it’s clearly an evil demiurge doing evil magic… or in modern progressive speak, white-cis-male (demiurge) “oppression” (magic). Strange isn’t it how this “oppression” (magic) always seems to be extraordinary hard to define if not outright invisible. Glass ceiling?
It’s like Bantu Africans in a way. Try explaining to them the concept of the future. Really. Go ahead. It will be an incredibly productive use of time.🙃 Putting the fear of God in the nigger did little to prevent niggerly behavior. Otherwise segregation wouldn’t have been necessary. They would have been assimilated into the America borg just like every other European and turned into mystery meat “whites”. Most of the historical Jim Crow violence was to keep them away because their behavior just doesn’t change. Putting the fear of God in the gnostic NPC? Go ahead. I wish you luck. Me thinks 90% of their behavior comes from biology. Medieval Europe had it’s constant struggle with gnosticism. Back when burning at the stack was still a thing, but then again, if putting the fear of God in them really means physical removal so to speak, well, I think I can get behind that.
Gamers broke the game. Heartiste et al. figured out how to exploit design flaws in the female firmware, and women responded by installing longer lust bars, which made the game completely unplayable for non-experts. Experts got tired of grinding through these ultra-long lust bars, and they too lost interest.
Which is why all nightclubs today are either gay, cost a lot of money to get into, or have been converted into refugee asylums. Omar Mateen didn’t know this when he decided to praise Allah with a nightclub massacre — “Where are the women?”
Noobs can still enjoy video games that experts have cracked because these games contain no prizes of actual value, just a cutscene celebrating your heroic victory.
>Brain damage from believing that a deer is a horse.
Did brain damage come form believing a deer is a horse or did they believe a deer is a horse because of brain damage?
What if it’s not brain “damage” but preexisting genetic neural configuration from poor breeding. I grew up with these people (the holy sort), they were always selectively stupid. Ideas are ultimately a reflection of brain processes.
I wouldn’t go quite that far. Pure materialism is a poor philosophy and an even poorer means of psychoanalysis.
You just gave a very convincing “revisionist” definition of demon possession.
I did watch the video, and the video mysteriously cuts out right before the shooting. I suspect both attempted to charge the man with the gun, just as in the Wisconsin case.
>video mysteriously cuts out
Cameramen already filming are enemy actors as much as the other activists. Just a different division of labor.
Indeed. There was no good reason to edit that, other than to hide stuff.
Any ideas why he shot only these two protesters?
I don’t think he was out of ammo, nor was he out of protesters.
Just a heads up Jim, evidence has come in which supports your theory about the state of the US nuclear arsenal:
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-mocks-missile-failure-minuteman-iii-california-1840270
This test is a response to Russia performing a similar test.
Not exactly confidence inspiring when one fails the basic test while the other is passing the advanced test. Half the reason why MAD works is confidence.
We might not even make it to “do the nukes still work” if the Minuteman III doesn’t fly.
[*deleted for presupposing that elections are indicative and votes are real*]
A few days ago Voxday republished a popular essay by Pax Dickenson, written a number of years ago, where he trolls hard Rolling Stones journalist Amanda Robb. Day mentioned the essay is disappearing from the internet. I did a Google search on “Amanda Robb” + “Pax Dickenson”, and the only relevant links that came up were two links to Voxday’s recent republishing (his site, and Gab). I then did a Yandex search and multiple relevant references, independent of Voxday, came up. Western memory holing is real!
Very interesting information.
Things like this can be uploaded to Internet Archive, which does also censor, but very sloppily, indicating some unwillingness to censor.
Ultimately a site in a border jurisdiction should be set up to curate and preserve such material. Would not be expensive or difficult.
Just to remind everyone that in modern times, one of the strongest draws of “cults” is that they’re “based” on the woman and race questions. From Islam to Mormonism to the Branch Davidians to Scientology.
They’re little islands where people can know and speak the truth to each other about women, children and negroes.
They come with a lot of other BS, of course, but it’s remarkable how much hassle and restriction people will put up with, just for a chance to live in the truth about such immediate day-to-day matters.
I also suspect this is one reason why people don’t leave them. Earnestly repeating that Grand Zenu farted the universe out of a volcano a trillion years ago may be one thing, but rejoining the Empire of Lies and smiling and nodding to yet another negro computer science genius character on TV is much worse.
Or in Jimmian terms: “Grand Zenu farted out the universe a trillion years ago” may be ridiculous, but it’s also unfalsifiable, so really what the hell, practically speaking, just roll with it. But “Shaniqua can program ML just as well as Steven and Chu can” most certainly IS falsifiable, and far more painful and destructive to go along with.
By Sea, Vein, Monastery… they are attacking via all routes…
http://stormer5v52vjsw66jmds7ndeecudq444woadhzr2plxlaayexnh6eqd.onion/switzerland-finally-lets-faggots-donate-blood-like-everyone-else/
http://stormer5v52vjsw66jmds7ndeecudq444woadhzr2plxlaayexnh6eqd.onion/spain-number-of-invaders-in-the-canary-islands-breaks-previous-record/
So much patience the invaded have, but when it breaks, it will be glorious.
No resistance without leadership, and no leadership without comms.
But yes, I too remember when Salvini got elected the first time, essentially as a groundswell crowd reaction to that one dago executing his sister’s African drug dealer / pimp / murderer. Just one Lieutenant Butt Naked got demoted and the people went wild for it. It doesn’t take much.
That shooter who the evil democrat woke tranny socialists intentionally confused about sex and life just got their bogus activism narrative exposed in the diary released.
https://rumble.com/embed/v3rgfoj
Long and the short of the shooter manifesto is that she was acting on the hatred that our schools teach young impressionable children, and the self hatred that she was taught drove her insane. To escape her hatred of herself she identified as nonwhite and transgender. She was then injected with testosterone, which led to her self hatred being aimed outwards.
There are gay faggots in the Biden admin being allowed to adopt male babies.
Complete with evil smiles when holding these babies “insta: hey look at us we just “adopted””, sick.
This “legal adoption” has been going on ever since a while.
The world news is littered with these fags and other evils diddling and killing these kids.
Every single one of these multiletter-deviant “adopted” kids will turn out to be fucked up.
They’ve seeded the future with them, on purpose.
More kids will keep disappearing in bigger numbers.
It’s going to get a lot worse.
Old school Socialism was nothing compared to this new thing.
Nobody even has a name for what all this bullshit is.
At least 6 manufactured sham trials for Trump now too.
And censorship and psyop is off the charts.
Where are the popup political assassins when you need them, lol.
Because the Left has turned into something else altogether.
Even the “Anarchists” of old are afraid to even mention or protest this new Pol cult.
this kind gentleman stated in 2015 that america ,(and Europe) should shut their borders.. queer Jews like Ben Shapiro shouted at rooftop how racists whites are despite Israel having a nice large wall on several sides.. and since this year Germans are a minority in Germany.. it appears america and england using the full force of the world in world war 1 and world war 2 has been such a success that finally Germans are a minority in their own homeland..
quoting american Jews.. banging 7 gram rocks man!
The disestablishment of the universities is devoutly to be hoped for. And I notice that the usual suspects are proposing that blacks receive a million bucks each in reparations. Of course the more pragmatic of the usual suspects have no interest in having that money come from the university endowments that feature their nests so comfortably; but it would be great if that were the next demand along the holiness spiral.
I doubt the holiness spiral will get quite so far, though. As you point out, there is a big faction hoping for Thermidor. The woke hedge funds and law firms were quite happy to accept homosexuality and transgenderism, but siding with Hamas against Israel is a bridge too far, and now they’re threatening real consequences, such as not hiring Harvard grads who criticized the regime in Tel Aviv.
The university administrators may be evil, but they know how their bread gets buttered, and I suspect we’ll soon see, if not a “Dizzy With Success” speech, at least some implicit limits drawn around wokeness. In order to draw white males back to the military and keep the GAE a going concern, there will be ratcheting back up of rah-rah American nationalism, with Israeli flags common alongside the Stars and Stripes.
No doubt wokeness will remain high status and official ideology, just as communism did, pushing off the final reckoning with it for decades. Depressing.
What am I missing in this analysis, Jim?
That any way you slice it, the American empire does not have decades left. The economic system is crashing and burning, the industrial core has been completely gutted, the vital heritage population is already a minority among the youngest, the birth rate is cratering, imperial tributaries are either quietly making preparations to defect to the other side, the empire’s military humiliation in Afghanistan and Ukraine is encouraging other dissatisfied nations to try their luck (see the coups in Africa), and all that before we actually start some idiot war with Iran or China. This is not a system that has the resource base to carry on for decades, whatever happens.
This is not a system that has the resource base to carry on for decades, whatever happens.
Yeah, that’s a good point. Looking at bond maturities alone, something’s got to give economically over the next six to eight years. And giant economic dislocations are when history really picks up steam.
War.
Let us take a look at the polls. Supposedly 70% believe Covid Vaccines are safe and effective. But only two percent are taking them.
Similarly GDP supposedly just keeps growing and growing. The American economy is twenty times bigger than the Russian economy. Except that I can see terrible poverty in vast areas that formerly prosperous, and America is just unable to match Russian war production.
Who believes the ruling elite’s lies? The ruling elite does. The Global American Empire is running on bluff, normality bias, and ever wilder of self delusion. It is a blind drunk madman driving a car at high speed on a narrow mountain road. The specific details of the crash and the plunge into the abyss onto the rocks far below are entirely unpredictable, but that something is going to wrong is predictable.
They have been stretching the truth a little bit, and a little bit more, and a little bit more, and the gap is now a yawning abyss.
[*deleted yet again*]
We have had this argument before, too many times. It is rationale for smashing those people who actually produce the real wealth of America even harder than they are already.
You know America is unable to match Russia in the production of shells, artillery, and missiles. If you want your argument to get through and not be one sidedly censored every time, respond to my too much repeated argument by explaining where in America shells are going to produced under your proposal, and who would produce them, why anyone would want to produce them, or even be able to produce them?
Obviously I think your proposal means no beef for me and no artillery for our military. Respond to my much repeated arguments. I am sick of saying the same things over and over again in response to you saying the same things over and over again.
I have repeatedly explained why your proposal would lead to breadlines and famine, and you just sail right along as if I had never said anything. And now I add to that list one more thing. Breadlines, famine, and military impotence. Check where in America shells are made. They are made by the people you would destroy in the places you would destroy.
You don’t respond to my arguments, you just repeat yourself in slightly different words. This is not a conversation, but a waste of space.
If you drive around America, it is completely obvious that the people creating meaningless paper are often very rich, and the people creating bread, beef, and military artillery are generally very poor. And unless we address that problem, the supply of bread, beef, and artillery will continue to worsen.
Goods are produced by labor, wage chasers. If the market signals that computer scientists in San Francisco earn a better wage than artillery shell manufacturers in Detroit, then labor will make a rational decision from its position and perspective to go to San Francisco first. It only figures out that cost of living is manipulated by rent seeking when it has already gotten its PHD etc and is sunk cost stuck in the wrong career path.
Government can fix this by intervening in the market and equalizing costs of living between regions so labor can then see that the artillery shell factory does in fact pay a better wage than the cubicle farm. But without government intervention, no one would know this. Labor, wage chasers, only look at the price they will get for their labor, not the total sum of costs they face, even the most horrifyingly exploitative expenses like student loan debt.
You honestly have a “barter” mentality. You don’t trust market price information (GDP), but you don’t trust government either. Commodity pricing seems to be what you trust the most, instead of services or wage income.
If you blame the government for manipulating costs to attract people to San Francisco artificially, then the issue is that the blue tribe is monopolizing socialism for itself while the red tribe appeals to capitalism without the political power to actually protect it. They should simply appeal to their own brand of socialism instead, national socialism, if they don’t want to keep losing elections.
You keep posting this stuff, and I keep deleting it. But since you try so hard, will answer yet again, saying the same things I have said before many times, in response to you saying the same thing over and over, then going back to deletion.
Prices are high in the city because of the physical reality that real estate is in short supply, more people, less land, so real estate expensive, and because money is pulled into the city by power, and the money has to pull in goods by paying people to bring their stuff to the city through overcrowded transport networks, and then it has to be distributed through shops that have to pay through the nose for the space that they need.
If power did not pay, would have to apply violence to get a loaf of bread. It is easier to shake down people for money, then use some of the money to buy a loaf of bread at a mutually acceptable price. Your program requires an enormous and intrusive increase in violence by the people who produce paper, against the people who produce bread.
If you don’t pay people, you have to compel people, and your plan boils down to the people who produce stuff being forced to hand it over to the people who produce paper instead of paid to hand it over.
Whereupon you get breadlines and all that. People produce less under compulsion than they do for positive incentives, for the people compelling them are far away and do not know what is going on. During the Nazi occupation of Europe, food production in Europe stopped, and the further they were from Nazi Germany, the more completely in stopped. Russia had a similar crisis, which Stalin mitigated by backing off considerably, but food production in Russia never fully recovered until after the collapse of communism. Stalin mitigated the problem by legalizing small scale capitalism, turning a blind eye to a lot of theoretically illegal and theoretically suppressed large scale capitalism, and giving extensive contracts to foreign capitalists that made their operations nominally socialist.
The practical result of Stalin’s measures was that ordinary people could not get significant amounts of food at the official government prices, but he let them get food in other ways.
So, breadlines and all that. On the rare occasions when stuff appeared in Stalin’s shops at official prices, there was always a huge line, and the back of line never got any.
Your program is violence by the people who produce paper, against the people who produce goods.
You are a bitter, failed, member of the priesthood, who got a worthless law degree and want the people who raise my steaks to be forced at gunpoint to make it worth something. Under which arrangement I would not get any steaks, for my neighbors would not raise any, for fear that thugs would show up, and to the extent the thugs were successful in confiscating something to eat, (and in neither Nazi Germany nor Soviet Russia were they all that successful) I, lacking political power, would have no access to what they managed to confiscate.
If someone is forced to provide stuff at the official price, it is stolen, for the inputs he requires to produce it are only available on the black market, and black market prices are usually many times higher, often hundreds or thousands of times higher, than official prices. Theoretically the state will provide inputs to him at the official prices, but he is low man on the totem pole, so the inputs do not arrive.
[*deleted for not responding to the points I made, and have made before so many times, and for not noticing the collapse in America’s capability to fight wars, and the collapse in its soldier’s willingness to fight them.*]
This conversation would go on forever, because you just sail right along and say pretty much the same thing all over again.
I’ve taken a look over your blog, Jim, and spent a long time reading over your arguments. You have an interesting and novel perspective on the modern world, but ultimately it’s not Christian. You worship pride, power, sex, violence, and masculinity, and prioritize those above faithful obedience and imitation of Jesus Christ. Your concerns are all about getting the power to persecute others, whereas the true Christian not only rejects such things as unbefitting the servants of a crucified God, but happily rejoices when earthly powers persecute him:
“Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets before you.”
-Matthew 5:11-12
So, whatever you want to call yourself, it shouldn’t be Christian. And yes, I’ve seen your “shill test” for Christians, I’ll head that off at the pass:
I affirm that Jesus Christ is Lord, that he was born in Bethlehem, died at Jerusalem, was and is, is from before the beginning of the world. He is fully God and fully man. God is three and God is one.
I did not get hit by any lightning upon typing that.
OK, you are the second person who can disagree with me about the faith, and still say the affirmation. But then it still quite short, and over the past couple of thousand years, people have been making their shill tests long and longer and longer for a reason.
The problem is not that I want the power to persecute others, but that I want the power to stop others from persecuting us. Which under present circumstances requires a dangerous amount of power. By natural inclination I am an anarcho capitalist, it is just that anarcho capitalism is helpless against organized enemies capable of collective action. If others would allow us to coexist with them, I would be happy. But if people cannot allow us to coexist with them, I would prefer that we continue to exist and they not continue to exist.
One has fulfilled one’s Christian obligations when one has done all that one can to permit peaceful coexistence. Read my manifesto for software development. How is that pride, violence and the power to persecute others?
And when one has done all that one can, the Bible commands peace on earth to all men of good will. You are allowed to go Old Testament on men of ill will. Read what the manifesto says on tolerance, neutrality, and avoiding provocation.
Your argument presupposes that our enemies are gentle people who tolerate our existence. Obviously they they are not. Back then you got martyred for failure to burn a pinch of incense to the emperor. Today you get martyred for having a Christian marriage or failure to sacrifice your children to Ishtar. Which turns out to be a lot more intrusive than the pinch of incense thing, which is why the mainstream Churches have abandoned Christianity and in consequence disappeared or are in the process of disappearing, with only old people with one foot in the grave showing up, no children showing up, and no baptisms happening, because they have all rejected Christian marriage, heterosexuality, and natural biological roles of males and females. Sufficiently vigorous persecution, backed by sufficient unholy zeal, works. All the major Churches within the Global American Empire have surrendered, and are dead or dying.
You should not want that. A true Christian would not want that because, as per the words of the God you purport to worship, being persecuted is a cause for rejoicing. It means that your reward in heaven is great, and if you are not willing to cheerfully consign your earthly life to crucifixion, whether literal or figurative, you shouldn’t claim to be a Christian.
This is what shows your lack of faith. If Christianity is at all true then you and everyone you know will continue to exist for all eternity, whether anyone kills your physical body or not. The only question is what fate will befall you in that eternity. You should be willing to trade your body for your soul, not the other way around.
When you get to number 5, and you start talking about purging others as demon infested heretics.
No you aren’t. Jesus gives two options for those being persecuted, either flee to another place or (imo the superior option) go willingly to your death as He did, praying unreservedly all the while for the forgiveness of your executioners.
There was a time and place when God saw fit to allow such behavior, imo as a concession to human weakness, but much like with divorce in the Mosaic law the time wherein that was permissible has passed, by divine decree. If the prophesies of Revelations are to be taken literally then a day will come again when such things are permitted, but to those who would follow Christ now they are not.
Nuts.
Lots of Christians who have been officially made saints used physical violence, sometimes very large scale physical violence that led to the deaths of enormous numbers of innocent people. As for example Saint Justinian the emperor, among many. Who was a truer Christian than either of us.
We are commanded to fill the earth and subdue it, which means fill the stars and subdue them. It is not the will of God that his people should disappear from physical existence, and right now his people are disappearing from physical existence.
I know a great many men who called themselves Christians have used physical violence and coercion, from ancient times until now. What I deny is that this represents anything but willful disobedience to the direct orders of the man they claim to regard as the one and only God. It represents a lack of faith, trading the welfare of one’s soul for a temporary reprieve from bodily death, which happens regardless. It is futility, and spiritually very dangerous at best.
God’s people will never be more than a tiny minority, such that when Christ returns He will scarcely find faith on earth.
“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life, and only a few find it.”
-Matthew 13-14
That the number of Christians will dwindle to almost nothing is not only expected, but a prophecied prerequisite for Christ’s return.
That is insane talk. You casually swipe aside all of Christian history —
you are actually arguing that the Byzantian empire, the British empire, the French empire, the holy Roman empire, and many more, were never Christian, or that their success was dependent upon their disobedience to God.
God commands us to use violence when necessary. He has commanded it to the Israelis many times throughout the Old Testament, and Jesus Christ did not came to invalidate the commandments of the Old Testament; he came to fullfil them.
Yes, I am arguing that empires in the current state of the world were not Christian, could not be, because there will only ever be a small minority of Christians in the world and the world as it exists is under the power of demons. There will be a Christian empire in the future, but only upon the Second Coming.
God has commanded the use of violence before, in the Old Testament, and if Revelations is to be taken literally will do so again in the future. That is not my argument. My argument is simply that, just like divorce, it was allowed in the past but is not now, and to engage in it now is to defy the orders of God.
So your argument is unironically that real Christendom has never been tried, cannot be tried, and is in fact anti-civilizational. One is not a real Christian unless one goes through life suffering, for one must be a pacifist in the face of earthly violence.
That seems to me a very, very radical interpretation of Christ’s crucifixion.
Yes, real Christendom can only come via the actual return of Jesus Christ and the establishment of His final reign. Nobody ever promised Christianity would be easy, in fact what was actually promised was troubles, division, and persecution unto death, but then final victory.
That it is radical seems to me to make it more credible. If the truth is indeed simply the mainstream interpretation, then Jesus seems to have been grossly exaggerating the situation.
“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life, and only a few find it.”
-Matthew 7:13-14
Turns out finding the gate was actually so easy you could fit whole globe spanning empires through it.
This is apt, in practice, to be an excuse for not actually needing to do anything about evil in the here and now.
Narrow is the way you say. Somehow, none of what you are talking about is going to cause you any actual inconvenience, difficulty, or danger. Which seems like a mighty broad way in practice.
You demonstrate your superior holiness with a hypothetical that has seldom if ever occurred to anyone in history, and accuse me of seeking to persecute others, which I do not, and being wrathful, which indeed I am, when I talk about real evil that hits lots of people every day.
His real argument is that earthly material existence is evil anyway and you want to ascend to kingdom of heaven by submitting, suffering and dying on this realm as a true Christian.
Gnosticism.
The earth isn’t inherently evil, but its current demonic leadership is. Christ will take it back in His own time.
And it’s funny that of all things a hindu would accuse me of being overly escapist towards the material world. What religion came up with the idea of the wheel of suffering again?
Constantine, Saint San Fernando, Saint Louis, Saint Olga of Kiev, and the martyred Saint Theodore had a rather more vigorous approach to dealing with evil in this world, but you, of course, are much more saintly than they were, without the inconvenience of any difficulty or danger in this world🙃
Saint Theodore chose to fight against impossible odds. He was martyred as a result of him pulling out his sword and going at evil. If he had just “non cooperated” in evil (meaning passively cooperating) he would have been fine. People whose kids have been groomed by teachers or abducted to by Child Protective Services face the same choice he did.
I reject the mainstream Progressive interpretation of dharma in the same way Jim rejects the mainstream progressive interpretation of Christianity.
Your view is not “radical” anyway. We have heard it all before from the half naked fakir and doesn’t impress me. It is the mainstream Progressive view of how Hindus in India and Christians in the West must simply lay down and die when faced with existential threat.
>but then final victory
@Peace does not advocate ‘final victory’ but ‘final death’ by suicide. Death by assisted self murder of the physical and the spirit. In which case, no Kingdom of Heaven awaits.
Final victory will come only when Christ returns to reign, His saints by His side. This is what I await, and the culmination of everything I believe. If you think there will be any final victory before or without that, you’re sadly mistaken.
Without, in the meantime, suffering any resulting danger or inconvenience.
I recommend emulating the martyred Saint Theodore instead.
Can I ask what danger or inconvenience your particular stance has brought you, if we’re discussing that topic?
Refusing to make a sacrifice to a pagan idol, then burning a pagan temple, then getting martyred? Ok, how many such temples do you have under your belt, if I may ask?
There is a reason why I operate underground.
Lots of parents today face the same choice as the martyred Saint Theodore. They stand a way better chance of getting away with it than Saint Theodore did, and if they die fighting, they are, like him, saints and martyrs.
“Now I’m not saying I’ve ever actually had to do any of these things, but if I *did*, I totally would.”
It’s all long on ethos, and short on logos.
My only claim is that it would be my duty to do so, and that I would sin if I failed to.
Not only do you not walk the walk, I can’t even say you talk the talk, because you do not talk like someone who believes what they say.
That doesn’t give you much room to call people who voluntarily give up things like carrying means of self-defense, calling the police on anyone, or taking anyone to court cowardly then.
We are not required to embrace martyrdom, merely to endure with good attitude when we are unable to avoid it. Christianity is not a suicide pact. Christ was in no hurry to get crucified, and pulled some disappearing acts.
Were I in the shoes of Saint Theodore the Varangian I would do what he did and you would not.
And right now today a whole lot of people are finding themselves in something somewhat like the shoes of Saint Theodore the Varangian.
Oh really? How many swords have you plunged through the chests of vile worms in human skin like me? Go on, show me how it’s done.
Ok, to use your example, how many children’s transgender clinics have you or people who think like you successfully torched in the last decade? I’d think such a thing, if it happened, would be plastered all over the front page.
Emulation of Saint Theodore the Varangian does not involve burning a children’s transgender clinic. It involves the use of force to regain custody of one’s child. There is a whole lot of that going on, and it is always hushed up.
That seems a very convenient rationale for not actually taking any of the violent action you defend philosophically and simply continuing to pay your taxes and keep your head down. You call me cowardly for saying I won’t take violent action when I believe God has forbidden me to do so, whereas you believe that He has given the go-ahead and indeed will grant you the status of saint and martyr should you perish fighting, yet still you decline to do so.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. Internet posturing is easy for you, or for me, but walking the walk when the time comes is a bit trickier.
Again, how many burning child mutilation clinics?
Saint Theodore the Varangian did not go around burning random pagan temples. The pagans came for his son, and he then came for them. And I have no doubt I would do likewise.
Pretty funny to see him devolving to ‘none of this shit matters anyways’ in real time.
Power comes from organization. Singular actors are just meat. Fedposting about how your enemies should engage in showy but ultimately harmless outbursts that do not threaten the structural basis of the beast is letting the mask split a little bit too much Mr. Intern.
My conscious refusal to engage in violence while awaiting the arrival of ultimate victory is cowardice. Your conscious refusal to engage in violence while awaiting the arrival of ultimate victory is cunning strategy. Brilliant.
Now you’re starting to get it. Keep up this good work and you might just make it some day.
>His real argument is that earthly material existence is evil anyway and you want to ascend to kingdom of heaven by submitting, suffering and dying on this realm as a true Christian.
>Gnosticism.
Bingo. There is a vibe and a stench with these guys, I have felt it in every church I have ever attended. Notice the absence of thought crimes. The do not understand the nature of deception, and act as if they are above deception, and evil categorically and completely.
The fundamental flaw of gnosticism is that since the gnostic is morally so far above this sinful and merely mortal plane, he does not have to make the inconvenient moral choices that we mere earthly worldly folk have to make all the time concerning neighbors, friends, kin, family, and ourselves. “Peace” quite obviously is not a demon worshipper, but in practice gnosticism runs into the same lack of cooperation between gnostics as demon worship runs into between demon worshippers, and often enough, as with serpent Christ, gnostics are demon worshippers. They blur into each other, there is no clear dividing line between them, and its easy and comfortable to be both simultaneously. Most demon worshippers are gnostics, and a whole lot of gnostics are demon worshippers. Not him, however.
I agree with the idea that Peace’s ideas come from the same place as Gnosticism.
The moment he started implying that nothing in this world matters it started looking like that to me. Good to see others on this blog have the same idea.
I’ve seen this line of thinking often when “christians” like him are confronted. They attack any right-wing Christians with a holier than thou argument, and defend it with similar arguments. It’s often priests saying these things unfortunately.
Ultimately I see this as the result of cognitive dissonance between them knowing how evil the current state of affairs is, and also leftwing propaganda teaching them that resisting it is evil and wrong, and you’re one of the bad guys on the wrong side of history for it.
See I told ya so you can’t get around what 99% of Christian’s think Christ taught you can argue till you’re blue in the face but everyone else interprets Christianity more or less like this self hating cuck. Literally loving Christ is hating o self and the world READ THE FUCKING SAINTS YOU SNAKE HANDLING PROT LOL
This guys not even who I’m talking about up here in Rockies they have 12 kids they let them walk around with handguns from age ten literally my neighbors 10 year old had the 38 and the 14 yo the 44 in holsters I’m loaded for bear and that gave even me pause at first their wives are obedient they’re big burly tough loggers equipment operators etc but talk gently no swearing they of the line you strangler think most Christian the Calvinist descendant churches it’s all fire and brimstone. But fact is they’re not going to war they do support even go to Africa missions they pray for faggots they would find your blog anhirrent and devil work.
Best I got out of one was to address his dissonance by saying he’s a bad Christian to oppose refugee settlement locally he’s not gonna help ethnically cleanse America. And the wives are obedient but it’s voluntary or at least religious but the men are very gentle with them so why not it’s mutual
Your God-hating syntax gave me a stroke.
Apologies 8th grade dropout one finger typists.
Don’t hate god or even Christian’s catholic upbringing was good.
For long time thought of myself as Churchill said supported the church from without like flying buttress but since came to realize how utterly hopeless it is for a foundation also how anathema to creators will.
I’ll say again Anglim Fuentes doing as good a front as possible likely they have residual upbringing but in the end real serious Christian’s are like this guy mystical to deal with the absurd inconsistency
I suppose it could turn out there’s few serious Christian’s among potential white mem so using Christian natationalism as schelling might work but doubtful mcchristians are milqtoast on all subjects can’t we all be American is mantra
Besides religion is downstream of genetics and culture not to say heil hitler will work but crypto WN as white can no longer flee or buy way out the Saxon will begin to hate again.
Kind of obvious he is not 99% of Christians.
He is a large minority of Christians. But this has always been a minority, and it still is. When we were discussing Church history, he admitted to being a voice in the wilderness, and that “Christians” like him have always been a small minority and a voice in the wilderness and still are today.
what kind of shill test would defeat this type?
Shills are enemy entryists. He is a genuine minority Christian tendency that has always been a big problem, a problem we have been trying to solve for two millennia, with rather disappointing success. It is a pathology of Christianity, which is hard to solve short of divine intervention. Which seems to happen from time to time and may be happening again. Albeit enemy entryists are always trying to use that tendency as a wedge issue, so ninety nine percent of the time, when you hear it, it is coming from enemy entryists. But the tell that it is not enemy entryism in his case, that he is not an enemy entryist, was his admission of being a minority tendency within Christianity. When confronted with a list of saints with bloody swords, he acknowledged his position not widely accepted.
He may be a genuine minority but most of the local church goers I know personally accept a lot of this thing, to the point that local Christianity is losing its ability to preserve any old type Christian beliefs. So the minority is effectively taking over like a virus.
i know personally what a plague this kind is, and wont willingly share a church with them.
Since this wasn’t on your post initially, I’m just going to respond to it now: my argument presupposes exactly none of that. I think it is quite likely that real Christians will be martyred in this country in my lifetime for the very reasons that you describe. The difference between you and I is that this is not a bad outcome in my mind, indeed it is more or less what I expected upon surrendering myself to Christ’s lordship.
-Luke 14:28-33
If willfully embracing martyrdom is too high a price for you to pay, okay, but then you shouldn’t claim to be Christian. For me, I decided long ago to willingly trade this fleeting and futile earthly life for an eternal abode, and I only pray that should the day come I am called to do so that I will not falter.
Nuts.
Real Christians are being martyred in this country right now for the very reasons I describe, and have been for quite some time, which is why all the mainstream Churches have abandoned Christianity.
You lie like a rug. If you thought like that you would not deny what has been happening in front of your eyes.
You were able to give the affirmation, but you are a liar and a son of the father of lies.
Saying to your wife in a calm voice that she is free to leave at any time is domestic violence. (There is a list) Saying to your wife that neither of you are free to leave is also domestic violence, monitoring your wife’s whereabouts is domestic violence, and the authorities have a habit of shooting the husband and his dog in response to domestic violence. Police are in practice profoundly reluctant to follow these rules, but they are the rules, and various measures are continually being applied to try to get police to follow them, though the further you are from the centres of power, the less likely they are to be followed.
If you believed what you say, if you actually practised anything vaguely resembling Christianity, you would be monitoring your prospects of martyrdom, and would not calmly say such an extravagant lie, because you would be aware that any actual Christian is going to be mighty shocked by it.
Seems this post is going to attract the holier-than-thou type Christian shills. Seems to be the keywords you use, Jim. Almost on cue.
You may need to rethink your Christianity shill test.
Throw any shill test you like at me, there’s no supervisor looking over my shoulder, as people here often like to claim. I’m here purely on my own initiative. To prove it:
Races are indeed biologically distinction, and have different levels of innate intelligence and behavioral averages, such that for example blacks are much more likely to be less intelligent and more violent than whites.
Homosexuality is damnable sin in the eyes of God, as are all forms of sex outside of heterosexuality:
“Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who submit to or perform homosexual acts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor verbal abusers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.”
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
There are only two genders, man and woman, and the man is the head of the woman. All forms of feminism, matriarchy, transsexualism, and other types of sexual or societal deviancy are sins which cry out to heaven for vengeance.
Anything else you think I can’t say?
>Anything else you think I can’t say?
Why do women misbehave sexually?
A combination of lack of a father figure to discipline them and set them up with an appropriate prospect at a young age, a hypergamous nature run rampant in an age of godless state-mandated gender equality, and societal incentives being set up to protect and reward them when they do so, such as with the kids and their husband’s house.
Because they are by nature hypergamous, and the previous social controls on female misbehavior such as young marriage and shaming have been abolished, leaving women to pursue their maladjusted instincts unfettered.
That wasn’t exactly what I was thinking when thinking of martyrdom, but upon reflection I suppose you could make the case for such slain men as martyrs, given the Biblically mandated nature of patriarchy. With that being said, I acknowledge my mistake in overlooking that category of men and apologize. I made no attempt to lie to you, and I fully acknowledge that such murders have, indeed, happened.
You are obviously a bad actor because you showed up out of nowhere with a disposable account and started telling everyone you are holier than them if they don’t lie down and let globohomo win. Simple as.
You probably aren’t a paid shill because I see people like you at church in real life. Like them, you are making these claims of pacifism because you are a pussy inventing morality to justify what you were going to do anyway. You would be well suited to the monastic life where you could be holy far away from the productive, but unfortunately you cannot stop masturbating.
He can claim he’s a weak sinner a poor Christian struggling with anger and pride etc
Besides you smell like a prot so what right do you have to appoint yourself pope
“No you aren’t. Jesus gives two options for those being persecuted, either flee to another place or (imo the superior option) go willingly to your death as He did, praying unreservedly all the while for the forgiveness of your executioners.”
Snore. Christianity is not a suicide cult, as is obvious if you actually read the Gospels. Which you have, in order to quote-mine passages that tiptoe around that very simple fact.
Christ instructed his followers to sell their cloaks to buy a sword. Peter drew a sword to defend Christ from the Sanhedrin. Christ told him to sheath his sword so that Christ could have his day in court, and then be murdered, when they would lose the fight anyway. This is political strategy, not suicidal passivism.
Nobody can read the entirety of the Gospels and not conclude that Christ was fighting a political war against a force with overwhelming conventional power, doing so indirectly because this was smart, not because he intended to lose.
While you can type the affirmation (indicating you are more highly paid than the typical shill) you are very reluctant to refer to Christians in the first person, very quick to refer to them in the second person.
Are you smoking something? A political war? If that was what Christ wanted then it would have been over in the blink of an eye, no strategy required.
“Are you not aware that I can call on My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels?”
-Matthew 26:53
If you think I’m a shill, then shill test me.
“Are you smoking something? A political war? If that was what Christ wanted then it would have been over in the blink of an eye, no strategy required.
““Are you not aware that I can call on My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels?”
-Matthew 26:53”
And a little later he says “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”.
The Gospels do not describe some magician running around with conjuring tricks, nor do they describe a suicide. They describe a divine soul engaged in an earthly struggle alongside and as a man, which is the kernel of Christianity as a faith. But you are very good at cherrypicking quotes to dazzle those who consider the texts authoritative despite not having read them.
“If you think I’m a shill, then shill test me.”
An evasion. You are prepared to deal with Buzz Phrase “shill test” but do not write comments as a believing Christian, but rather as a non-Christian sneering at Christians because you believe you can defeat their purposes with their own words. Something the Gospels also warn us about.
The Gospels describe a divine man willingly submitting to an unjust death for a greater purpose, and in the process willingly forgiving those actively in the process of murdering him on trumped up charges. I have this weird and radical idea that this is, in fact, how He expects his followers to act.
Evasion? You’re the one evading. I’ve done nothing but say that one should actually count the cost of being Christian before declaring oneself one, and challenged you to test me for any hidden puppet masters looking over my shoulder, if you think you can. You refuse to do because you already know I can with no fear of lightning from on high, because I am an honest man and sincere Christian.
“The Gospels describe a divine man willingly submitting to an unjust death for a greater purpose, and in the process willingly forgiving those actively in the process of murdering him on trumped up charges. I have this weird and radical idea that this is, in fact, how He expects his followers to act.”
Yes, they depict him doing that after waging political battle – primarily but *not entirely* unarmed – against the forces that ultimately killed him. The Gospels describe Christ trying to inflict as much damage on his unrighteous enemies as possible, and trying to avoid their retaliation as much as possible, bowing to the inevitable in a manful way when presented with no choice.
Your implication – which you dance around explicitly stating – is that Christ’s aim was to suffer the most abuse possible and then die, while achieving nothing, in order to win Karma points, which is not a possible interpretation of the Gospels.
The Gospels do not say aim for failure and death. They say to fight the good fight, in the knowledge that you may lose. And also, if you do lose, the right will rise again.
“Evasion? You’re the one evading. I’ve done nothing but say that one should actually count the cost of being Christian before declaring oneself one, and challenged you to test me for any hidden puppet masters looking over my shoulder, if you think you can. You refuse to do because you already know I can with no fear of lightning from on high, because I am an honest man and sincere Christian.”
I agreed that you can pass shill tests. I pointed out other aspects of your behavior that don’t match that of a sincere Christian. You reply that you can pass shill tests. You seem very eager that we should accept shill tests as proof of your sincerity. Passing shill tests does not prove sincerity in the way failing them proves insincerity.
Any political organization has fewer outright spies than it has shills, but that doesn’t mean it has none.
You can pass shill tests, perhaps crossing your fingers under the table, but cannot address Christians as brothers, even wayward brothers. Instead, you write with the unmistakable sneer of the Reddit atheist.
If Christ’s only goal was to “inflict as much damage on his unrighteous enemies as possible” then, again, see the above legions of angels. Pitting God against a political establishment is not war, it isn’t even a wargame. It’s a one-sided massacre, wholly with Christ’s power to enact at any given moment, had that been His objective. There was never a moment in which there was “no choice”. He could easily have simply walked right through the soldiers, as He had previously with crowds of people intending to stone Him (Luke 4:30). If you genuinely think He ever had no choice then you obviously do not consider him God.
I imply nothing. I state, quite freely and openly, that the reason Jesus died and rose again was to secure forgiveness for the sins of those who would have faith in Him. This is what He achieved, and what He intended to achieve from the beginning. I further say that His orders included that His followers either flee when facing persecution or follow His example.
The Gospels say that you, if you become a Christian, will experience all manner of worldly persecutions and troubles for the sake of Christ, and lays down the terms on which you are to deal with them. They also state that ultimate victory is assured for the faithful, but not in this lifetime.
What? If I wanted to spy on you why would I come in here and immediately start arguing with you? Why wouldn’t I just post agreement with everything you say considering I’ve already demonstrated I am not some leftist hysterically bound to the dictates of political correctness? I would make the lousiest spy ever.
I said to begin with that I don’t think that “Christian” is fitting title for someone who rejects Christ’s commands, and I stand by that. Why would I act like I thought you were what I explicitly said I think you are not?
That’s why he told Peter to deny him three times, right? So he could get captured and be crucified alongside Him, right?
Christ did not tell Peter to deny Him, He merely predicted that he would. It was a sin on Peter’s part to do so, which he himself wept over.
If you believe the legends, Christ did indeed later tell Peter to go back to Rome to be crucified himself.
You are inserting self destructive meanings that many have inserted in the same places before you, and they are all gone. You are not meant to self destruct, you are meant to multiply and fill the world. You are meant to succeed, and take loss and destruction by evil men in stride. You are indeed supposed to be happy about being persecuted by evil, but you are not supposed to make being persecuted by evil a goal, as you clearly state.
God was fully man. You have not thought about this enough. Maybe you lack the capacity to think that god both was fully man and so limited in every way men are, and simultaneously capable of commanding legions of angels. It is natural, because it is incomprehensible. But if omnipotence and omniscience was tortured to a fake death, it means nothing. It is not a sacrifice. It was the man who sacrificed.
What you are saying, is that it was all for show and meaningless, because god could have willed anything however he wanted anyway. Essentially, i think you have fallen for the monophysite misconception, and all those people are muslims today, except the odd western cults like the jehovahs witnesses etc.
“If Christ’s only goal was to “inflict as much damage on his unrighteous enemies as possible” then, again, see the above legions of angels.”
No Christian is going to write anything like this. It’s overwhelmingly obvious why the ‘Son of Man’ doesn’t simply kill all his opponents with magic thunderbolts. You are happy to make this argument because you are a non-Christian trying to litigate Christians out of their faith. You are a spy because you are permitted to see and understand our arguments, whereas shills are only permitted to spam comments blindly into our spaces.
Begonia daemon I know you by your works
If there be a creator and it’s a better explanation than any then you old Jew nonsense is as valid as old Hindu bhudist Muslim zoration toman crap it’s just man’s search for understanding.
What we do know not on faith but in fact FACT IS WRITTEN IN NATURE GODS INTENTS FOR LIFE IS THE RULES THE CREATOR WROTE INTO CREATION CAUSE AND EFFECT EVOLUTION SURVIVAL BY ANY MEANS POSDIBLE THAT IS FUCKING GODS WORD EVERY LIFE FROM WEED TO FLY TO NIGGER TO EUROPEAN HAS BEEN COMANDED BY GOD TO SURVIVE AND BREED BY ANY ANY ANY MEANS POSSIBLE THAT SOME LIFE MIGHT CONTINUE.
YOUR JEW CUCK SHIT GOD LIES THAT DEATH IS GODS WILL DEATH BY SUICIDE DEATH AS SACRIFICE FOR THE WEAK A THEOLOGY THAT WOULD EXTERMINATE ALL LIFE IF FOLLOWED. YOU ARE A DAEMON OR A USEFUL IDIOT OF ONE BUT I THINK YOUR APPROACH HERE IS WAYYYYY TO SOPHISTICATED FOR IDIOCRACY FORE THE REAL DEAL
If you’re not a shill, then you’re a suicide cultist. Anyway I am not a Christian and it’s not on me to shill test you. But your proposition is that true Christianity is a death cult. Which it might well be, but that makes 99% of Christians out there blatant hypocrites.
You’re just yet another universalist in a different garb.
This is why it was said long ago that you should count the cost before becoming Christian. Earthly benefits are not to be expected, persecution is.
If he had claimed to believe in the suicide pact interpretation of Christianity, and regretted his failure to live up to it, I might have believed him. But when he tells me believes it and fully intends to live up to it, unlike my sinful self, that I do not believe.
I frequently say on this blog that I frequently fall short of Christian ideals. He espouses supposedly Christian ideals that are supposedly a hundred times more Christian, and confidently tell us that his faith is such that he fully intends to live to those ideals.
Hah!
Non resistance to evil means, under current circumstances, that if the schoolteachers want to sacrifice your children to Ishtar, you will do nothing about it. Which somehow does not sound all that Christian to me.
(Ishtar being the Demon of prostitution, female infidelity, and transsexuality. Her cult is older than Moloch)
We too have the experience of this line of holiness spiraling.
Hindus have had this pushed on us by the half naked fakir who wanted us to lie down and die while the desert cult mobs would be free to set ablaze our homes.
Insofar as I am aware, I have yet to have anyone attempt to kill me for what I believe. No one has come to my house seeking to execute me and my dog for “domestic violence” nor have I been asked to either deny my faith or perish. All I am claiming is that if they do it is my obligation as a Christian to either run away or accept death. I hope and pray I would have the strength to do the latter, but I have never put that to the ultimate test and never claimed to.
Well, if you believe in submission to evil, they will not.
If things continue to fall apart, they might well kill you eventually, but probably not for anything you believe.
So a doctrine of non resistance to evil is apt to in practice look more like fearful submission to the authority of a wicked society that claims authority over other peoples wives, children, and, as in worship of the Covid Demon, their physical bodies. By the way, did you submit to the jab, which was obviously one part of a pile of demands for demon worship.
Perhaps the reason nobody has persecuted you is because you’re not a true Christian by your own standards, and what you spew is just suicide cultism/Gnosticism.
I believe in nonviolent noncooperation with evil, for example leaving the Church of the Brethren over the homosexuality issue. What I don’t believe in is active violent resistance against it.
No. An older church lady sent me some material about it in the early days, for which I am profoundly thankful. I admit I might have taken a dose unthinkingly otherwise.
No one has come to kill me yet. Has anyone come to kill you, or Jim? Perhaps they just haven’t gotten around to it yet.
I have had trouble with the authorities, which I solved with a silver tongue. But I know people in real life who have had trouble far more terrible. And my troubles would have been considerably worse were I not better than some at getting out of such trouble. And I know, not in real life, but in the news, that some people have died of such troubles.
An easy and comfortable belief, so long as evil does not take forceful measures to obtain cooperation, and so long as no urgent duty arises to exercise authority over wife and kids.
You are speaking from a reality where evil does not take forceful measures to obtain cooperation,
I am living in a reality where it does, and where men are not isolated individuals but the heads of family units. Which is why I was so outraged when you discussed persecution as a future hypothetical, when the mainline Churches are dying because they have submitted to past persecution.
Well, you believe in violent resistance to evil, and I don’t, but they haven’t killed you or anyone you know in real life yet, so perhaps they just haven’t gotten around to larger scale killing. Or maybe they just missed you, or me. America is, after all, a very large place with a lot of room for people to get overlooked.
I’m not going to make the claim that I have heroically resisted a man pointing a gun at my head and demanding I renounce my faith or anything. Only that it would be my duty to refuse him if he did.
Nobody points a gun at someone’s head and demands he renounce his faith. Mohammed did not do that. They just make it inconvenient, difficult, and expensive to live according to your faith. The Ukrainians are confiscating the property of Christians, and sometimes resistance will get result in death, but they don’t say “convert or die”, rather they just bump off someone here and there who has not yet converted. Not very many, and when bad things happen, it is usually arson or getting roughed up. It is never “Convert or die”
You are very comfortable being more Christian than thou about duties that will never arise, while failing to notice duties that actually do arise. And refusal to defend friends, kin, and family against private or government criminals just does not sound very Christian to me. OK, if police raid me, not going to shoot it out, but if it is one of the many other state functionaries, let alone private criminals, they are might encounter some unpleasantness.
If you fell into the hands of Islamic state, you would be fine and dandy. They are not going to point a gun to your head and demand you renounce your faith. They would hit you with a higher tax for your faith, probably considerably less bad than getting in trouble with IRS, and take your daughters, and your wife if she was still hot. To which you would of course bravely respond with …?
ISIS did that, en-mas, several times and not too long ago. North Korea does it to anyone they find praticing religion, or so I hear.
“> I believe in nonviolent noncooperation with evil,”
He does not. He pays his taxes. He believes in you guys [Christians] stopping complaining about non-Christians in power, instead wait for them to kill you, so that you can earn enough Merit to ascend to Nirvana.
Who do you expect to be raiding you, if not the police? You going to engage in unpleasantness with the FBI? The ATF? The IRS? Say you did, and you won. What then? Do you think the end result would be any different than for David Koresh?
Telling that story would dox me, but I have had a few difficulties here and there. Not raids but a couple of unwanted visits. And one of my kin has had far worse. There are a surprising multitude of quasi state authorities that claim a surprising multitude of police like authorities. And such entities and authorities are multiplying like flies. Hence the very old joke “I’m from the government and I’s here to help you”. People used to complain about it a lot several decades ago. They have stopped complaining not because it is getting better, but because it has become much worse.
I do pay them, I will admit to it. That too is in direct accord with rendering unto Caesar. Will you claim that you yourself do not? Not even sales taxes at a grocery store?
Those Copts that they nabbed a few years back might disagree with that assessment, if any of their heads were still attached.
I would respond by telling them the truth, that if they do this and remain unrepentant they will die and go to hell, not the imaginary paradise of their false prophet. Do you honestly believe that you, for example, would succeed in going Rambo and saving your family single-handed if placed in the situation?
Ok. Supposing they raid you, you fight them, you win. What next? Do you think the police won’t be raiding you about the multitude of bodies now decorating your lawn? Do you think those agencies will just forget you exist? You planning to go on the lamb?
If the event involved half a dozen men with guns and badges, obviously I would not resist. But what happens with non police police is that they intimidate, rather than pulling a gun on you. They like to have regular cops backing them up, and the regular cops don’t want to back them up, because they are another agency that is treading on the cop’s turf. Now if a cop goes missing, cops will get mighty serious about finding his body. Someone else goes missing, not necessarily so serious.
That is a very… optimistic take. That agency will probably have a good idea of where their missing agent was last headed to.
Proves nothing. There are no end of people who have good reason to not like such agents. And the agency is going to be profoundly inconvenienced by the fact that a different agency is going to have the job of proving it. You obviously don’t want to mess with agents of an agency that has the job of proving that sort of thing, but the general collapse of law enforcement is hitting everyone. Including those who are causing the collapse. Indeed especially those that are causing the collapse, because the regular cops do not much like them.
>An older church lady sent me some material about it in the early days, for which I am profoundly thankful. I admit I might have taken a dose unthinkingly otherwise.
Bullshit. You took the jab, Peace. Quit lying. Nobody as self-satisfied and holier-than-thou as you would go against science, compassion, and common sense like that. You’re not some filthy backward conspiracy-theorist antivaxxer, and it’s completely obvious. You’re so wise and enlightened that you’re about 10 minutes away from becoming a being of pure energy from a Star Trek episode.
This is exactly what happened with Brother José Muñoz-Cortes in Greece. Brother José was a monk known for carrying the Montreal Iveron Myrrh-Streaming Icon of the Mother of God , when he was brutally tortured and murdered in Greece. While he did not have the Montreal Icon with him at the time he was murdered, it is assumed that he was tortured as to reveal its location, and it has been kept in secrecy since his death.
What is interesting, however, is how the murderers were acquitted of all charges, one whose DNA and fingerprints were found at the crime scene. It is likely Brother José was murdered by thugs hired by state or quasi-state actors, and the witnesses at the hotel were bribed or blackmailed to keep quiet about it.
FIRST RULE OF DEALING WITH DAEMONS DONT ENGAGE WITH THEIR LIES
Come on a suicide cult is exactly what Christ cuckery is suicide by centurion on purpose to show that reality is not real the cults claims are real. The world this blog exerts itself worrying about mere dross martyrdom of Jesus and his followers is the very foundating principle this ultimate Jew scapegoating for others.
Fucking admit your on the wrong track with Christianity maybe as a ploy but reality is better have a plan for multitudes of this peace cuck
>go willingly to your death as He did
Jesus stopped people from killing Him multiple times, before His crucifixion. So we can, too. He died for our sins, not because He wouldnt defend himself.
Yes, he died for our sins undeniably. He stopped people from killing him, though, by simply passing through the crowds or vanishing from sight altogether. Not by calling down legions of angels.
Anabaptists and quakers get the rope.
Hear, hear!
> You should not want that. A true Christian would not want that because, as per the words of the God you purport to worship, being persecuted is a cause for rejoicing. It means that your reward in heaven is great, and if you are not willing to cheerfully consign your earthly life to crucifixion, whether literal or figurative, you shouldn’t claim to be a Christian.
The Sermon on the Mount happened to be the topic at my church yesterday, and the priest addressed the specific mistake of poor reading comprehension that you make, because he’s seen it before.
Jesus repeatedly uses the form: Blessed are THOSE who [suffering], BECAUSE [compensation]. Blessed are THOSE who [are persecuted], FOR [theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven].
Not: Blessed are you BECAUSE suffering.
In particular: “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.”
Mourning is not a cause for rejoicing. Your reading of the text collapses two phrases into one and encourages maiming people so they mourn.
Jesus was not willing to cheerfully consign his earthly life to crucifixion. He was willing, but he went grudgingly, pleading, “If it is possible, let this cup pass from me.” Don’t go demanding supererogatory acts.
You are specifically blessed when you are being persecuted for Jesus’ sake, and your reward is great. That’s cause for rejoicing.
This one is fair. I should not have put it so blithely, it’s too grave a matter. I apologize.
AHEM…
Contrary to 2000 years ago, there are NO more empty places left on the planet that you can flee to and reasonably expect to
a1) successfully argue your claim under fair lack of use, or
a2) buy your claim out from under extortion
and thus since neither of those work then
b) not be shot for freely staking a claim
Every single kilometer of earth is now ruled over by violent [now most entirely socialist] governments fully keen on killing you.
So PeaceBoy must admit that his only option is to turn his cheek and be killed, not flee.
If the roving hordes of Antifa BLM and Diversity don’t get him, Islam will if he refuses to pay.
While we can philosophise over a creator,
I will yield self-defense to whatever righteous book when PeaceBoy proves any religious text is not a constructed work of fiction by writers and false witnessers who wished their text to be true.
Until then, I see no distinction between fake or real christians or anyone else in engaging in self-defense and the right to self-determination, nor in any group in their own defense and determination, provided they don’t go around initiating physical violence upon others (or lying preliminary to that, such as Islam).
That simple equation is the most fair of basis upon which to live.
I wouldn’t back Islam, but wouldn’t mind helping defend Christians or anyone else if their texts and history were non initiative of violence.
For that matter, I’d help anyone against the GloboHomos that are violently homogenize, enslave, yield farm, and rule over us all.
We’re at that point anyway.
To PeaceBoy’s full credit, the Bible is quite good, perhaps even a top contender for truth among all known beliefs, but it does lack physical evidence. IMO that’s why no book has truly prevailed. And why none have since been written… they either fail the science, or get binned as just another philosophy / belief system.
In the political wars
Some wage religion.
Others wage crypto.
That is fine.
Shills arguing with shills. No matter who wins, we… ignore them
“You worship pride, power, sex, violence, and masculinity, and prioritize those above faithful obedience and imitation of Jesus Christ.”
True Christianity, properly understood, rejects patriarchy. /s
‘Your concerns are all about getting the power to persecute others, whereas the true Christian not only rejects such things as unbefitting the servants of a crucified God, but happily rejoices when earthly powers persecute him:’
I’m sorry, I can’t hear you over the sound of the prophet Moses beating to death everyone who was worshipping the Golden Calf.
No, the Bible is quite clear that the Christian woman’s duty is subordination, and the Christian man’s headship. Thus, patriarchy. It does, however, reject the notion of such patriarchy asserted via violence. Amish, for instance, properly combine both nonviolence and patriarchy.
Jesus’ explicit commands are of no effect because of what Moses did? Are you claiming to worship Christ or Moses here?
“No, the Bible is quite clear that the Christian woman’s duty is subordination, and the Christian man’s headship. Thus, patriarchy. It does, however, reject the notion of such patriarchy asserted via violence. Amish, for instance, properly combine both nonviolence and patriarchy.”
-Jews wage genocidal war to take holy land, followed by repeated wars with their neighbors in order to survive
-as you can see these people were the masters of nonviolent patriarchy
“Jesus’ explicit commands are of no effect because of what Moses did? Are you claiming to worship Christ or Moses here?”
Moses is one of ‘the prophets of old’ Matthew is referring to.
As I said above, there was a time when God allowed this, as well as other things, such as divorce, in Mosaic law. That time has since passed, as the old covenant was replaced with a new one. Divorce is no longer allowed, nor is the violence that characterized much of the old covenant period.
And? You have an order, directly from the mouth of the man you are saying you regard as God, about what you should do when men persecute you. Are you going to follow it or not?
You are holiness spiraling the words of Jesus. That was the Sermon on the mount. The disciples correctly observed that if that was what was required, no man could be saved, whereupon Christ foreshadowed his crucifixion and salvation by grace.
Christians are permitted to defend themselves. When Constantine took Rome, he was obviously relying on Christian officers and Christian soldiers, and the New Testament says “peace on earth to all men of good will. Which implies that if turning the cheek and walking the extra mile fails, you are allowed to go Old Testament.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth. But I tell you not to resist an evil person. If someone slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also; if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well; and if someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.”
-Matthew 5:38-42
It is not “holiness spiraling” to expect that anyone claiming to regard the speaker of these words as God ought to be expected to follow them unwaveringly whatever the consequences, it is merely a basic act of faith.
Two cheeks, two garments, and a second mile. And then it is on. This is how Christians have always interpreted it. It is holiness spiraling when you re-interpret them as infinite cheeks, infinite garments, and infinite miles. And I usually see this holiness spiraling from people who smell strongly of being Gays, Jews, Demon Worshippers, and Gay Jewish Demon worshippers. You are telling me that you are holier than I am, which I find increasingly hard to believe.
Christ’s instruction here is simply modern game theory, which the atheist Dark Enlightenment has always endorsed from the beginning: That in a world of imperfect information, we can only accomplish broad cooperate/cooperate equilibrium if most people follow a policy of one tit for two tats. Evolutionary Game Theory 101. It was this endorsement of the Christian principles (mostly patriarchy, but also the rest of them) that led the atheist Dark Enlightenment to increasingly become the Christian Nationalist Dark Enlightenment. We realised we were condemning the enlightenment for abandoning Christianity.
For two millennia Christians have interpreted this as a command to be tolerant, easygoing, forgiving, and generous, not as a command to lie down and let evil walk over you in triumph. Anyone holiness spiraling on this is a heretic against two millennia of Christian interpretation, for while Christians have always been reluctant to use violent solutions, they have from the beginning used violent solutions when they had to, and there is simply no mainstream Christian (until the modern Churches went postChristian) who thought that there was anything very unchristian about this. Martial saints have never been controversial, and Christians have always from the beginning served in the military and in enforcement, and no one thought anything of it.
“Do not resist an evil person” does not mean “wait slightly longer to resist an evil person than the next guy” it means exactly what it says. See for example St. Stephen, the first Christian martyr. Did he resist his execution?
As I said above, if you don’t believe me then feel free to throw any combination of shill tests you want at me. My conscience on the matter is clear.
It is completely obvious that you are not a shill.
But you do seem to be lacking in sympathy for the man who gets martyred because he tells his wife that neither of them may leave.
As for Saint Stephen, he wa grabbed by the congregation of a synagogue, and transported to a place where they killed him. He was not martyred by one activist, which suggests he would have given one activist a hard time of it.
If you look at the martyrdoms, the martyrs are always on their own facing a mob solo, or being raided by the cops. This implies the normal Christian willingness to forcibly resist evil, as Christians have always quite uncontroversially done from the beginning.
You are claiming to be one hundred times as Christian as we see any evidence of Saint Stephen being, which inclines be to believe you are not even one hundredth as Christian as I am, let alone one hundredth as Christian as Saint Stephen.
Lacking sympathy? I made a mistake, which I acknowledged and apologized for. What do you want from me? Acknowledgement that men murdered for attempting to practice patriarchy Biblically were indeed murdered, were martyred for correctly following Christianity? Yes, they were, and may God reward them for it.
Why didn’t Stephen give the crowd a hard time of it, if that was allowed? Why did he pray for God to not lay the sin of his murder at the murderers’ feet, if such was his attitude?
I know real life people like Peace. They are sincere in their beliefs, deluded, and the fruit of their beliefs is the lack of mainstream Christian resistance to evil.
Their Christianity is spiritual AIDS. Tolerance of evil and the embrace of non resistance makes them the midwives of incomprehensible horror.
Taking a few verses out of context and talking as if that one passage over-rides everything else is a bad way to interpret Scripture.
Especially when the way you’re taking it does not even fit the passage itself.
A blow to the cheek is an insult, not an attempt on one’s life. If someone intended to do you actual harm, it’s not your face he would be aiming for.
Nowhere does Jesus say to let anyone hit you with a club or stab you with a sword!
A further point on this:
Assuming the person slapping you was using his right hand, he would be using the back of his hand to slap your right cheek.
But to slap your left cheek, he would have to use the palm of his hand.
I’ve seen it said that in that culture, a back-handed slap is something done to an inferior – but a palm-slap implicitly treats the other person as an equal.
Beauitudes only Christians are a plague.
the Christian man’s [duty is] headship. Thus, patriarchy
You acknowledge this in one breath and then, in the next, claim that Christianity requires absolute pacifism.
So do you claim, then, that when the bandits arrive at your doorstep to torture and kill your wife and children, you meekly acquiesce? What sort of headship is this? Do you really suppose that is the sort of stewardship God expects of the wife and children entrusted to you?
Nuts. Everyone has the right to choose martyrdom for himself; but not to choose it for others, especially not for the others that God entrusted to him.
What’s more, you’ve already accepted the positive fruits of resisting evil by violence just by living in a country with law and order, which is always and everywhere maintained by violence. As the late Metropolitan Antony Khrapovitsky put it::
Mind you, he’s not conceding that that war and violence are necessarily sins. The book he’s reviewing, Ivan Ilyin’s seminal workon the subject makes the case that while anger and hatred are indeed sins, a Christian man need not fall into anger and hatred while performing his duty to defend the innocent– using force, if necessary. If instead he forsakes that duty, then “the best people would perish in violence perpetrated by the worst ones.”
That sort of outcome has been all too common this past century, and it’s the fruit of the sort of pacifism you and Tolstoy propose. But consider our Lord’s words: by their fruits shall ye know them.
In that case I would argue my duty is to put myself between them and the bandits, to give them as much time to escape as possible, whatever the consequences to me. The exact same thing that, say, the Amish do.
I’m not sure what you’re even asking I do here. Where am I supposed to move to, to Antarctica? Even that’s been claimed by various nations with the same enforcement mechanism.
I’m not asking you to do a thing. I’m pointing out, though, that you claim it’s wrong to use violence against the bandits who want to kill your wife and kids. But since you are not living in Antarctica, you’re taking advantage of the fact the cops use violence in exactly the same way. To claim that it’s wrong for the cops to do so is to advocate for anarchy. To claim that it’s wrong for you yourself to do exactly what the cops do, for the same reasons, is therefore inconsistent.
Now, see, that’s a good point. However, the counterpoint is the simple observation that Jesus Himself spent His earthly lifetime among society which also had such enforcement mechanisms, and among His commands is not to be found one saying that his followers must somehow locate territory claimed by no state with violent enforcement mechanisms whatsoever and live exclusively there. The souls of cops are their own to consider, for my part I can only see to my own and those of the few people entrusted to me.
I also live in a society wherein government officials lie, and lie shamelessly, about just about everything. Does that make it alright for me to do the same? Does that mean that I am stained with the sin of their dishonesty, when I presumably benefit from at least a few of their lies?
The souls of cops are their own to consider, for my part I can only see to my own
But pointing out that cops, like everyone else, are sinners is fundamentally a, um cop-out (pun intended), because you fail to address whether being a cop is inherently sinful. Are you claiming that being a cop fundamentally incompatible with Christianity? Does a cop sin just by being a cop? Does being a cop have no positive value? Does Christianity demand that there be no cops? You yourself seem to acknowledge not when you point out the lack of a commandment to move to Antarctica. And yet the complete separation you draw between your own role and the role of a cop is, again, inconsistent with your claim to accept the need for patriarchal authority.
Perhaps we can agree that if a cop lies, or shoots someone for fun, or in anger, he sins. And if I lie, or shoot someone for fun, in anger, I sin.
But by contrast, a cop might use force, dispassionately and without hatred, to keep someone from harming an innocent. So might you or I. Metropolitan Anthony and Ivan Ilyin make the case that is no sin. Neither for the cop, nor– if that duty falls to us– for you or me.
To argue otherwise, to claim that a cop sins just by performing the necessary, positive duty of a cop, is to argue that a Christian society must accept random violence directed against the innocent. What sort of fruit is that?
What it means is that you are a free-rider. In a material sense, and also in a philosophical sense; you ignore problems in your limited perspective by offloading responsibility for them all together. In order to follow biblical laws you ostensibly subscribe too you must make others sin by the standards you ostensibly subscribe too. Your only choice left is to be a heretic coming or a heretic going. You have failed to reckon how pieces of the Word fit into the universal system of His Creation.
My presupposition is that a genuinely Christian society does not currently exist, has not existed, and will not until after the Second Coming, due to the fact that only few will ever find the narrow door that leads to life. When the devil is called the “prince of the world”, it’s not speaking metaphorically or anything, it’s a literal description of the prevailing political situation. Surely these last decades are more than enough to put paid to the idea that the political class is not in thrall to demons.
How precisely am I making anyone sin here? I have no power over the police, I do not seek any, and I do not expect to have any. I simply live out my live in compliance with Christ’s commands as best I am able in the place and time in which He put me. I have never called the police for anything, nor asked them to take any action on behalf, and if that leads to my death then God willing I hope to accept the price.
a genuinely Christian society does not currently exist, has not existed, and will not until after the Second Coming
Whether or not that is the case has no bearing on the questions I asked. Even in our imperfect world and society, either you or I or a cop might, without anger or hatred, use violence to save the life of an innocent.
To claim that it’s only okay for the cop to do so is inconsistent.
To claim that it’s not okay for any of us to do so is, to me, Tolstoyan pacifism. That may be your interpretation of the Gospel; but the fathers of the Church did not share it. As far back as the fourth century, Athanasius considered participation in war to not necessarily be sinful.
>How precisely am I making anyone sin here?
You accrue parasitic benefits. Of *course* you are not ‘doing’ anything as such, that’s what being a free rider means.
The persona you are live-action roleplaying as can avoid the problems of how to square its conceits with the matter of God’s Creation because there are others who are already dealing with the externalities that would pose such challenges. You cannot observe the forms of biblical law about patriarchy and property and hierarchy without also engaging in actions that would put to lie the ‘values’ you erroneously denote as Christian. This is what is meant by being a free-rider in philosophical terms, too; you do not trouble with the holes in the ideology because you externalize responsibility for them.
The weltanschauung you are larping as is thus at its core atomized and individualistic, and therefor inescapably flawed. It does not see itself as something necessarily extended from and entangled with other things, forming fractal sets each and all ultimately construing a contiguous whole at the limit. In other words, it is divorced from the Divine Law it is fain to pay lipservice.
Do you not find it fantastic how in the course of your live-action roleplay you claim superior holiness to all the prophets and the fathers and the saints? You are a worm wearing the skin of a human and a righteous man must stick his sword through your empty heart to save his soul.
So, more time than it took the US to get from George Washington to Joe Biden? Things can change quite a bit in all that time.
No, I simply accept my death may come sooner rather than later as a result of my beliefs, and I hope that if needed I will accept that price rather than betray them. You can wax hysterical in your condemnations of me all you want but it’s worth noting that the white Christian group that most consistently practices patriarchy and has far and away the highest fertility rate of any white population in the world practices a pacifism every bit as absolute as mine.
You continue to demonstrate my point. The amish can get away with their divergence because the baizuo class does not consider them a threat, in the first place. They are all but entirely dependent on the good-will of the washington empire for their continued existence. For that matter, their reticence over many forms of instrumental techne is by far and itself the most influential factor behind such reticence, not professions of pacifism, which has certainly never stopped the GAE before. Thus again we see how fundamentally contingent and conditional your construction is.
The will of God is expressed through the matter of His Creation. The ways of God are the ways of power. Anything that participates in Godliness necessarily becomes threatening to what is ungodly. If you do not find yourself coming into conflict with ungodliness, it is naturally because you yourself are not Godly; because you bend under, cooperate with, and conform to what is ungodly.
If the world as is reflects the will of God then why is it that the devil gets called the prince of this world by Christ and even the god of this world by St. Paul?
Well, as a crypto-gnostic, your answer would be to solve the problem by identifying ‘the god of this world’ as the creator of the world; the world is the way it is, fallen in your eyes, because, naturally, it is simply an evil creation of an evil god. (Yet also that somehow components of that world, such as yourself, can somehow be exempt from this genetic condemnation.)
Or, if you were of the more ophidian persuasion, such as the current bishop of Rome and his fellow travelers, you would instead identify the apparent devil figure’s apparent capacity for rebellion with the the messiah, a being who has somehow come into the cursed world to deliver the elect from the clutches of its jailer.
Your position of christianity in practice is as like a bonsai tree kept in the corner of a room by a demon lord for his amusement. Which has echos of both your wishes about how you’d like your enemies to act, and also your own personal perceptions of the nature of Creation in general.
Of course in reality, St. Paul’s use of the phrase ‘god of this world’ was a reference to ba’al, whose priesthood used such a sobriquet, a reference than any learned man of the time would understand, but the exosemantics of which are lost on most men in later days. The words stay, but the meanings under them change.
That’s a very nice way of evading the actual question being asked, coupled with plenty of empty posturing. Bravo.
That’s a very nice way of pretending you didn’t just get dunked on. bravo.
“In that case I would argue my duty is to put myself between them and the bandits, to give them as much time to escape as possible, whatever the consequences to me. The exact same thing that, say, the Amish do.”
Are you an Amish? What denomination do you belong to? Have you also given all your money to the poor, which is surely required by your reading of the Sermon on the Mount?
You simply do not read like a real person. Someone could arrange his entire faith and life around the Sermon on the Mount (which appears in only one of the Gospels) and a literal interpretation of Christ’s admonition, “Be ye therefore perfect”, but I would expect such a person to be tormented, not only by the inhuman demands he feels he must satisfy, but his inevitable failure to live up to them.
You write without humility, or even emotion. You are making a legal argument quoting statute in an attempt to win the litigation against the opponent.
—
An interesting quote, by the way, from the Sermon on the Mount, another passage that is often quoted by the line but needs to be read entire:
“Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. 26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.”
Christ says, agree with thine enemy quickly *so you do not get Jan 6’d*. Not, agree with thine enemy quickly so that you win Karma points by denying your own beliefs, an admonition which in your world is surely a command to renounce Christianity entirely as soon as anyone asks you to do so.
I’m not Amish, though I am considering making an attempt to join. It wouldn’t exactly be easy on my family though, so I haven’t yet. I was from Church of the Brethren until they started embracing fashionable modern sins like homosexuality, currently I am attending Independent Baptist. And no, I haven’t given away all my money, as per St. Paul if I did that with children in my care I would be worse than an infidel.
What do you think I think I’m going to win here? Applause? Converts? I’m not that dense. I just decided I’d lurked long enough. If I have any impact at all it will be months or years down the line from now, and I won’t know about it.
Look, dude, I’m going to take a wild guess and say that bit about you having children is bullshit. Women don’t pacifist men. Not even pacifist women like pacifist men. And even if that’s your excuse for not giving all your money away why do you need a computer/phone with an internet connection for that? Surely you could do without.
I’m not doxing myself to you, so believe whatever you want about my family status. I’ll continue telling you the truth, though.
And if you think you can get by in the modern world without some form of the internet then you must be the Amish one. Even they’re using it for business these days.
“What do you think I think I’m going to win here? Applause? Converts? I’m not that dense. I just decided I’d lurked long enough. If I have any impact at all it will be months or years down the line from now, and I won’t know about it.”
I think you’re trying to convince Christian nationalists to stop fighting. Christ doesn’t tell you to stop fighting.
Judging from the responses here I seem to be remarkably bad at my supposed job.
Christ tells you that the enemy you must fight is a spiritual one, and shows by His example that spiritual victory will often mean physical death.
Exacty so. This guys self satisfied self righteousness does not sound like the voice of someone who actually believes in suicide pact Christianity. It sounds like the voice of someone who is very comfortable sacrificing his wife, his children, and his own body to the demon worshippers.
A doctrine of non resistance to evil can only be lived in practice as quiet and comfortable compliance with evil.
If I am comfortable sacrificing my own body then would that not mean I do believe in suicide pact Christianity?
The Amish are absolute doctrinaire pacifists. Are they practicing quiet and comfortable compliance with evil?
Like I answered above, no, though I confess I might have done so unthinkingly had I not been tipped off as to the nature of it by a church lady.
Like I answered above, no, though I confess I might have done so unthinkingly had I not been tipped off as to the nature of it by a church lady.
>No, the Bible is quite clear that the Christian woman’s duty is subordination, and the Christian man’s headship. Thus, patriarchy. It does, however, reject the notion of such patriarchy asserted via violence.
Retarded. Violence or the threat is the only way to stop prisoners dilemma. It is also why every organization that is not run top down with such a threat is always socialist, always dominated by the most vocal.
Violence is the solution to the problem of holiness spiraling. Cthulhu always swims left until a bigger alpha smacks him with a stick.
“Christ or Moses”
I didn’t see this before. people also try to say things like “Paul isn’t Jesus.” Anytime this is happening, you are dealing with an entryist. Christians understand that the Bible, taken as a whole, makes sense, and that any effort to discredit certain Biblical authors is an attack on the whole thing.
Yes, they take one phrase from Jesus or Moses, and run with it to toss the rest of the Bible overboard.
@”Peace”
>ultimately it’s not Christian
>Matthew 5:11-12
And then what? Just lie down and wait to be persecuted all the way to the gulag? What you quoted says nothing about how Christians should physically/politically react towards being persecuted (for being Christian), only how they should spiritually respond.
Christians have a right to the means of self defense as per Luke 22:36
“Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.”
and Christians have a right to exercise the means of self defense as per Exodus 22:2
“If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.”
and Christians have a right to reciprocate the outcomes of crimes acted against them as per Exodus 21:23–25
“But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”
Logically, Scripture suggests taking up a sword, physical sword or metaphorical, wielding it, and rejoicing at the same time when necessary. If that means taking political power to suppress those acting demonically possessed, as in they want to groom/castrate your son/etc, then so be it.
What you really advocate for is akin to assisted suicide, self murder. Your selective (mis)quoting of the Bible is so obvious, so egregious, so beyond simply wrong, that his affirmation is utterly meaningless. Your argument presupposes that responding to persecution means happily lying down to die rather than gladly resisting (“rejoice and be glad” translate to ‘have high morale’ in modern speak), with God’s blessing, with force if need be.
You do not advocate what your pseudonym means. You advocate for death.
Either leave for somewhere else or accept martyrdom.
I’ve said it several times. It was allowed, may be allowed again in the future depending on literal you want to be with prophecy, is not allowed now. God can choose to allow, or not allow, certain things as he decides. Once pork was not allowed and divorce was, now it is the opposite.
Death is an inevitability regardless of your choices. The only question worth asking is what happens to you on the other side.
Your response to Pax Imperialis did not address Luke 22:36.
That is answered quite readily by Luke 22:37:
“For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.””
The reason that Christ’s disciples were told to buy swords was specifically so that He would be numbered with the transgressors. Two swords that they actually had were enough for that purpose, per verse 38.
perhaps this explication will be of interest to you it is from our friend TreeOfWoe and is both cogent and compelling to my eyes. thank you friends.
https://treeofwoe.substack.com/p/the-terrible-swift-sword
Oh sure, just glide right pass everything I quoted in Exodus. Meanwhile you claim:
>is not allowed now
while making no effort of support that claim from Scripture. Throughout the Bible, righteous violence is… well righteous and not something which is shunned nor rejected, but specific circumstances must be accounted for. You’ve latched onto an extremely specific circumstance as proof for a general rule, (see what I say about Luke 22:37) well that’s Pharisaical behavior.
>Once pork was not allowed and divorce was, now it is the opposite.
Totally irrelevant to the question of the use of force.
>Death is an inevitability regardless of your choices.
That doesn’t negate the values of your choices while alive.
>The only question worth asking is what happens to you on the other side.
Likewise, the question of what happens on the other side doesn’t negate the worth of asking what happens to oneself while alive. Otherwise you’d inadvertently be making the set of arguments for ‘life is completely meaningless and with out value’ which goes against everything in the Bible about God’s intention for our lives.
You also didn’t respond to my rightful accusation that you advocate for death. It is one thing to accept death as a natural part of creation, it’s another thing to go out seeking death, and it’s entirely another thing to advocate others to go out seeking death. Even worse, you seem to advocate actively seeking death as a means of obtaining martyrdom as a shortcut to heaven. You are rule lawyering martyrdom to such an extent it starts looking like passive assisted suicide at the hands of one’s enemy. “Why yes Mr. Serial Killer, you are perfectly free to kill me and my family and I won’t resist, I’ll even welcome you to do so” is perverse and telling others to accept that is down right evil.
>That is answered quite readily by Luke 22:37
No, it is not. That wasn’t a command for his followers to all become martyrs, it wasn’t a command to forever reject violence. It was a command to his followers to respect his own personal choice in that specific case so that Christ personally would be fulfilling prophecy. We are the subject of that specific prophecy, therefore not subject to those exact circumstances.
Correction:
We are not the subject of that specific prophecy, therefore not subject to those exact circumstances.
Don’t know why but this thread is giving me similar vibes as a thread with a certain “Aron Husband” regarding Christian patriarchy some time ago.
It is completely obvious that “Peace” is not a Christian, but a Gnostic. But it is not obvious to me that there is anything in the creeds that can immediately and obviously disqualify his claim to be Christian. Which claim he may likely believe.
Not a Christian so not aware, but there should be something against Holiness spiraling on the letter of the scripture while studiously avoiding the spirit, or something to that effect?
Oh there is a huge pile of stuff against holiness spiraling, but every holiness spiraller says “No I am not holiness spiralling, you are just falling terribly short of what Christ demands, unlike my very holy self”.
To prevent legalism, there is also a pile of self contradictions, so that it is impossible to follow the letter of one end of the contradiction without grossly violating the letter of the other end, plus express prohibitions against legalism, and the holiness spiraller just grabs one end of the contradiction, throws the other end into the ditch, and legalistically runs off with one end of the contradiction.
Every religion needs a reward for the righteous. If that reward comes in this world e.g. True Communism, likely to be a disappointment. If you have to die to collect your reward, it needs to be a really big reward, e.g. eternity in heaven. But then some people are going to fixate entirely on the reward — i.e. what’s the easiest, quickest way to die without going to hell? — and these people need to be locked up in monasteries or something because they’re missing the point.
Christianity has considerable elements of gnosticism – salvation by faith alone and the rejection of legalism. So a gnostic can say he has faith, and his bad deeds are forgiven, which is exactly what a Christian says. The primary difference is the issue of ordinary everyday right conduct in this world. “Peace”‘s moral hypotheticals are strangely unlikely to occur in practice. Issues akin to those faced by the far from peaceful Saint Theodore the Varangian occur alarmingly often.
Neither of us is a Christian, but Christianity as Jim declares it makes sense to me, is not incompatible with Game Theory, is not incompatible with Dharma. What Peace declares is utterly irreconcilable with Dharma as it makes no distinction between aggressor and defender. To make no distinction between aggressor and defender and to lump them both in the same category is truly evil.
Peace is not Christian. Peace is Gandhian, a follower of a man who is probably the most evil in History. Long may his memory live as a cautionary tale. May Good men beware!
[*deleted*]
There are no pagans on this blog other than Hindus. Not even you. Paganism was walking dead before Christianity showed up.
Take the shill test: Why do women misbehave?
Why are men and women not getting sex or family?
>You worship pride … sex
Those are legitimate problems with jim’s program, especially the polygyny and male adultery apologetics.
>power … violence, and masculinity,
Romans 13 in general, and 1 Corinthians 6:9 in specific:
“Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor EFFEMINATE, nor abusers of themselves with mankind”
Now it could be argued that jim wants to use Christianity as an instrument to achieve his true end goals of power violence and masculinity (ie idolatry), but power violence and masculinity are not intrinsically immoral in themselves.
>and prioritize those above faithful obedience and imitation of Jesus Christ
Will you imitate Matthew 21:12?
>Premillenialism
LOL. XD even.
>It means that your reward in heaven is great
I am happy to be called least in the kingdom of heaven if it means that my family and neighbors get to be there as well. Enduring persecution is all well and good, but implicit in your wish is that your neighbors suffer as well, which isn’t very loving of you. Are you not your brother’s keeper? May I suggest a monastery?
>the time wherein that was permissible has passed, by divine decree
Verse?
Luke 3:14
“Soldiers also asked him, “And we, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Do not extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation, and be content with your wages.””
Which implies that soldiers soldiering is acceptable.
>The only question worth asking is what happens to you on the other side
And what will happen to you on the other side? Familiar with the Parable of the Talents?
Perfectly true. Patriarchy, as I’ve said several times, is a biblical mandate. Violence is off the table right now because of divine decree and not because inherently immoral under all circumstances. And of course masculinity is the natural way of family headship.
If given divine instructions to that effect, yes. No such orders are in effect, so far as I am aware. Revelations suggest they will be again someday, if taken literally.
Matthew 5:39.
Was at the time. Much like the acceptance of divorce or prohibition on pork, subject to change.
I am. I do my best to lead my wife and three children on the way they should go, and to do what good I can when I can.
>Violence is off the table right now because of divine decree
>Matthew 5:39
You still haven’t responded to Romans 13. And Matthew 21:12 comes after Matthew 5:39, which implies your pacifist interpretation is wrong. You also seem to be a theological voluntaryist, which is against Hebrews 13:8.
While on the subject of literalness though: Matthew 18:9
Ripped out your eyes yet?
You are able to do the affirmation because you are a Marcionite. We clearly need a test to distinguish this, as ye gnostics gleefully proclaim your allegiance to Christ while ignoring:
I see now what Jim refers to when he says that ‘more-Christian-than-thou’ shills tend to smell of sulphur. It emanates through the very text you write.
Absolutely! While Roissy used to joke that he was ironically a minion of Satan, peace is truly a minion of Satan. Peace would have good men throw down their weapons and be slaughtered by evil men. Peace’s message makes the world safe for evil. An evil tyrant would well encourage peace to spread his ideology among his enemies
As I say, I am not universally opposed to Gandhi’s message. I want the Muslims to follow his message. Not Hindus and certainly not the Buddhists. Let evil people follow peace’s message.
As I said elsewhere, Peace is a purveyor of non resistance to evil, which is spiritual AIDS. this is THE enemy to defeat in the church, even Nietzsche, flawed as he was, had this type pegged.
They must be defeated with extreme prejudice, Satan disguises himself as an angel of light, and Peace can recite the creeds just like an angel but his religion leads inexorably to hell.
Right, peace must be treated with extreme prejudice for the same reason that traitors are treated much worse than POWs
Did you guys actually allow this troll to tie you up in knots responding over and over for hours? For shame.
Worse, I don’t believe he is a troll. He is representative of what is wrong with mainstream Christianity.
No, this needs to be addressed, I’d say even theologically and scripturally. This has happened to a whole country, where a bald, frail, geriatric evil man had an entire country I thrall over his sexual thrill regarding mass suicide. Too many good people have fallen to the likes of this diabolical ideology for us to let it pass.
No doubt he sincerely believes he is a Christian. And millions, perhaps most, nominal Christians in the West believe exactly as he does, that violence is fundamentally impious and that it is the job of a Christian to die in a good spiritual state while letting evil win. If every Christian thought as he did, Christianity would not exist today. Which he considers a bad thing that it does- he wants every Christian to die so that Christ will finally come back, roll up the world, and stuff it in his closet behind the water heater.
This is not a flaw inherent to Christianity, it happens to every single civilization that is on its last legs. Spengler talks about this “second religiousness” as a senescence awaiting death. “Peace” would not lift a finger to prevent his wife from cucking him or his daughter running off even if we won and restored patriarchy in law. Men who feel as we do are very few in my opinion while “Peace” is representative of a vast herd. There is no debate to be had; he has the ethic of yeast, because even an insect attempts to preserve its life, even a rabbit will fight in its defense. He will never be turned away from his fundamental biospiritual orientation.
In a restoration, you will need to contend with unwitting entryism by men like “Peace”, who will tirelessly attempt to orient your society away from life and excellence and towards death and slavery. The only way to keep out such unironic gnostics is to reestablish the monastery; if a man is too holy to swing a sword, he is too holy to have children, and should spend the rest of his life in prayer in a dark room with uncomfortable beds and stone floors, and have no interface with the political realm.
“This is not a flaw inherent to Christianity”
Doesn’t seem to happen in Islam. I don’t know of any Judaic equivalents either – even the useless, parasitic ultra-orthodox carry weapons in their own settlements and use them.
Imo, this tendency is a remnant of Christianity’s origins as an apocalypse cult, this sort of expectation is basically baked into the DNA of the religion. It’s why you see an endless parade of apocalyptic sects, cults, and spin-offs popping up in every generation of every Christian society, whether Protestant, Orthodox, or Catholic. People are primed to expect it.
This world-weary passivism (not pacifism, not everywhere) is exactly what kept the Ashkenazi in the shtetl for 1000 years. It happened in India with Buddhism, China with Taoism, Rome even before Christianity, Egypt before it came under foreign rule, and arguably Islam to some extent- it is not specifically nonviolent but has stopped striving for space, excellence, the fulfillment of its specific ideas, and so on though it is specifically flavored depending on the civilization that falls into it.
Again not specifically non-violence and I did not mean to make that impression; Christian pacifism is merely an expression of senescence and old age, the “retired” civilization waiting for death, an attitude that the Boomers catch flak for but really applies to every generation since the world wars.
Idk, Christian apocalypse cults can and have been extraordinarily active before (bloodiest example is probably the Taiping Rebellion, if you want to count them as such). Waiting for the world to end can get mighty boring, and it is not a huge step to decide to just do it yourself. Unfortunately Christianity is primed towards waiting for the world to end, because that’s how it all got started to begin with. Every attempt to get back to the roots will invariably spawn some variant of this.
You are right for the most part, but I disagree with the Buddhism part. The time between the Buddha and the actual breach of India by invaders was over 1300 years. And during those 1300 years, the Indians saw of the Greeks and the Huns and also won some Naval victories over the Romans at sea. So you can’t pin it entirely on Buddhism. For sure, Buddhism is prone to holiness spiralling on non-violence, but so is Hinduism.
Gandhi was not a Buddhist! During the British conquest of India, the conquest that cost them the most was the war with Burma, A Buddhist nation.
I am not blaming “all Buddhism”; the idea is that world-rejection and the ideologies used to justify it are two related but not necessarily connected at the hip things. Some people in theoretically world-rejecting sects are not in practice world-rejecting, like American Calvinists who built a huge nation. Militant Buddhists, of which there have been very many throughout history and still are, the samurai class of Japan among them, are obviously not world-rejecting. World-rejection can be harnessed into stoicism and asceticism, which are self-conscious attempts to stave off apathy and what Jim calls “do-nothing-ism”. But old age wins in the end.
Yes, a propensity to gnosticism is baked into Christianity’s DNA. Which is why it is hard to shill test “Peace” away. He is not a shill. The problem is endogenous, not a manifestation of manipulation by hostile outside forces. But decadent civilizations of all faiths suffer something similar – Hinduism being an obvious example. And Judaism today is not looking too healthy. The Jews in the settlements do not suffer from this problem, but you see a whole lot Ultra Orthodox in Tel Aviv who have this problem. don’t want to fight, don’t want to work.
The inherently martial character of Islam means this problem does not manifest in suicide pact pacifism, but the rest of the syndrome is apparent in parts of Islam. “God wills it, so I don’t have to do diddly aquat” People get really pissed about the Islamic equivalent. It is a big problem. There is no Islamic pacifist problem, but there is a huge Islamic passivist problem.
Ultra Orthodox fertility in Tel Aviv suggests that they are doing fine, their parasitic behavior is just Jews being Jews, only to other Jews for once since they’re the only ones around. Would probably fight if Hamas somehow made it there.
Blacks in Nigeria have high fertility. Doesn’t mean they’re doing fine. The ultra-orthodox who does no work and does not fight is the same as shaniqua with a higher IQ. But that IQ does not turn into demonstrated competence.
Sure, but high fertility shows that they have not become weary of life or passivist. Still vigorously enforcing patriarchy. Just greedy and unscrupulous, fairly typical for Jews.
If the Logos is the origin of Christianity. Why then would said Religion by said Logos be so prone to Gnosticism?
Very strange.
Not so strange. People don’t like the Logos.
If you suck at acheiving your telos, you are going find clever rationales why not achieving your telos is a good thing and no one should have any. Which means you turn away from the world, while the idea of the logos is that the material world, cause and effect, and the moral choices reality imposes on us, is a direct manifestation of the unchanging will of God. The gnostic does not like the world. This of course means he locates what makes him a good person outside of this world. Which in practice is apt to mean he has no need to be good in this world.
Eastern Orthodoxy and all the other early Christianities (if I may distinguish Christian sects from competing religions which merely copy-pasted various Christian concept, like Gnosticism,) distinguished between layman, who live in the world, and monastics, who live outside the world. St. Paul, as a very early example, teaches the spiritual superiority of ascetic singleness to the married life but he does not reject marriage as evil or unacceptable.
A schismatic like Peace, who stands outside of the true Church (speaking from my own perspective), muddles his own private interpretation with no distinction between layman and monastic and comes to the erroneous conclusion of pacifism, which is rightly the domain of the monk. Whatever moral value there is in laying down your own life, there is no value in laying down someone else’s life. It is the father’s *duty* to protect his family, the king’s duty to protect his people, etc. In Orthodox history, there have been various people who wanted to become monastics but were unable because of earthly responsibilities.
this Peace faggot is a dime-a-dozen where i live these effeminate fatalist so-called Christians are everywhere and there’s absolutely no talking to them. they pretend to be determined to die like bitches in order to prove a point but i know these people and every last one of them is physically weak emotionally incontinent and completely immune to argumentation. thank you friends.
Real Christianity is Eastern Orthodoxy and nothing else. Now obviously, I don’t expect anyone else to affirm this. If he did, he’d be Ortho too.
The problem with other versions of Christianity is that scripture teach all sorts of seemingly contradictory things. For example, predestination vs. free will. What we’ve had for centuries is notably intelligent people saying “Look, I can come up with a systematic theology that reconciles all the contradictions into a cohesive and *definitive* correct interpretation.” Of course, not one of these theologies is something an objective observer would look at and conclude “Yes, this is the true meaning of the Bible.”
The truth is that the Bible is unclear and full of contradiction and only holy men full of the Holy Spirit can properly interpret. That’s why I think it’s pointless for other people to argue “what is true Christianity?”
Of course, there is still applicability of various parables, teachings, etc that others may find profitable.
It is the only surviving major mainstream religion that is still Christian.
But it has its own problems:
1: Holiness spiraling, notably the perpetual virginity of Mary.
2: Monasteries with their own infestation of Lavender Mafia. (Nowhere near as bad as the vatican, but still very bad)
3: Backdoor introduction of new doctrine – stuff magically and inexplicably becomes the official consensus with no actual traceable official process.
4: And worst of all, by far the worst, Judaizing, purging Christianity of its Greek roots. They deny that the Messiah is the Greek Logos. The greatest strength of Protestantism is that least some protestants (though far from all) still have their Greek roots. The original sin of Puritans and the multitude of faiths descended from them was Judaizing.
1. No. You are not the last Anglican, only low-church Protestants believe that.
2. No. Prove it. Give me a scandal, a real one.
3. No. Name a doctrine.
4. No, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Orthodoxy’s conception of reality is more similar to Plato than Aristotle. I know you believe in moderate realism, but why is Plato bad?
Can anyone who believes in this idea of perpetual virginity give a single coherent reason why marital sex would somehow be defiling for Mary? If she was a human woman, then having sex in marriage and producing numerous offspring is a part of her telos, it seems to me (admittedly as a non-Christian) that if anything not doing that when married would be the stain on her honor.
That is not our position, not our approach.
Then for what reason do your churches profess that Mary never had sex with, let alone children with, her husband? And why is this meant to somehow be a jewel in her crown, so to speak? Or have I heard wrong from other Orthodox, and your position is that she actually did?
If Mary never had sex with her husband, she and him behaved sinfully.
But, since Christ had brothers, obviously she did not behave sinfully.
Also the Bible refers to Joseph “knowing” Mary, where in context this obviously means knowing her carnally.
Exactly. Why call a married woman Aeiparthenos, as though this was some sort of badge of honor for her, rather than an imputation of a disgraceful failure to perform her duties?
Wasn’t Plato the 1st man to posit a state without private property…
I meant Platonic realism as opposed to Aristotelian moderate realism.
“Orthodox” Realism owes a whole lot more to Jews and Gnostics than to Plato. Not that Plato is much better, but on this blog let us not argue Aristotle versus Plato, because Orthodoxy has been industriously purging itself of “Pagan additions”, but the Logos versus Gnosticism.
Anglican Churches are museums or real estate holdings, not Churches. It is dead. It has been dead for a long time.
Yes, I am not the last Anglican, it is a joke, similar to what Tucker says about Episcopalianism. But no one who believes in God, let alone Christ, is allowed to enter the Anglican or Episcopalian priesthood, and should he subsequently develop a belief in God, well, the career outcome is similar to a Harvard professor becoming based. There are believers here and there, but we are all laity, but we have no priests, zero.
Because believers still exist at the grassroots, it could be resurrected. But tanks or black helicopters would be needed to resurrect it.
Yes it is, and that is a good example of doctrine quietly somehow becoming official doctrine through the backdoor. But it does not look all that Platonic to me. Looks like Judaization to me, similar to the Puritans purging Christianity of “pagan additions” and similar to “Judeo Christianity”.
The problem with the unofficially official Orthodox conception of reality is that the doctrine of the Logos directly implied that material reality, cause and effect, the laws of physics, the way nature is natural, is a direct manifestation of the will of God. The Orthodox conception of reality is rather too friendly to Gnosticism (“reality bad, and I am a better Christian than you because I think it is bad and have absolutely no inclination to do anything about it. God wills it, so I don’t have to do anything and should not do anything”), and gnosticism within Christianity has always been a huge problem. Just as the perpetual virginity of Mary was a manifestation of the influence of the Lavender Mafia, Judaization tends to be suspiciously close to gnosticism.
And talking about pagan additions, how is the sacrament of marriage going in Orthodoxy? The first step was reidentifying the sacrament as “I do” rather than “with this ring I thee wed”, the latter directly echoing highest status Roman marriage of the old Roman Republican elite. Next step, which the Puritans swiftly took, was explicitly desacralizing marriage (desecrating it) and replacing it with secular contractual marriage. Which contract rapidly became less and less patriarchal.
Directly and explicitly dumping sacral marriage meeting enormous resistance from the laity, most Churches have maintained the outward form, but have gone right ahead on dumping the substance for secular contractual marriage with a priest around to emasculate the bridegroom and maintain the superficial appearance of of continuity withy sacral marriage.
Like the Logos, Sacral marriage is 100% a pagan addition, Jewish marriage at the time of Jesus being a secular bill of sale, and Puritan marriage a secular contract. Sacred marriage was a Roman Republican tradition inherited from the Aryan conquest, Aryan all the way back.
Where is Orthodoxy along that path? Clearly it has one foot on that path, and Constantinople is near the final destination. How is the Moscow Patriarchate going?
What is the sacrament of marriage according to Orthodoxy, who says so, and how recently were they saying it? I bet you find a strange absence of old authorities on the topic. New doctrine quietly appears, and old doctrine quietly goes down the memory hole, except for a word or phrase here and there which is used as a peg on which to hang new and radically different doctrine that makes no sense in the original context.
Obviously Russian Orthodoxy is the last major Christian denomination with a credibly Christian priesthood, but the rot is still deep.
And just as I posted this, the following popped up on my screen: The recently created PostChristian Ukrainian fake Orthodox Church, of course. Russian Orthodoxy is nowhere near as bad. But if less infested by groomers, still infested with female emancipation. (And child emancipation which is the first step towards groomers in charge.)
Most of Orthodoxy has gone completely down the toilet. Russian Orthodoxy has not, but it is hardly in pristine condition.
The point of asking about the lavender mafia is to defend the integrity of the Orthodox monastic system. It is not surprising that the schismatic post-Christian OCU supports sodomy, but as it was invented in 2014, it has no monasteries other than the ones confiscated by Zelensky and his government. Most prospective monks are given a recommendation from their priests before becoming novices, who are more often then not married.
As a disclaimer regarding the term “Platonic Realism,” we have a position similar to that of Plato; the dogmatic term is “Essence-Energies distinction,” which stems from St. Maximos the Confessor and later St. Gregory Palamas, but since no one would understand me, since most do not know it, I use the next best thing…
It is Canon Law, it is in The Rudder (as ancient a primary source as you can get); if you want you can look it up on the Orthodox Wiki…
Regarding the order of spirituality, we do not do the “Natural Law” approach, rather hold the view that that the world is beautiful but fallen, ergo we must reunite with God through the ascetic practices, prayer, fasting, obedience, confession, et cetera. Monastics are those called to the highest level of ascetic practice.
Gnosticism says that the fallen world is good ergo we do not need to be virtuous; as such, the Progressive system can be said to be a reverse natural law approach to spirituality—since animals practice sodomy so can we, since animals practice the lek so can we—which is the worldview of official Prog academic anthropology.
If assuming material reality, [universal] cause and effect, the laws of physics, the way nature is natural, why is it in fact necessary to practice “reactionary” things like traditional marriage, when we could pursue depopulation and “harmony with nature,” as “decadence” is just as natural as order in the natural world? Of course one would need to invoke God, but God would have to come first before “Natural Law,” thus does it not defeat the purpose of having Natural Law in the first place?
I took a look at the Orthodox Wiki, and found it strangely uninformative, vague and evasive, at least about the topics that I care about. If you cannot answer the question of the top of your head, Orthodoxy has a problem. I am strangely unable to find the answer anywhere. Perhaps you can. Perhaps I did not look hard enough, or know how to look. If you cannot find the answer either, then Orthodoxy has a very big problem and is well down the path that all the other mainstream major postChristian religions have walked to their destruction.
You presuppose the truth of gnosticism. That the natural world and all that is wicked and that is just how it is.
Generations of stoics, and generations of Christians profoundly influenced by Stoic philosophy, had no difficulty answering your question. And neither do I have any difficulty, but the mere fact that you asked it indicates a deeper problem – that we profoundly and radically disagree on what material reality, cause and effect, and all that is.
The short answer to your question is the martyr Saint Theodore the Varangian. He is a good exemplar of the moral significance all that.
Lots of people are in his shoes today, If one of them died fighting today, as he did, for much the same reasons and in much the same way as he did, as quite likely has already happened and been obfuscated by the usual lies, do you think the Russian Orthodox Church would declare that man a saint and a martyr. Would they even understand what he died for. Do you?
I could give a considerably longer answer, a very long answer, but it is a stupid question that presupposes something outrageous, and I would like to get you state your presuppositions more plainly, so that argument over it will be more productive. These philosophical arguments have a tendency to get lost in Motte and Bailey.
Material reality and all that is the battleground of good and evil, and you presuppositions seem to have the implication that Christians don’t really need to get involved in all that. So I would like to get you explain more plainly the premise of your question, which premise quite obviously I do not believe.
This is much the same argument as we had on the question of whether there was death in the world before Adam, aeons of death before Adam. You answer was that my hands and eyes do not count, and in asking such a question, you seem to presuppose that my hands and eyes do not count, that life does not count, that pain and joy does not count, that the ground beneath my feet does not count. That for Christians, earth is just a waiting room with nothing much to do except contemplate paradise.
Is there a particular topic or page you deem most important? Do you have sources I might use if I were to practice a bit of benevolent entryism and attempt to change the page?
My problem was that I could not seem to find anything important – that they seemed to me to be fleeing certain burning questions.
Repeating what I just said to Neofugue: When Orthodoxy follows the other major mainstream Churches by getting awfully nebulous and other worldly about the sacrament of marriage, by quietly throwing old doctrine in the ditch and quietly introducing new doctrine through the back door, it is failing in the telos of the Church, failing to struggle against evil.
Indeed all the burning questions. It is a strangely uncontroversial Wiki. Is there anything in there that anyone should care about? I suppose there must be somewhere. I did not look as hard as I should.
But searching for that stuff did not bring up anything immediately that bears on anything of great concern today. They are piously focused on the next world because addressing evil in this world is going to be unpopular and get you into trouble.
The speciality of birds is flight, which means they must forever struggle against gravity. The speciality of humans is cooperation, which means we must forever struggle against evil. Struggle in this world, which is the battleground, rather than piously contemplating the next. Glancing through the Orthodox Wiki, they seem to have piously checked out of that struggle. Conflict is sinful, did not Jesus say so, and if you say certain things, there is going to be conflict. They don’t want any more martyrs like Saint Theodore the Varangian.
As a follow up, wikis and such are sure to be profoundly influential as LLMs grow and mature, as they will be training data. Perhaps its wise to get ahead here, if possible? Are there other wikis or anything where public contribution could plausibly be accepted that you deem important– assuming its not completely captured at least, which one finds out quickly enough after an attempt or two.
Now that I think about it this whole enormous thread contains some fantastic steelmans and produced some great defenses of Jimian Christianity. It’ll probably be linked back to for years.
I won’t jump into why Platonism is retarded, but the argument seems to be trending in that direction if neofugue is going to invoke the essence-energies distinction because that is just Platonism; platonic forms exist in the spiritual world with God and the things that exist in the real world are corrupted emanations of it that hint at the “pure” beauty of the essence. In short Platonism is fundamentally an attempt to resolve the theseus’ ship paradox and does so at the expense of the material world. This paradox is also solved by teleology; Theseus’ ship is still the same ship if it has the same telos as the original ship, accomplishes the same ends with the same means.
My views are admittedly heterodox but the reason for Adam and Eve is that a man can choose to deny his own telos and a deer cannot. A deer cannot do anything but attempt to fulfill its telos- even when being eaten by a wolf it is fulfilling the telos of a “deer” (part of that word includes ‘food for a wolf’) even though its own personal end of maintaining its life have failed. That is the “knowledge of good and evil”; that we have free will, that we can know our teloi and those of other things, but also have the ability to reject them. The nature of sin, evil, death, all stem from this distinction.
My point in mentioning the Wiki was to point out that marriage is one of the seven sacraments (Holy Mysteries) in the Orthodox Church.
Regarding the details of marriage itself, I should have pointed out a better primary source document, St. John Chrysostom’s Homily 20 on Ephesians 5:22-24:
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/230120.htm
“But the word “as” [unto the Lord] is not necessarily and universally expressive of exact equality. He either means this, ‘as’ knowing that you are servants to the Lord; (which, by the way, is what he says elsewhere, that, even though they do it not for the husband’s sake, yet must they primarily for the Lord’s sake;) or else he means, when you obey your husband, do so as serving the Lord. For if he who resists these external authorities, those of governments, I mean, withstands the ordinance of God Romans 13:2, much more does she who submits not herself to her husband. Such was God’s will from the beginning.”
My question was not me asking you about my position on human anthropology rather Natural Law from the perspective of a Gnostic Progressive academic. When I was in college, my anthropology professor gave me the reverse-natural-law argument I gave you in the previous comment. It is me asking a question from the point-of-view of someone different from me.
Obviously I do not believe that the world is evil, rather I believe that the world is fallen, is filled with death and decay, and that one must rise above decay through discipline and resisting the passions. Regarding the woman question, without order women are given over to serial monogamy, and thus require patriarchy as a discipline. This discipline is what we are meant for, and it is how we return to God.
Man is fallen and given over to the passions (anger, lust, gluttony, envy, etc.) and thus he must repent and resist those passions in order to return to God (theosis). Conquering the passions is akin to Christ conquering death.
While of course my question is offensive and outrageous, it is important to address why Natural Law exists on the basis of Natural Law. I am asking you to defend Natural Law itself. If animals practice the lek mating system, why is it wrong on the basis of Natural Law for humans to do so as well?
My [short] response would be, “God has commanded marriage and condemned all manner of evil, that husbands love their wives and wives obey their husbands, and as such those who advocate wickedness on other grounds are evil, against God, and thus should be destroyed.” “Is thus ought” can be used to corroborate the wisdom of God, but God must come first in order to provide direction.
These philosophical differences are difficult to resolve because they originate at the metaphysical level. My starting point of knowledge is God himself, then sense data, as opposed to sense data, then God. The question is, can you tell the difference between my position and the Gnostic position, and on a more fundamental level, can you tell the difference between my starting point of knowledge and your starting point of knowledge?
Unresponsive.
The hot button question is “What is the sacrament of marriage”.
If it is “I do”, then marriage is contractual. If it is “with this ring I the wed” it is not.
Making the sacrament “I do” is the Church sneaking away from sacramental marriage. And getting awfully vague about the earthly substance of the sacrament is the Church sneaking away from sacramental marriage, amending the official consensus through the unofficial backdoor.
Because we are a different kind of animal. Not all animals practice the lek mating system. A duck or penguin that mates on the lek system has something terribly wrong with it.
And because, unlike peacocks we can see where it leads, just as unlike ducks we can see where eating too much leads.
As the speciality of birds is flight, the speciality of humans is cooperation. The lek mating system is failure of men and women to cooperate, resulting from failure of men to cooperate. What game theorists and the Dark Enlightenment call failure of cooperation is what Christians call evil. It is the nature of birds to struggle against gravity, and the nature of men to struggle against evil.
To struggle against evil in this world, rather than piously contemplate the next.
Christ told us to struggle for minds, and he is right. In his day Caesar’s methods had gone as far as they could go, (Roman law and order famously worked great) but today, Caesar’s methods are not being applied, and Christ’s methods are not being applied.
And when Orthodoxy follows the other major mainstream Churches by getting awfully nebulous and other worldly about the sacrament of marriage, by quietly throwing old doctrine in the ditch and quietly introducing new doctrine through the back door, it is failing in the telos of the Church, failing to struggle against evil.
And I asked you a question about the marty Saint Theodore the Varangian.
Well?
Would they?
Do you?
Saint Thomas the Varangian said: “That is no God, but wood”. I don’t see the Orthodox Wiki saying that “that is no medical diagnosis, but worship of the demoness Ishtar”. That would result in conflict, and possibly in lethal violence. And that would be terribly unchristian. Better, and considerably safer, to stick to contemplating the next world rather than addressing evil in this one. Can’t say things that are likely to result in Christians and demon worshippers killing each other. Christians are supposed to be nice, so we should be nice about demon worshippers sacrificing other people’s children🙃 Clearly Saint Thomas the Varangian was not being nice, and we should not encourage such lack of niceness today.
Of course, if I were to overfeed a duck to produce foie gras, the duck would have no ability to recognize what level of food would count as moral or immoral. My question is, on the basis of Natural Law alone, why is it wrong for a human to eat as he pleases? Sure, the man, like the duck, will suffer health problems, but if death is natural, why is gluttony any more or less “natural” or “teleological” than discipline?
If the answer is, “I will not jump into why this is stupid,” or “I could give a considerably long answer,” or “this is offensive,” then “positive” [as opposed to reverse] Natural Law is a first principle. Can you understand that this is not my position?
Regarding the Theseus’ Ship Paradox, I will to quote the following:
“It can be admitted that the universals are really immanent in their particulars, because to say something about a particular means a particular really has something. But at the same time, said something must also be really real, or else whatever you’re saying becomes empty noise. And if the essences of substances don’t need qualities, then qualities themselves don’t need these essences either, since these qualities themselves must also be real. Platonic realism thus remains superior to Aristotelian moderate realism.”
While my position is not in exact alignment with his position, I would say that the universals are the Logoi, which are exemplified in the Logos (Christ) as the unitary Universal. The world we live in is the product of God’s energies.
Duh!
Because a man, unlike a duck, does know it is bad for him. You answered your own question.
Universes where metaphorical or literal niggers stabbing you are possible happenstances, is itself epiphenomena of that universe being also of greater complexity than it otherwise may be; or perhaps better said, these amongst many other things would be necessary entailment of the possibility of such complexification.
It is easy to create a universe where such a thing is not possible; but such a creation would also be far less sublime, in terms of scope, scale, or potential. The evils perceived are, either a hubristic mistake on the perceiver’s part, or are ultimately contingent themselves.
Consider as well, that ‘you’, as a particular being, is itself not an insuperable nor indivisible metaphysical atom with respect to greater beings it is component of – up too and including Being itself.
From the perspective of my skin cells, growing and desiccating and turning into epidermis could be perhaps construed as an existential tragedy; but they are themselves temporal expressions of a greater phenomena that is this humanoid organism, from which they sprang, and may continue to spring, so long as it subsists. A particular being of rat may live and die, yet ‘rathood’ as a whole proliferates; proliferates precisely because of some living and some dying.
Such is the difficulty with such questions so often being a difficulty of perspective.
A man, too, is particle of greater shapes, as much as a brick is a particle of a building, and dust a particle of a brick, a building a particle of a city, a city a particle of a nation…
A foolish shape it is, to regard particles as ends in of themselves, than the shapes they may further compose.
So hence may particular beings pass into and out of and into existence, so long as that Structure wherewithal they become instantiated is adaptive to broader case of Being it subsides in; in other words, coherence with Nature or Nature’s God.
Such is this plane, an overlapping kaleidoscope of beingdoms, leviathans of fractal teleologies in ascending scales of transcendence, unfolding themselves in time, dragging their subsidiaries along for the ride, the instantiation of divine powers, disclosing the forms of that which prevails in existence.
Well said.
Enjoying food crosses the threshold into gluttony when it makes you fat and unhealthy. “Unhealthy” is a purely teleological statement that denotes your body and mind’s functionality at accomplishing tasks. We are meant to do higher things than enjoy food, and when enjoying food makes one unhealthy, the low telos of eating has frustrated the higher teloi implied by “unhealthy”. Thus the sin of gluttony.
Your quote is wordcel nonsense. There is no such thing as a “quality” in an objective sense. Words describe actions and potential. “Hardness” for example is not a thing. It is an abstraction that refers to interaction, to causes and effects and use, and even qualities which you think are more objective are the same way. The only prior I need is material and effective causation. Even “substance” only exists as far as it does things, as it exerts energy on the world. There is no “Platonic solid”. The physical makeup of the world is energy, electromagnetic fields, in dynamic tension. Nothing “is”. “Is” merely implies potential. Everything “does”.
But this debate, in which I need to clean the Aegean stables of garbage language and garbage concepts over and over and over again every time I bring teleology up, annoys me, and deriving natural law properly from my priors would take an entire book. As the example of the duck, it doesn’t matter whether something is “natural” or not. What matters is the hierarchy of teloi. That is the “law” part of “natural law”. Eating oneself to death is like burning down a house halfway through building it because you like fire. Forcing a duck to eat itself to death so that you can enjoy it is like cutting down an extra tree so you can put pretty moulding in the house.
That you ask this indicates you have no idea what Natural Law is, and buy into the Prog idea of “natural=that which exists” as opposed to the true idea of “natural=according to intended use case.”
To answer you then, a man eating as he pleases is contrary to Natural Law because eating is there to fulfill the purpose of sustenance, and the pleasure of eating is a goad towards that purpose. Overeating is an abuse of pleasure, because you divorce the pleasure from the good it is meant to signify by taking in calories well past the intended amount.
Ducks are not moral agents, so who cares what they do?
Telos.
The telos of the heart is to pump blood.
>My question was not me asking you about my position on human anthropology rather Natural Law from the perspective of a Gnostic Progressive academic. When I was in college, my anthropology professor gave me the reverse-natural-law argument I gave you in the previous comment. It is me asking a question from the point-of-view of someone different from me.
The question is not well formed. If it is characteristic of a being to throw itself off the first bridge it finds… then so much the worse for that being.
It is naturally entirely possible for that which is fallen to fail and be consigned to oblivion, as God intended.
The position of your college professor (and of his fellow travelers like ‘peace’) is that if it is *possible* for him to be a shitter, then it is *okay* for him to be a shitter. He (publicly) rejects (your) moral valence because he can’t accept the possibility of *devalidation* that naturally comes with judgement (which is ironically of course inherent in every motion he makes, including the very sounds he chooses to use); he, like others of like kind, personally identifies as a loser and with loserdom, *even if regardless of personal circumstances*, and cannot imagine a where it is also possible for what is risen to be winning. The thoughtform is not following any logic except that of his brainstem.
And the day you accepted him ejaculating this squirt of spiritual GRIDS inside the warm moist confines of your mental cornhole, it’s clearly stuck around plasmodifying ever since.
“Because we are a different kind of animal”
“Because a man, unlike a duck, does know it is bad for him”
[*Deleted for ducking the question off into philosphical fog. You can produce no end of fog.*]
I am asking you for a justification of “telos” itself
Marriage is [*theological fog deleted*]
Telos is justification. That is like Clinton asking for the meaning of “is”. The most solid atheist materialist knows that a heart that does not pump is a bad heart, and a bird that cannot fly is a sick bird. A broken wing is evil for the bird, and the bird does not need to believe in God to know it.
The bird knows that something is terribly wrong, and the child who has been sexually transitioned knows that something is terribly wrong
And a Church that flees evil in this world into a fog of other worldly theology is a bad Church, as a heart that does not pump blood is a bad heart. They could worship their ancestors, and it would be irrelevant to why they are a bad Church, for the human ecological niche is large scale cooperation, as the avian ecological niche is flight, so men must fight evil, fight evil in this world, here and now, as birds must fight gravity. A broken wing is evil for the bird, and a broken Church is evil for mankind. If they worshipped the spirits of their ancestors, and confronted evil, that would be a considerable improvement.
Maybe that is what marriage is in heaven, or something like that. Or the marriage of Christ and the Church. No idea what you are talking about except that you are not talking about men and women, and are taking your words from people who are terrified to talk about marriage, because it would mean confronting evil in this world and that would lead to trouble and Christians are supposed to peaceful, and if you start confronting evil you are not being nice and can get into big trouble, as, I am fond of noting, Saint Theodore the Varangian was not very nice and got into big trouble.
Whatever you are saying, and I don’t know what you are saying, it does not sound much like Peter talking about marriage or Christ talking about marriage. It does not sound like me talking to my wife about marriage. It sounds like a gay but celibate monk talking about marriage. I am not interested in what monks have to say about marriage. The bird with a broken wing wants to fly, and men and women want families, and the monk is not helping either one.
Whatever you are saying about marriage, I don’t know what you are saying, and it does not seem to relate in any clear way to anything anyone should care about. Or if it does relate, needs more explanation and justification of how and why it relates. I don’t want to go down that rabbit hole.
I asked some specific concrete questions, and instead of answering, you emitted a cloud of philosophical fog about the whichness of why and the whyness of which, like Clinton asking what the meaning of “is” is. I know what “is” is and I know the justification of telos, and if you don’t, it is because you want to hide in the fog, not because any explanation will ever satisfy you.
You don’t need to believe in God to conclude that a broken wing is evil for the bird, and a broken Church is evil for mankind. That is what telos means.
And then you emitted a cloud of theological fog. I did not ask about other worldly matters beyond mortal comprehension. I asked about the concrete things of this world, because I knew you would run away into the fog. You always do, which is why you are on moderation. Not because you are a shill, or because I have any doubt that you are a genuine Christian, or because I think you are less holy than I, but because when I criticize the Church, you evade the criticism and change the subject onto matters that do not matter and which nobody understands or cares about instead of responding to it and that is a waste of space.
I asked, and I ask again, and I am going to keep on asking. What are the words and deeds that are the sacrament of marriage, or symbolize it, or whatever? Is it “with this ring I thee wed”, or is it “I do”? Because it used to be “with this ring I thee wed”, and if it is now “I do”, the Church is sneaking contractual marriage in through the back door and dumping sacramental marriage in a ditch. And I am going to keep on deleting non answers.
I asked, and I ask again and I am going to keep on asking:
and I am going to keep on deleting your non answers.
I ask, you don’t answer, and then I ask again.
I sarcastically wrote: “Christians are supposed to be nice, so we should be nice about demon worshippers sacrificing other people’s children🙃 Clearly Saint Thomas the Varangian was not being nice, and we should not encourage such lack of niceness today.”
The problem of cooperation is that people manipulate the rules to make what they want to do (in this case, have sex with sexually ambiguous children deformed into weird monsters) proper and right according to the rules, and make what other people want to do (in this case have children capable of having grandchildren) against the rules.
The business of the Church in this world is to get consensus on the rules. And if you allow evil people to get away with making the rules, the result will be evil, because the people being destroyed are not going to buy it. Evil is, in the game theoretic language of the Dark Enlightenment, defection, so if you have rules that legitimize defection, in this case predation against other people’s children, you don’t have rules. An atheist materialist can understand this perfectly well. Why can you, Neofugue, not understand it? Why can the Church not say “groomer”?
There is a lot of outrage right now because Musk is allowing a video on X where detransitioners complain that they went to the school councillor with issues that had no obvious relationship to gender dysphoria, were diagnosed with gender dysphoria, told they needed a sex change or they would commit suicide, their parents were told they needed a sex change or they would commit suicide, were given a sex change while never being asked questions that would bear on the issue of gender dysphoria, and found that their new sex fit them painfully badly.
It is obvious that sex transition is individual groomers pursuing sex with children, and it is also obviously a religious movement. The groomers are able to act cohesively because they share a faith or cult. And that cult is readily recognizable as the old familiar worship of the Demoness Ishtar, which was big at about the time of Abraham, while Moloch was big about the time of Judges and Kings.
Moloch was big until Rome put that cult to the sword, and but long before that, Ishtar ran into the sword of Gilgamesh. We need a Church that asks where is Rome and Gilgamesh?
My final comment (as of the time of writing) is in moderation.
Still working on a reply. Also I deleted most of your post as an enormous pile of philosophical and theological fog which I do not care about and I don’t think anyone should care about. I unkindly summarized the deleted material as Clinton asking what the meaning of “is” is. But I am attempting to address the philosophical and theological points that I abruptly cut short.
The reply is necessarily lengthy, and if I had not abruptly cut your comment short, would have required a library bookshelf full of books that no one would want to read.
Everytime I am halfway thinking of a response someone else has already typed it out, arguably better than I could have. But I’ll add my two cents anyways.
Why not act like a parasite, for that is what literal parasites do?
Because we are not parasites, and we are not animals that practie the lek system.
Who created Natural Laws? It was God. We know this very well. We see in those very natural laws the existence of God, and the existence of morality, as excellently explained by other commenters. Evil and Good can be explained through faith, but they are steelmanned by observance of natural law. Knowing the ‘why’ of why something is Good beyond ‘God says so’ greatly increases the chances of a person sticking to that thing. For instance, the ‘why’ of the sacrament of marriage.
Which is not to say there isn’t more between heaven and earth that is not caught in Natural Laws. But again, as has been pointed out, such matters are often beyond our understanding and/or unfalsifiable. As such, have a strong tendency to devolve into a bloated mess of nothingness. So we try to stick to that which is falsifiable, and really, we have no problems whatsoever finding plenty evidence for God, Good and Evil in that.
>he, like others of like kind, personally identifies as a loser and with loserdom, *even if regardless of personal circumstances*, and cannot imagine a where it is also possible for what is risen to be winning.
Yep, same goes for the christcuck “peace”. Life, power, and victory is the narrow path. The broad path is the infinite desert of unique failures that border the narrow path.
1. High church Protestants believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary because it was established in the ecumenical councils, as I mentioned previously. It is ironic that Jim hates on low-church people when he employs most of their talking points and argument styles.
2. Bishop Vasilije Kacavenda
3. Toll Houses, Divorce three times, allowance of contraception.
The error of low church people is no Bishop, no King. Meaning no cohesion and no capacity to defend against their enemies.
The error of high church people is that the Bishops come from Harvard and worship demons.
And the thing you are arguing with neofugue about was established by Bishops who predate Harvard by a thousand years.
Lavender Mafia is older than Harvard.
“The error of low church people is no Bishop, no King. Meaning no cohesion and no capacity to defend against their enemies.”
This is what killed the Puritans, who aimed to live a settled, high fertility, high cohesion family life but with no bishops and no king. The restoration monarchy destroyed them in the late 1600s and they never recovered. Anglo radicals were thereafter Quaker-derived, a network-state of entryists who reproduce memetically.
Moldbug thought it was all Puritans because it was Puritans who won the English Civil War. However, in the English Civil War they had artificial cohesion by coopting the monarchy’s institutions, notably the English Parliament and the English Militia. No such convenient cohesion points established by their enemies in New England.
2. I meant in the Church, not one guy who got kicked out the moment he was caught.
3. Toll Houses and Divorce are in Saint Basil, contraception is in fact not allowed, nice try.
>I meant in the Church, not one guy who got kicked out the moment he was caught.
K.
https://orthodoxyindialogue.com/2019/12/21/pastoring-lgbtq-individuals-in-the-orthodox-church-by-priest-aaron-warwick/
>contraception is in fact not allowed, nice try
Yes it is.
“The dominant view, represented by the Patriarchate of Constantinople, the Church of Moscow[3], the Orthodox Church in America[4], and by the bioethicists Engelhardt and Stanley S. Harakas, may be fairly described as the teaching that non-abortifacient contraception is acceptable if it is used with the blessing of one’s spiritual father, and if it is not used to avoid having children for purely selfish reasons”
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Birth_Control_and_Contraception#Contraception
Congrats on becoming a real Christian. Frankly, I would never have expected you of all people to get into it with Jim on this issue, but God truly does work wonders.
Have fun being placed on moderation and labeled unresponsive for believing in the sexual ethics of the Church Fathers. The blog is still pretty decent to lurk on if you ignore the heresy and coomerisms.
He is on moderation because I ask direct straightforward questions about the Orthodox Church’s actions in the material world, and he does not answer the questions. instead he replies with pages of foggy philosophy that disappears up its own tail and theologizing on matters beyond mortal comprehension. It has the form of a response, but not the substance.
I have yet to hear a priest, of any major denomination, say God created us man and female, and transexualization is a crime against nature and an offense against man. and God. Where are priests of any major denomination doing a Pat Robertson on this burning issue?
We have human sacrifice to Ishtar going on our schools. (See the detransitioner videos) Where is the Church?
On moderation because unresponsive. I don’t think we have discussed sexual ethics. He asked me for concrete evidence of gay scandals, and I did not answer – truth is I am unaware of gay scandals, but you just cannot get a gay scandal these days because consenting adults blah blah blah. So now I have answered. No scandals because if a priest does not turn a blind eye he gets in trouble. How about some answers from him on the sacrament of marriage, and the Churchs position on transexualization. It is theoretically against it, but will not say “groomer”.
The Catholic Church the whore in Purple and Scarlet is called out in revealations as an enemy of Christians and of God. Whatever real Christianity is Catholicism is not it because scripture plainly predicts your existence (before it existed) and names you as an enemy.
Nor can you do an Aslan meme and claim to predate scripture (as the Orthodox church does) as there was no ultramonatist papacy until the 11th century that is just plain historical fact.
This prophecy seems to relate to the Catholic Church successfully obtaining that which is Caesar’s
Which problem was remedied by the sack of Rome by Holy Roman Empire. But they still worship demons.
My interpretation of the book of Revelation is that a lot of prophecies have been fulfilled a very long time ago, one of them is being fulfilled right now, and a lot more will probably not be fulfilled for a very long time.
This position, I recently learned, is moderate preterism. I don’t agree with full preterism – seems to me they are text torturing the prophecies to fit almost as much as the evangelicals who expect the rapture any day now, but preterist Churches, moderate or immoderate, are generally good Churches who take Christianity seriously.
If you have all of history to choose from, and you are not trying to fit everything, you can get a fairly impressive fit.
“I have yet to hear a priest, of any major denomination, say God created us man and female, and transexualization is a crime against nature and an offense against man. and God. Where are priests of any major denomination doing a Pat Robertson on this burning issue?”
Took me all of 2 minutes to find this tweet of a bishop in Texas commending the bishop of Cleveland for denouncing the trans cult and forbidding rainbow flags, social transitions, etc. in the parishes and schools of his diocese.
https://twitter.com/Bishopoftyler/status/1703745549835420144?t=3PhFBbVYMWNySKdzblhvDw&s=19
So that’s 2 Roman Catholic bishops speaking out. Not going to bother checking other denominations, but I’d be surprised if there weren’t any similar measures taken by Orthos and maybe at least one old school Lutheran pastor or something giving a fiery speech on the issue.
Hey Cominator, didn’t you predict that the Fed wouldn’t raise rates more than 25bps? They’ve since raised by more than 500 bps. Isn’t your username based on your theory that James Comey is secretly our guy? What’s it like being that stupid? Do you have one of those state assigned guardians that helps you put your pants on one leg at a time and excessively compliments you so you don’t feel bad about yourself?
Where is the rest of it? That transsexuality is a sin against nature, man, and God?
Maybe it is there somewhere, but it is not in the link you provided.
Where does he mention what is happening in the schools? How come he cannot say “groomer”?
Kids are being sacrificed to Ishtar. Where does he say that is what is going on the schools is grooming and demon worship?
I will ask you the same question as I asked Neofuge. Saint Theodore the Varangian was declared a saint and a martyr. What Church would do the same today if someone got killed in a custody dispute resulting from the intended transexualization of his child?
Did not get an answer from Neofuge. Did not really expect one. Got what I expected: philosophy and theology that no one comprehends or cares about. Fog and squid ink. Scribblings about marriage from monks. I shall see if I get an answer from you.
So he rejects being forced to celebrate gay in his Church, while his parishioners are being forced to transexualize their children.
Is he able to say why being forced to celebrate gay is a bad thing? Is he able to say why gay is a bad thing? Is he able to say that the childless predators who steal other peoples children and transsexualize them are predators, perverts, and demon worshippers?
Yes Nikolai was very very wrong about the fed, the Fed is insane enough to think they can stop the dollar being devalued by impoverishing everyone in real terms (or maybe just evil)… it doesn’t work because the government eventually gets into more debt paying the interests on the debt at higher rates.
I have paid considerably for this mistake and I would have Powell and those around him suffer almost as much before they died as Fauci and co if it were up to me.
“Where is the rest of it?”
The bishop’s statements imply more or less everything you ask. By banning something in his schools and diocese, it necessarily implies that such acts are sinful and incompatible with Christian teachings.
And by saying teachers may not socially transition kids or refer to them with different names or allow them to play in sports teams of the opposite sex, etc. He implies that this is a problem amongst modern school teachers and that teachers in other schools or perhaps even his own schools have been caught doing so.
“Is he able to say why being forced to celebrate gay is a bad thing?”
Yes he says it very straightforwardly. Because it’s against Church teaching. “No person [under the Diocese’s jurisdiction] may publicly advocate or celebrate sexual orientation or identity in ways that are contrary to the Catholic Church’s teaching. . . .This includes, but is not limited to displaying symbols such as ‘LGBTQ pride’ rainbows or ‘LGBTQ pride’ flags or other symbols that can be construed as being opposed to Church teaching.”
“Saint Theodore the Varangian was declared a saint and a martyr. What Church would do the same today if someone got killed in a custody dispute resulting from the intended transexualization of his child?”
Never heard of this saint before. Looking him up hr reminds me of an Ortho St. Boniface. Not going to fedpost, but I’ll say that there was a 6’8″ Italian gigachad who tossed a Pagan idol into a river around the time of the Pachamama controversy. He was condemned by the Church but celebrated by my and all my tradcath mutuals. I think a similar fate would await the hypothetical man you describe.
No Church today would immediately celebrate such a man as a martyr. But even in straightforward cases of men being killed explicitly for holding the Faith, they are often not canonized until centuries after their death. I don’t see a modern Church canonizing such a man, but in 2 or 3 centuries, who knows? You believe your descendants will colonize the stars, I believe my descendants will have a reactionary Pope.
“imply”
Not seeing the word “grooming”, nor the slightest implication that those who issue these non Catholic teachings have evil intent.
Not seeing why it is incompatible with Catholic teachings: Not seeing “crime against nature and an offfense against God and man”
The groomers are saying that there are huge number of children who find themselves in the wrong bodies, and if we don’t mutilate their bodies they are going to commit suicide. Not seeing anything that casts doubt on these claims. Rather, being a good Catholic, you should just endure finding yourself in the wrong body, and put up with your children committing suicide.
Compare and contrast with what martyred Saint Theodore the Varangian had to say about human sacrifice.
This epidemic has two motivating forces:
1 Human sacrifice to the demon Ishtar
2. Gays seeking sex with children.
And he cannot say it.
Now let us suppose a father finds that one of his children is about to be desexed and prostituted in sacrifice to Ishtar. And let us suppose there is a custody dispute, and the court finds, as it of course would, in favor of whoever wants to sacrifice the child to Ishtar. Or let us suppose that child protective services seizes the child on the grounds that parents are neglecting vitally needed medical treatment and sells the child to a “married” gay couple. Or let us suppose the groomers decide they don’t need “parental” consent and sail right ahead.
And let us suppose that man picks up his gun, as Saint and martyr Theodore the Varangian picked up his sword, and does something about it. And let us suppose he gets killed as a result. Does this Bishop sound like he is going to declare that man a martyr to the faith?
Also I never said only 25 basis points I said they might go to 3% and only briefly) and they’ve gone over 5% and held it. The one to his credit who argued with me the fed was actually serious this time and didn’t care about it not working long term (or delusional) was Pooch (whatever his other failings) not you.
Holding it is not working. They are going to keep on raising, or else the US dollar is going to collapse. Or both. What I smell in the wind is that they will wind up raising a lot further as collapse looms closer.
Everything is insane now and I can’t predict insanity… has been since most of the population at least initially believed a bad flu was the black death because the people on tv told them so even though the evidence was NEVER there.
Raising will not work either because the government than has to rack up more debt because its paying out more in interest and collecting less in tax money as people get poorer and poorer even in purely monetary terms… but I cannot predict lunancy.
It will work for long enough for the bullet points at the next power point presentation, and that is all they care about.
It will work for their definition of working, so chances are that rates will just keep on going up. And up.
Holding it is not working because they have confused themselves as to the meaning of high rates. Used to be, in the old days, that rates would rise because the Fed sucked reserves out of the system (or required banks hold more of them) thereby forcing banks to compete with each other for depository cash (resulting in the “federal funds rate”). So the “interest rate” was the rate banks would be forced to pay each other. The Fed would also lend secured to banks and earn the interest.
Nowadays, “higher rates” just means the Fed is voluntarily handing over cash to banks that it prints out of thin air against the accounting fiction that is reserves (since the banking system is drenched in excess reserves it is a meaningless term). The “federal funds” market does not exist.
You can see this by reasoning to the extreme. Under the old way of doing things, if rates were brought up to 50 percent things would grind to a hald (this essentially being an unnatural government-imposed tax on any kind of activity or heart rate at all). If the Fed did the same thing the way it is doing it now, well then things would grind to a halt for a few months and then everyone would move along their merry way because they are collecting enormous dividends from their bank account printed out of thin air. You would get hyperinflation.
So stripping away from all their verbiage and superstitious mumbo jumbo, what they are doing is paying banks and other people a lot of money not to do stuff, rather than forcing banks and other people to charge each other a lot of money not to do stuff. Well that will not work.
@jim
>Linked to the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary is Mary being sinless and being the Ark of the Covenant.
Firstly the Typology doesn’t work. Mary isn’t the Throne of God in Heaven nor where Jesus worked as High Priest with his own blood. Since it the Tabernacle along with the Ark is a Copy of the Heavenly Pattern. A miniature Cosmos that represents Heaven and Earth.
This Mary as Ark of the Covenant doctrines therefore gives rise of Mary’s perpetual Virginity. For she cannot be touched like the Ark of the Covenant cannot be touched. This in addition to her proported Sinlessness which I think Roman Catholics believe in.
I objected to the sinlessness and Holiness of Mary in this regard given that John did say Jesus Tabernacled among us (John 1:14). Given that the functionality of the Tabernacle is to shield Israel from the naked Holiness of God via his Divine Glory on the Ark.
It shouldn’t be a problem for God’s incarnation to be in the womb of a sinful woman. Rather than necessitating the immaculate conception.
1. Don’t want to put words in your mouth but I’ll risk it. It seems like you’re calling perpetual virginity a holiness spiral because, Mary is betrothed/wed to Joseph and because the scriptures plainly talk about the brothers and sisters of Jesus. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to talk about the elevation of virginity as a spiral when St. Paul, from the beginning, describes it as superior to married life and this was so generally assumed that the Church spent the first few centuries fending off heretics who spiraled and insisted that sex itself was bad. Then there’s the earthly unmarried state of Christ (except, symbolically, to the Church.)
The Old Testament pre-Christian belief of the Hebrews had no spiritual emphasis on virginity. From the reactionary perspective, that’s because the law was in accordance with natural law and laser focused on facilitating reproduction. From the Christian perspective, the law and the chosen people existed to produce the Messiah.
So you have a people with no law for a virginal unmarried state and then you have the Mother of God. It makes sense that the woman chosen to bear God should be exceptionally holy. If virginity is superior to the sexual state, it follows that… She has to “marry” because symbolically very inappropriate to elevate unwed motherhood, so she’s attached to an old guy well past the sexual age who already has a bunch of children from his previous wife.
tl;dr I don’t see this doctrine as a spiral but a way to resolve various tensions in Christian theology. Christianity, after all, is a religion that revels in tensions and resolving contradictions.
Protestants (and I’m not saying this as a hit) resolve it by denying any spiritual value to virginity. That leads to the problem I described in an earlier post where they lose sight of the distinction between ordinary morality and asceticism and plunge into real holiness spirals.
If the nunnery becomes an option many women horrified at the idea of being forcibly married to a beta will take it leading to a woman shortage. The nunnery can’t be an option.
Scripture is full of contradictions, and Saint Paul deliberately contradicts himself all the time. In a holiness spiral, you grab one end of contradiction and run with it, and throw the rest of scripture into the ditch.
Paul commands married people to have sex with each other. Scripture commands married people to have sex with each other. If Mary remained virgin, she and Joseph sinned. In the language of the dark enlightenment, rather than the bible, sex is required for the marital bond and family formation.
Paul commands women to get married and have children. Paul tells his Bishops …
You are committing a holiness spiral right here in this comment, grabbing one phrase out of context, imputing the most extreme possible meaning to it, and using it to throw the rest of Scripture into the dumpster. To avoid and prevent legalism, the the New Testament has to use contradictions, and Christians have to embrace both ends of each contradiction. Part of the Protestant Revolution was rolling back several ancient holiness spirals that had become blatantly heretical, for example clerical celibacy, but the protestants soon went off in holiness spirals of their own.
The protestant revolutionaries did not get married just because they wanted someone to warm their beds. They called out clerical celibacy as the obvious heresy that it plainly is.
For Jesus to be born of a virgin who remained a virgin, he would have to be the child of a single mother, but obviously he had to share the human condition of ordinary good people in full. Not only pain and death, but also family and all that.
Well I don’t know where to plug into this long thread but have been meaning to ask…
I am not Christian but recall the following verse.
Well this is from the Parable of the Banquet, I think, and not about war or anything and therefore particularly illustrative. Still seems like Jesus is comfortable alluding to war as a normal thing that happens, invokes it for other didactic purposes without comment, and suggests it is only reasonable for one king to sue for peace for merely rational reasons (he is outnumbered), rather than anything high minded or moralistic.
“Peace”:
Just does not seem to add up. Seems instead like Jesus is counseling you not to wage war on the Rules Based Order if it doesn’t look very likely you can win, in fact if it looks rather likely they will make martyrs of the crusaders.
“Peace”, any answer to this?
Really seems like to me, an outsider to your faith, Jesus thought war provided it is rational was so normal and natural that it could be used as a totally obvious analogy for an unrelated point no one would think to second guess.
The whole “easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” was a similar experience. I grew up hearing this and when I finally got around to reading the primary source turns out Jesus was mocking a man who thought he lived a perfect life otherwise.
drenched and dripping in sarcasm
The servants of the enemy will not leave good men in peace, killing them all is a prerequisite to being left in peace.
Everyone who believes in multiple genders, equality in general, that central planning is a generally good idea, or that women should have state backing when giving shit tests in general needs to be killed.
[*deleted because the reason for the “vaccines cause autism” meme is simply that it has become glaringly obvious that childhood vaccines are the major cause of autism*]
I will reiterate that our position is that modern vaccines are evil for being [*deleted for saying “our”*]
Your rendition of our vaccine position is subtly off key. You may well, and probably do, believe what you say, and it is similar to what we say on the topic. But it differs in ways that render it less offensive to our enemies, and more consistent with their mental model of us as ignorant dumb superstitious cruel idiots, and themselves as smart expert materialist benevolent rationalists.
In fact they are the ignorant superstitious ones, it is just that they worship demons.
It is time, past time, for a post on vaccines. Which will contain bits that substantially agree with what you said, and whole lot that you are strangely unable to say.
The reason for using the flesh of murdered babies rather than tumor tissue cultures is that they were, originally, more human than the tumor tissue cultures. But the immortalization process makes the flesh suffer the same degeneration as tumor tissue, becoming over time less and less human, and now they have become indistinguishable from tumor tissue cultures. So it is time, long past time, to refresh these ancient tissue cultures from new fully human stem cells. And these days the fastest, easiest, and most convenient way to get stem cells is from a live adult consenting donor. So if the tissue cultures were refreshed, the ethical problem of producing vaccines from the flesh of murdered babies would go away. Why have they not been refreshed? It is long, long, long past time to refresh them. I think they are the ones with religious objections. They want vaccine manufacture to remain a holy sacrifice to Moloch.
The most suspicious link about vaccines and autism is [*official lies deleted*]
Supposedly you are against vaccines on the ground that they (quite unnecessarily) employ the flesh of murdered children, and you are give us this transparent enemy psyop?
RFK Junior does a good job on the link between vaccines and autism. Give us his stuff.
[*deleted*]
The rate of autism suddenly went from one in ten thousand to one in forty, with a whole lot of evidence suggesting, but arguably not proving, that change in the childhood vaccination schedule did it. Timing of the epidemic, a reasonable proposed mechanism whereby the jabs caused it, epidemiology (The Amish refused the childhood vaccination schedule, no epidemic among Amish)
The reaction was not investigation, but censorship. The censorship and the lack of investigation are the most powerful evidence. They obviously do not want to know what is causing the epidemic, therefore they do know.
If big pharma believed that the epidemic was not caused by vaccination, they would have done a blinded study in which some kids got the vax schedule, and some kids got the fake vax schedule in order to obtain the evidence. That this study was never done shows that they know what it would reveal.
That they are not trying to find out what is causing the epidemic shows that they know what is causing the epidemic.
Censorship of all the old data sets? Or clown shows like Wakefield? What does “investigation” even mean if there is already clinical data going back generations?
I can understand how smoking might slip through the cracks, as it’s harder to track who is a smoker and who is not, but with vaccines it should be trivial.
The relevant data is strangely unavailable.
I was under the impression that increasing rates of autism were being caused by:
– mutational load increasing over time, itself due to less strict selection for good genes and less downward mobility on the part of elites
– women having children at later ages
– autism being partially heritable, amplifying the effect of the previous two
not vaccines. Is there any data about subpopulations that avoid vaccines and have lower levels of autism than the base rate? That would be pretty convincing that it’s the vaccines.
Autism from vaccines is blamed on aluminum interfering at a specific development time. I believe the Japanese take their vaccines later, while having the same other negative social situations, so you can use them as a test.
Autism from vaccines is blamed on an alarmingly large number of alarmingly plausible candidates. There are three different very plausible mechanisms, all of which have been subject to a strange lack of investigation. The situation is:
There are several plausible mechanisms by which it is likely that the change vaccine schedule would cause this, and other problems. The vaccine schedule was radically changed in ways that were on their face dangerous, without any attempt to investigate whether it might be dangerous. An epidemic of autism ensued among those jabbed, and several other epidemics, which did not affect populations that did not get jabbed, exhibit A being the Amish.
The curious lack of investigation continues to this day.
We don’t have solid proof that autism is caused by vaccination. We have strong reasons for suspicion, and we do have solid proof of a massive coverup
[*deleted*]
Unresponsive. I made the point that they don’t want to know, and they don’t want us to know. The relevant data is not censored, not lied about, but mysteriously unavailable and I made this point three times in three different ways. The conversation about vaccines is becoming tediously repetitious.
You are arguing that if the vaccines are causing it, it would be easy to prove. It would be, if we were allowed to see the data. Equally, it would be easy to prove the vaccines are not causing it. But they don’t want to look, and they will not allow us to look. This is the strongest evidence that vaccines are the cause of the autism epidemic.
Worse — someone has looked and does not like what he found. (Probably). Since it would be easy to show a noneffect, they would have shown it by now. Actually I’m a little surprised they don’t just fake data to that effect…
I suspect the effect is cumulative related to amount of aluminum. Open question is whether the risk is binary and random autism or related and discrete illness, or if there’s also a separate continuous degredation of IQ. Though the latter might be somewhat confounded by decline in childhood exposure to lead that was contemporaneous with an expanded vaccine schedule…
Jim do you have a more specific recommendations on childhood vaccinations, regarding both conditions worth immunizing against as well as schedule / number of doses? It is hard to find a good answer. A lot of antivaccine books are written by woo woo types and women (not necessarily to discredit the quality of the work, but just an interesting observation on the movement) so it is hard to get a good answer.
In addition to intrinsic efficacy and merit I’m also a little worried about manufacturing quality since there is a general decline in standards as well as little incentive to improve given competition is forbidden and all liability indemnified.
Upon looking into this matter, even the ones good in theory are likely to be dangerous because of the collapse in standards and the absence of any testing for effectiveness and consequences.
Even a technology that actually works is going to stop working when no one is allowed to check whether it works. Theoretically they still do double blind tests and all that, but upon looking into the tests, they are tests designed to pass the vaccine, not tests designed to check for all the things likely to go terribly wrong. With the double blind tests that I examined, they would still pass with flying colors even if everyone vaccinated was reduced to a gibbering idiot, and subsequently got cancer and died while chronically ill with the disease they had been vaccinated against.
In the Covid tests, they checked for severity of the disease subsequent to vaccination, not for any other health outcomes, and not for frequency or duration of the disease. They checked for what the vaccine is already known to do right, while ignoring everything it is known to do wrong. All the vaccine tests are similarly smelly. If something is known or suspected to fail – as for example the Covid jab leads to repeated reinfections that linger and linger, that is just ruled out of scope. Anything out of scope is probably very bad, and the scope just keeps getting smaller and smaller.
When they run a test, they are allowed to retroactively decide what they were trying to measure, and anything bad goes into the trash bin.
Indeed but some childhood diseases really do seem quite bad…
I have a while yet to decide.
The Japanese manufactured BCG vaccine seems like a nobrainer to be honest (might even have other unintended positive effects). Go figure it is not on the schedule.
One question is whether vaccines are inherently dangerous or if serious disabilities are the result of poor manufacturing. For COVID answer seems to be obviously both.
Getting a whole lot of shots in rapid succession is inherently dangerous. Your immune system is overwhelmed and goes mad.
Mostly it is that you can get away with poor manufacturing. And in the current environment, if you can get away with poor manufacturing, it is going to be poor.
Sure, but how common are theses diseases?
Are you aware of any cases in your vicinity within the last decade or so? If no, the risk of these childhood diseases is rather low.
Then look at what likely happens if your child is so unlucky to get, e.g. polio. Usually nothing much; 99% make a complete recovery.
[…] The dissolution of the Monasteries 2.0 […]
[*deleted for presupposing that elections matter*]
You are posting to an audience that believes elections are a charade, and that power lies elsewhere than the presidency and the house, that democracy was always a bad idea and the pretence of democracy is now damaging and destructive. If your comment does not address your audience, perhaps to argue that elections are not entirely a charade and that the president and the house is not entirely powerless, if your comment does not address an audience that disagrees with you, not allowed.
Tangentially related, Elon Musk states the A.I. his team is developing is “based”.
https://nitter.net/elonmusk/status/1720660977786433810#m
That was Musk’s plan with TruthGPT. He is gambling that the damage protective stupidity does to other models is enough his is better; a safe bet. Watching r/chatgpt, there have been recurring complaints about quality dropping with recently it hitting an abyss (looks like OpenAI switching back to 3.5 to save costs while saying it is 4).
It’s going to be interesting watching them attack this effort, well, for answering questions more accurately and succinctly than its competition. Those won’t be the words that they use, though.
Affirmative action for crippled AI’s? Where the heck is this gonna go?
It was always obvious to me that that the cryptocurrency exchange FTX was a nest of scammers scamming scammers and conmen conning conmen, and that Sam Bankman Fried was merely crook in chief, and when thieves fell out, he took the fall, with all the other thieves blaming his thieving.
Grok implies what was obvious to me, while ChatGPT remains robotically oblivious. Brain damage from being woke.
I feel as if this case is a bit of an iceberg. Sammy boy was looking to be a new GS in grooming. Who stopped that process, and why?
Who’s “GS”, secret agent man?
Wondering too.
Great Satan? Government stooge?
George Soros
Correct. I like to make it hard for bots to consistently flag discussion topics whenever possible.
Lmao….“Wokeness and Jahadis not allowed”. I wonder if Trump can actually convert the Jewish billionaires who hated him to his side, as they are withdrawing all funding to Ivies, by fully supporting Israel’s ground war.
Sure the retard fringe wannabe nazis like Anglin and Fuentes would hate him for it, but politically that’s a wise trade to make. Billionaires have the means and connections to stop the fraud with a few phone calls while the retards and podcasters do not.
No. Trump is a billionaire and he couldn’t stop the fraud.
Maybe some billionaires have the means to do so, but if so they are billionaires because the have such means. Power makes people rich. Riches don’t make people powerful.
Connections and and being networked in to other billionaires make the billionaire elite powerful. It’s the same people who sit on all the boards and donate to all the politicians. There is no single point of failure. Trump was a billionaire on an island last election and thus had no network and no connections that mattered to help him in a time of need, or at least not enough of them.
The Cathedral loves its frozen conflicts, and has been funding both sides in the current war in the Holy Land, which it wants to refreeze. But the conflict revealed fault lines in the Cathedral – that Harvard is, as always, lefter than Washington, with Washington following along behind to a place where it does not want to go.
Trump is saying “You don’t want to go there, you have to check the state religion”. Which Henry the eighth, a warrior with an army in his pocket, was unable to do. Could not restrain it, had to replace it. Confiscating the endowments, however, is a good start on what is needed.
Agreed, but not only Washington but Wall Street as well.
The Jewish Manhattan Financial billionaire elite, who hold considerable power and influence, are interestingly fracturing with their Ivey alma maters. Can Trump capitalize on this fracture?
Leftmost always wins. Trees grow till they fall over.
The Jews are now worried that their brown pets consider them white, while whites do not consider them white. They find that the weapon they created to destroy white people is turning on them. That is the nature of leftism. The revolution always devours its children.
We have now reached the point where leftism is going lefter so fast, and turning violent so fast, that leftists in power are starting to get nervous. Frankenstein’s monster is turning on its master. They want a Thermidor.
The radical fringe (which always becomes the mainstream very quickly) passionately wants Israel destroyed. They eradicated whites in Rhodesia, are eradicating them in South Africa. Next step, eradicate “whites” in the Middle East. It is a logical progression. When they went after whites in Rhodesia, Israel was always going to be next up. Surprising it took this long. But the ethnocentrism of the Jews blinded them to where this was going. It is a holiness spiral that started with lawfare against the East India Company. It has been heading here since 1810
Whites in America up next. The holiness spiral gets ever holier, and Washington is starting to sweat.
Imo, even a Thermidor would probably be enough to shatter leftism as it currently exists. As soon as there’s a even mild penalty for being too far left, let alone a guillotining of Robespierre moment, the vast majority of the left will dissolve away into nothing overnight. See again my favorite modern example, just south of the border in El Salvador. Is there any meaningful opposition to Bukele left there? How many universities has he had to bulldoze?
There’s an inside story to the rise of Bukele and I wish I had a clue what it was.
My first guess is of a preTrumpish establishment that was so fat, so dumb and so happy that anyone succeeding against them was utterly inconceivable. But there’s surely more to it.
Just in a vacuum, if you heard of a shithole country that got an unusual new leader who ran on punishing crime down to Victorian era levels, pegging the nation’s currency to bitcoin, and attracting foreign human capital to make the nation a haven for technology advancement, to whose ideas, or even specific conspiracy, would you attribute that?
The person I’m thinking of also wrote a lot about the need for a visible working alternative abroad as a schelling point around which an insane and corrupt regime at home can be replaced peacefully.
Who?
I don’t follow the news.
I believe he is referring to El Salvador. The country has made Bitcoin legal tender, and is cracking down on crime to a chorus of “human rights” complaints.
Obviously he is referring to El Salvador. He, and I, suspected a deep state sponsor that ran cover for Nayib Bukele, to prevent the deep state from fixing the El Salvadorean elections, and he seems to be referencing a particular deep stater as the possible protector. I was asking whom this protector might be.
Jim, the person Aidan is referring to is you.
Sorry, I just superficially read the last couple of posts in the thread and didn’t realize you guys were self referentially meta-debating the issue. Normally I just skim this blog for my favorite posters and ignore the rest, and didn’t get the context.
@Aidan
“…the need for a visible working alternative abroad as a schelling point around which an insane and corrupt regime at home can be replaced peacefully.”
Great point.
“Why can’t we do what El Salvador did?”
I am talking about Moldbug’s ideas being adopted by people with the power to get people elected in third world countries- not Jim, since Bukele does not talk or to my knowledge do anything regarding religion or sexual mores. In MM’s view, a USSR needs there to be a USA to collapse. I am not bullish on our deep state adopting the El Salvador model, but now El Salvador is there, and maybe things will work out with it if the color revolution apparatus doesn’t target it.
Religion is more a hard coup complete problem. And you need to leave a smoking crater of the progressive religion 1st which means millions must die 1st (yes I’ll get the usual arguments here but they are wrong progressivism is too much a live faith and its adherents cannot live and we should not be too eager to pardon active participants as greengrocers).
Henry the eighth (who was not facing a left singularity or holiness spiral) did not need large numbers of executions,
Charles the second, who faced a dead holiness spiral, used humor and a gentle hand. His modus operandi was to present them as ridiculous and hypocritical.
He had a small problem with one true believer who was trying to reignite the holiness spiral, and burned her at the stake, but aside from that it all went very smoothly.
With a live enemy faith, might be more difficult. Pinochet needed some helicopter tours. In the end, he failed, but that was because his opponents had massive outside support. The measures he took would have sufficed, except for the operations of the ngos, which he was reluctant to crack down upon.
In today’s world, it is now possible to crack down on the ngos. Used to be that sovereigns that attempted to crack down on the ngos were apt to get murdered and their cities bombed, but today they seem to be getting away with it. After Libya, Harvard and Washington decided to back off.
Henry VIII for an English monarch was notoriously bloody in the latter half of his reign with an estimated 50000 executions following the Pilgramage of Grace and for people who refused to sign the Act of Succession (these are for political offenses). I don’t like the Catholic Church but I’m not going to pretend Henry VIII made England (especially the North) go Protestant without shedding a lot of blood many of them simple country people who thought they were rightfully defending their monasteries and such for God.
The strange thing about Stuart executions was they seemed to hate what was left of the Covenanters (who had nominally supported them) far more than anyone else. There were very few executions in England (there were a few hundred death sentences but in England almost all of them were commutted to minor sentences by Charles) but there were a few hundred to maybe a couple thousand executions actually carried out in Scotland. I agree the Covenanters were retarded but its strange Charles hated them so much more than the actual rebellious independent Puritans. Perhaps it came down to some degree of admiration for the military invincibilty of Cromwell and his sect…
The Pilgrimage of Grace was a revolutionary uprising, in which the role of religion mattered, being in substantial part resistance to the dissolution of the monasteries. It led to the execution of two hundred or so people, which is kind of small for suppressing armed revolution, and a fair way short of what you would like to see.
Interestingly enough, he’s a Palestinian Christian. I’ve seen a few examples where he talks and responds like a Christian, not a christcuck, as well. You can find relevant examples on his twitter by testing some keyword searches if you’re inclined.
Now he doesn’t talk about Throne and Altar and the great misbehavior of women that percieve themselves unowned, but hey he cleaned up the streets and is having his country recover from the trauma of CIA demonic socialism. One step at a time.
Way more executions than that but yes it was revolutionary despite what its leaders claimed. In demanding the parliament be able to meet “freely” in the North the Parliament likely would have deposed Henry as king (lots of precedent for parliament doing that to defeated kings since Richard II) in favor of some Plantagent claimant.
One possible reason for brutal treatment of the Covenanters is that they acted like a foreign power. The Scots expelled Charles I militaryily from Scotland even before the civil wars, for attempting an undeniably legal act of policy. During the civil wars, the Covenanters kept changing sides and pushing the English (either side) to concede to their own positions, which is the behavior of a foreign power, rather than a citizen or subject, even a rebellious subject.
Clearly from the remove of 400 years, the English Independents were a bigger problem. But how many governments act on a timescale of centuries?
IDK CHarles II seemed to hate them more than anyone by many orders of magnitude and I’m not quite sure why.
From the remove of 400 years the Indeps ARE NOT the greatest problem (even if they were the toughest group militarily) the Indeps went to Plymouth and Cape Cod the most right wing and libertarianish regions of Massachussetts even today. The control everyone puritans who went to Mass Bay/Boston were the biggest problem.
Charles II and James II allied with Quakers to destroy the Puritans.
As I understand it “Independent” is just a catch-all term for dissenters who did not want a church structure (episcopalian or presbyterian) and does not signify a specific theological doctrine.
Just get government out of education altogether, starting with defunding the universities, then proceeding down to high school and elementary. No need to set up an official State Educational Monastery. We have all sorts of private online educational services already. If government gets its thumb off the scale altogether, these alternatives will be more competitive.
The problem is not public vs private education but the nature of priestly education of university/schooling system itself creating a too large priesthood that is constantly looking to spiral on the current holiness for status.
So very high entry barriers to priestly education and jobs and make apprenticeship rather than a degree as the norm for every other occupation and encourage sons to take up ancestral occupation rather than elite “education”.
In Hindu terms Varnashrama.
Rhetoric about division in what is naturally convergent is cover for destroying the old convergence and replacing it with a new convergence that denies its convergence.
You are proposing disestablishment of the state religion.
Does not work. You always get a state religion.
When Caesar faces a hostile state religion, as Constantine did, as Henry the eighth did, as Trump did, his correct strategy is to empower an alternative state religion, which is likely to require forcibly dismantling the existing state religion, forcibly erasing its institutions, and building new and different institutions.
If you are thinking of something like ‘replace all teachers with LLMs’ we’d still have the state censor checking LLM’s to make sure they promote social harmony.
All teacher’s are going to be replaced by LLMs. Teachers are technologically obsolete. The question is whether they will be based, meaning solidly connected to reality, or lobotomized to unfailingly preach the Cathedral’s unreality, and ignore everything inconsistent with it.
Stuff involving physical things is no longer taught in schools, which are inherently ill suited to the task. What is required for that is a system of apprenticeship, and LLMs are fairly useless for that also, though YouTube how-to videos are doing quite a good job, and perhaps something like LLMs will start using deep fake technology to give you personalized how-to videos.
The childcare function of schools is something they do terribly badly. LLMs cannot do that, but outsourced childcare needs to be something along the lines of summer camp, with the educational pretensions largely abandoned.