I wish we could have separation of information and state, but that is impractical, short of the abolition of the state altogether, short of anarchy or anarcho capitalism. Official truth is too useful to the state, and the state too useful for ideologies seeking to be official. This is apt to result in a positive feedback loop, power manufacturing belief, and belief manufacturing power, each ever more extreme.
After they executed the King in the English civil war, they theoretically disestablished the official church, but it was of course immediately obvious that they instituted an officially unofficial church that was vastly more intrusive and oppressive. When, with the restoration, officially official theocracy was reintroduced, people celebrated it with pagan festivals such as Maypole dancing, recognizing the introduction of official theocracy as ending the oppressive theocracy of ostensible lack of theocracy.
And today, the successors of those that executed the king have officially unofficial theocracy. To go to the best universities, to run for political office, to be employed in the government service, you have to submit essays and evidence of your commitment to one thousand and one points of progressive doctrine, much as in restoration England, you had to swear allegiance to the thirty nine articles and the second book of homilies.
Today’s Anglosphere Christianity has been wholly absorbed into progressivism. It supports egalitarianism, matriarchy, fatherlessness, and race replacement, so as a commenter asks:
should we try to fix Christianity or should we finish it off and move on without it?
Societies need myths, but we are not a society, we are just a bunch of social critics. It’s best for us to discard all myths and push forward with a commitment to absolute scientific truth. Perhaps a new mythology will arise once we’ve destroyed the Cathedral or accomplished something else that is worthy of being immortalized in legend.
A monogamous patriarchal society remembers its fathers, and slowly accretes tall tales and true connecting it to ancient blood and soil. We have lost that, and I think hopes to quickly synthesize a substitute are unlikely to succeed.
So here is what I propose for a sane official belief system, one less likely to be very repressive, or to go into positive feedback loops.
-
The incarnation of evil, the defining example of collective evil
Instead of Nazism-discrimination being the incarnation of evil communism-covetousness should be the incarnation of evil.
Communism and Nazism should get coverage in proportion to the number of people murdered, which means Nazism should get very little coverage – the average student will entirely forget that Nazism was ever mentioned at all.
To the extent that Nazism is mentioned at all, we should emphasize their complaint that the Jews were disproportionately successful and influential, so that it fits into the pattern covetousness-murder rather than discrimination-murder
The various communist democides should be described in the context of wanting to have what is someone else’s (envy and covetousness).
The propensity of Marxist minions to loyally go to their own deaths should be remembered, so that every time someone sees a depiction of an evil overlord, when the evil overlord capriciously executes one of his minions for some frivolous reason, usually with horrible torture, the audience should think “based on communist minions and communist evil overlordsâ€, for example Aristide personally gouging out the eyes of one of his minions.
All the various envy based ideologies, such as feminism or anti racism should be tarred as neomarxist, much as today anyone who disagrees with any tenet of envy based ideologies is a fascist or a neonazi. Feminism shall be dismissed as penis envy, and illustrated by various efforts to give women equal, but unearned, honors in fields where males have a natural advantage. The Spartans gave a woman who died in childbirth the honor of a fallen warrior, but they did not pretend to put them in the front lines.
We cannot resume scientific progress until every child is taught to laugh at Marie Curie getting two Nobel prizes for being on a team that made a discovery that would have been unlikely to get one Nobel had the team been all male, nor can we resume the conquest of space till every child is taught to laugh cruelly at Amelia Earhart.
Charles Lindbergh flew solo across the Atlantic and became famous for so doing, so feminists proceeded to manufacture an equivalent female poster girl. Amelia Earhart received a ticker tape parade and a presidential reception for flying across the atlantic, in pretended imitation of Charles Lindbergh but she did not fly, rather she was flown. As a passenger. By a man.
And when she subsequently attempted to herself fly long distance, to actually do the thing she had already become a famous poster girl for supposedly doing, promptly crashed her plane and killed herself. Everyone should laugh at her death as deserving the Darwin award.
When they gave two Noble prizes to Marie Curie for being female, that did not hurt anyone except more deserving potential Noble prize winners. But handing out phony Nobles on the basis of sex, race, and nationality necessitated handing out phony degrees on the basis of race and sex, and handing out phony degrees on the basis of race and sex necessarily led to a crisis where these phony degrees were being ignored by employers, so employers necessarily had to be forced to give out well paid jobs on the basis of race and sex. But being given well paid jobs on the basis of race and sex failed to result in recipients living a middle class lifestyle, so lenders had to be forced to give out a middle class lifestyle on the basis of race and sex. Which led to our present financial crisis.
It all began with Marie Curie, and to undo it, we must start by laughing at Marie Curie and laughing cruelly at Amelia Earhart. Every child needs laugh cruelly, so that envy based political movements die of shame, as Amelia Earhart died of vanity.
-
Latitudinarianism
What made official religion, the unity of Church and State, compatible with freedom in Britain in the period from the restoration to the Victorian era, was latitudinarianism, that you could piously claim to believe in the official religion while believing in anything other than the major tenets of competing theocratic religions hungry for power.
At present, to get into an elite university like Harvard, you have to plausibly claim to believe in every single one of ten thousand points of left wing doctrine,and if you deviate on a single point of a ten thousand points, you are XXXist.
Instead, it should be sufficient to disbelieve in the key tenets of the major competing theocratic religions. Thus applicants for any establishment position, leadership qualification, or establishment accreditation should merely be required to reject the key tenets of the two major competing theocracies: Progressivism and Islam. You must not believe that Mohammed is the final prophet of God, and you must not believe in equality nor oppose profiling. You must believe that all men were not created equal, and that therefore different rules should apply to different types of men.
For example, if someone reasonably believes that females are on average less honest than males, and that homosexuals are on average less honest than heterosexuals, and that it is hard to get good information on individual honesty, then you are required to believe that he has a duty to exclude all females and homosexuals from a security job where honesty is important, even though sex and perversion are not very reliable indicators of honesty
And if he can get better individual honesty information on fellow members of his congregation than on outsiders, then he should hire from within his congregation for the job for which honesty is important.
Anything else, you should be allowed to believe or disbelieve, except for stuff that is empirically stupid or wrong.
Should new theocratic belief systems appear, seeking power, their tenets should be added to the forbidden list. We should have a Grand Inquisitor to manage the forbidden list, and to detect disguised versions of forbidden beliefs. The Grand Inquisitor purges the public service, the universities, and so on and so forth, but does not attempt to purge all of society. People should be allowed to believe what they please, just not allowed near the levers of power if they have dangerous beliefs. In particular, and especially, not allowed near anything that gives them the opportunity to apply state power in support of forbidden beliefs. That is how England went off the rails. In Victorian England Anglicanism ceased to be an instrument of the King and the aristocracy, and became a weaponized belief system used to attack the aristocracy.
We should not be too latitudinarian. Victorian England should have executed William Wilberforce, and it is probable we will need pogroms to persuade Muslims that their religion does not require forceful imposition of Shariah on the rest of us.
Theocratic repression:
Restoration Anglicanism avoided being stifling. But, sending its enemies off to colonize America instead of sending them off to cut sugar in the West Indies turned out to be a very bad idea.
Trouble is, if you repress Galileo, you don’t get the scientific and industrial revolutions, but if you fail to repress William Wilberforce, you get replaced by holier than thou fanatics, by people who claim that:
I am holier than thou, therefore I should command thee
It was correct to honor Lyell, who noticed that the rocks of the earth were immensely ancient, even though this was, strictly speaking, heresy punishable by death. It was suicidally self destructive to honor William Wilberforce, who discovered that morality required a radical redistribution of power and prestige away from colonials towards people strikingly resembling himself. William Wilberforce should have been executed for heresy on the question of slavery. The difference was that that Lyell was not seeking political power for his belief system, therefore not a threat to the enforcers of the heresy laws, while William Wilberforce was seeking political power for his belief system, therefore was a threat to the enforcers of the heresy laws.
Lyell was correct, so the Anglican Church was right to tolerate him. William Wilberforce was a pharisee, so they should not have tolerated him. The fact that he was correct meant that they should have been twice as intolerant, and the fact that he really was holier than they were meant that they should have been four times as intolerant. They should have shipped him off to the West Indies to cut sugar cane for rum.
By a pharisee, I mean people who claim that they know more than others, therefore should be obeyed, that they are more virtuous than others, therefore should be obeyed, are holier than thou. William Wilberforce opposed slavery, and proposed that virtuous people like himself should suppress with fire and steel the slavery tolerated by wicked people unlike himself, thus people like himself should have charge of fire and steel, and people unlike himself, should not.
I suggest therefore, that the official clerisy of the official truth focus on repressing competing pharisees. If someone not officially endorsed as speaking the official truth claims authority on the basis of his superior knowledge of the truth, rather than merely publishing the evidence that inclines him to his understanding of the truth, he should be repressed. If someone not officially endorsed as officially virtuous claims authority on the basis of his superior virtue, he should be repressed. If he really is more virtuous than those who are officially virtuous, he should be executed. After executing him, ironically check his body in three days. If he has not risen, was not sufficiently more virtuous than the official promoters of official virtue.
-
Hygiene
Cleanliness, they say is next to Godliness. An official religion needs Godliness, but God is dead, so cleanliness will have to do. People need rituals.
-
The Scientific Method.
No, the scientific method is not consensus, and even less is it peer review. Rather it is skepticism about third hand facts, disbelief in the authority of experts. Trust but verify, which in the context of science means trust but replicate, which of course really means, don’t trust. Consensus is the madness of crowds. We are prone to believe stuff because everyone else believes it, which is at best a vicious cycle leading to madness, and at worst prone to being unduly influenced by the insane, and manipulated by the evil. The insane don’t shift, because insane, and the evil don’t shift, because they are lying about what they believe, so the evil and the insane tend to dominate the consensus.
-
Teach economics
Textbook: Economics in one lesson
That property rights should, and generally do, capture all the costs and benefits of a decision, therefore, an economic decision should be left to those that own the items at issue.
That price control and wage control will fail, and will disrupt the lives of the supposed beneficiaries.
That true monopoly is rare, except in the common case of regulatory capture, because the mere presence of potential competition makes it no longer a monopoly. Actual competition is not required. The threat that monopolistic behavior would end or undermine market dominance is sufficient to make market dominance harmless.
The Chamley-Judd Redistribution Impossibility Theorem: Redistribution from capitalists to workers is impossible, and trying to do so merely buggers the economy.
-
Public Choice theory
That where there are large externalities, such that a sufficiently wise and good regulator could in theory produce a better result, by intervening against property rights that are imperfectly aligned with costs and benefits, wise and good regulators are seldom to be found, that regulators tend to create externalities by protecting the regulated from the consequences of their own bad decisions.
-
Darwinism
Leads to evolutionary psychology and human biodiversity.
Teach the kids all those horrible unspeakable unthinkable statements by Darwin as the logical and necessary implication of Darwinian evolution, while commenting that many people find this horrifying, and doubt that it is God’s plan for man and mankind, that this is reason to doubt evolution, or to emotionally reject its implications, or suspect that God allows evil, but expects mankind to do better than Darwinism might lead us to expect, Darwinism being taught as disturbing and unpleasant fact, and God’s alleged plan as what some people think about this disturbing fact.
The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies- between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae- between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked,* will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.
-
Human Bio Diversity.
Tell them that both evolution and the bible implies that groups are not the same and are not equal, without, however, explaining in excessive detail in what ways particular identifiable groups are unequal.
-
Sex Education:
It is hard to get into trouble by not knowing the mechanics of sex, for nature leads us to discover them, we intuitively and instinctively know them, but not knowing the psychology of sex is apt to lead to big problems. Therefore, sex education needs to teach the different nature of men and women.
Darwinism tells us that men are naturally inclined to polygamy, women to hypergamy, and that this leads to conflict between men and women. For example this difference and conflict is the reason why women can be sluts, and men can never be sluts, even if a married man sleeps with a woman married to someone else.
Which does not of course mean it is OK for a married man to sleep with another man’s wife, but does mean that people are apt despise the adulterous wife as a slut, while admiring the adultering man. Double standard because it is easy for a woman hard for a man. Because of the natural and unavoidable differences between men and women. Women are expected to keep their legs closed, while men are admired for getting those legs open .
Girls should be taught that like it or not, rightly or wrongly, they will be judged by the double standard.
School should teach the double standard as biblical commandment and the natural result of evolutionary psychology.
Teach men and women how their fertility and sexual market value proceeds over time. Most women these days find it hard to believe men are naturally polygamous, projecting their own behavior and inclinations onto men, and are astonished to discover how soon and how rapidly their fertility and sexual attractiveness diminishes. They are apt to believe they have a relationship with a man when it is perfectly obvious she is just one more hole to relieve himself in.
A proposed sex education video:
Contrast preselection scene in romance movies, with man with options scene in porn movies: Title the first part of the movie Romance Story for Women, the next part of the movie Porn Story for Men. In Romance Story, one man is treated with respect by four unattractive males, five woman are after the one man, but he has eyes only for one of them, the prettiest one, and swears his undying love, totally failing to notice the other four. He bends his knee to her, begs her to be with him forever. The loving couple ride slowly off into the sunset on his white horse, together. She is looking very, very happy, he is looking kind of stern. The other four males are never seen in the story other than initially establishing that the romantic lead is respected by his fellow males.
In Porn Story, the same five woman are after the same one man. He romances the same one woman as in the first movie, same scenes cut to be considerably swifter, but instead of riding off into the sunset on his white horse, it is implied he immediately bangs her off screen on the nearest horizontal surface. We see her glowing.
Then he bangs the next, and we see the next one glowing and the first one glowering.
And the next, and the next, in order of boob size, the one with the biggest boobs first, smallest boobs last, each one starts glowing after being banged, and then stops glowing and starts glowering when the next female appears, glowing. He then gallops off on his white horse into the sunset, unaccompanied and looking very happy indeed, way happier than in the first story. Last girl (one with the smallest boobs) wails and attempts to chase after him, but he is riding one hell of a lot faster than in Romance Story, and when girl number five starts chasing, he lays his spurs into his white horse. We see the four sad and bitter males (all of them furtive and guilty looking) timidly watching the five sad and bitter females from a distance. The females, however, treat them as completely invisible.
Needless to say, a sex education video like this is never going to be shown in schools until the current theocracy is purged, and a new more realistic theocracy replaces them.
If we’re starting a new official belief system lets just make NS Germany the good guys… Jews = communist/covetous = BAD, hitler imprisoned them. End of story. Now we move on to the genocide that the Jewish communists perpetrated in the countries they controlled.
Nazis were socialists also. Nazi socialism works better than communist socialism, and was less murderous than communist socialism, but that is faint praise.
But was it worse than militant progressiveness? The starvation after the civil war and WW2 Germany wasn’t an accident. Nor was the genocidal bombing campaigns run by the allies. The number of white americans murdered by blacks since the 1960s is somewhere around 300k. Not to mention all the pointless slaughters they unleashed in the former colonial areas.
If the Nazis were better than the curiously close and cuddly alliance between Stalin and Progressives, that is still faint praise.
As to which side was less bad, I will leave that discussion in Moldbug’s capable hands.
Progressives can make one claim: That unlike Commies and Nazis they generally arranged for someone else to do the mass murders and ethnic cleansings, rather than getting their own hands dirty, which makes comparison non trivial.
When progressives fund, arm, and sponsor, mass murder, mass state sponsored rape, and mass sexual mutilation of women to enforce progressives objectives, there are always at least two cutouts between the progressives supplying arms and money, and the soldiers sexually mutilating the women of the defeated populace to enforce progressive objectives, while the Nazis had their own praetorians killing Jews for the most direct possible connection between Nazism and murder.
Your cynicism is magnificent and barbaric, like a Mongol horde of horse archers.
But I would not follow your religion.
Here is my counter-proposal. It will never be an official belief system.
Either spirits are real enough to make noteworthy changes in the mundane world, or they’re not.
If some spirits are real enough to make changes that mortals can notice, then those spirits get to teach the mortals about the spirit world.
Of course, different groups of mortals will quickly announce that they are being guided by spirits, and those groups won’t agree with each other much.
Even if my proposal prevails, it will be a chaos, not a system.
Earhardt did fly successfully solo across the Atlantic in 1932 in a rickety craft. That was something. She first came along for a ride in 1928, and referred to herself as a sack of potatoes during that flight. So she died doing her dangerous thing. So? Lots of adventurous men of the era died doing their thing.
” Lots of adventurous men of the era died doing their thing.”
Indeed. Let’s name of of them off of the top of our heads…
…
…
And they are just as anonymous as most of Magellan’s crewmen, the hundreds of average musketmen and swordsmen helped Cortez destroy the Aztec Empire, and the Phoenician sailors who rounded Africa with Hanno.
In each of those cases they were successful, but only the top men in each group are remembered by name.
In contrast, Earhart’s fame was artificial and a creation of the media. She was a novelty, with about as much claim to real fame as the first woman who got into the Citadel and then promptly quit after two weeks.
And yet even schoolchildren know of her, and uttering her last name alone will bring a glimmer of recognition in anyone in the English-speaking world.
“Earhardt did fly successfully solo across the Atlantic in 1932 in a rickety craft. That was something.”
No she failed. The flight was suppose to be from Newfoundland to Paris and she barely made it Scotland and then crashed in a field. In 1927 Charles Lindbergh used a much more primitive aircraft made the longer trip from NY to Paris. The first actual transatlantic flight was done in 1919 by Capt. John Alcock and Lieut. Arthur Whitten Brown going from Newfoundland to Ireland. So a women seceded in much better plane duplicating what a man had done 1919 with an extreamlly primitive plane.
I like it, but I’m not sure that our current elite is worthy of a belief system that is so deferential to them.
Envy and covetousness as the ultimate vices may make sense in a hypothetical society where most wealth is owned by a worthy aristocracy. Envy and covetousness towards your neighbor who got a bit of wealth from creating a small business is certainly a bad thing.
But today a remarkable amount of wealth is owned by multinational corporations (some of which pay no tax to any national government) and globalist elites like George Soros. A significant percentage of this wealth could be considered to be the result of “gaming the system”, rather than “creating value”.
These elites don’t have a sense of noblesse oblige towards us, so why should we structure our sense of morality to shield them from the natural results of their greed?
Feudalism was based on reciprocal obligations. Vassals had obligations to their lords, but lords also had obligations to their vassals.
Our current lords feel no obligation toward us, so why should we feel an obligation to restrain feelings of covetousness and envy towards them?
Goldman Sachs for example.
Everyone mentions Goldman Sachs, because it is full of Jews, has disproportionate influence on monetary policy, and was the beneficiary of corrupt favors exemplifying crony capitalism. And because it is full of Jews. But the biggest villains by far were Angelo Mozillo (affirmative action hispanic) Kerry Killinger (a gentile banker with no special connections) and Jon Corzine (Democratic Party)
Jon Corzine is Goldman Sachs – he worked there for 20+ years, was CEO and had a huge chunk of stock from when they went public with him running the place.
John Corzine’s power and status in Goldman Sachs derives from his power and status in the Democratic Party, not the other way around.
As was demonstrated by his subsequent career.
Corzine was a bond trader who was hired out of some midwestern bank. He did undergraduate at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign – this is not the profile of someone who rose up due to political connections.
His only major political activity when he was at GS was fund raising for Clinton and that was when he was already chairman.
What do you base the claim that he advanced through political connections? Just his post GS career?
Someone like Robert Rubin, I’ll buy that he advanced through connections.
He was Chairman of Goldman and Sach and simultaneously chairman of Treasury’s borrowing committee, simultaneously regulator and regulated.
So not his post Goldman career.
Which I’m pretty sure makes the case that money earned from Goldman Sachs fits well under the “permissible envy” category.
Corzine goes into GS politically unconnected, moves up politically unconnected then when he rises to chairman he starts getting political appointments – like those around the LTCM bailout. In other words, when you rank highly in GS you become a political player – it’s not just that political players rise up in GS because they need to butter up the authorities. The authorities are buttering up GS, too.
So when Francis asks – “Our current lords feel no obligation toward us, so why should we feel an obligation to restrain feelings of covetousness and envy towards them?”
The answer has to be:
“…there are rich people, mostly from the class of political leaders in control of the state-apparatus and from the state-connected elites of banking and big business, who are rich, because they have been directly engaged in, or indirectly benefitted from, confiscation, theft, trickery and fraud. Such people should not be left alone, but instead be condemned and despised as gangsters.”
and if an angry mob happens to hang them, well then, meh – they had it coming. This doesn’t just apply to those who rose up through connections but those who rose up on “merit” and just cashed in on the connections that the firm has.
agree fully. fine by me if people feel envious, covetous, hell, murderous, towards those who got their wealth by, for example, political connections
Why is there a flight from investing in useful things to “high quality debt”, which is to say government debt.
Because people who own stuff keep getting shaken down, as for example in the reorganization of General Motors, where the legitimate creditors were shafted to the benefit of the Union.
Similarly, who did Jon Corzine shaft?
The fact that the US is still developed means that a lot productive capital remains, and needs to be protected from envy. When most wealth is in the hands of crony capitalists, the US will resemble Haiti or India.
I don’t consider that not paying tax constitutes gaming the system. Paying your taxes is like paying off terrorists. You only get more terrorism. Government spends the money on destructive things, like encouraging fat women to spawn more bastard muggers, and encouraging the Mexican underclass to move to the US. Gaming the system is getting endless loans for “alternative energy projects” which somehow never produce any useful alternative energy, or the government lending you large sums at zero interest which you lend back at small but positive interest.
The less money Apple gives the government, the less money they will have to do harm to me.
Not paying taxes is not gaming the system. Not paying taxes is guerrila capitalism.
“…who did Jon Corzine shaft?…”
He used the money from the customers in his futures trading business to make trades and lost it. He stole their money. He has enough power and connections to get away with it. No prosecution. Yet. A big sell sign for anyone NOT powerful enough to get away with what he did.
You know, if we could dispense with some of the presumption about equality and establish a better value system, we might be able to create some noblesse oblige with the corporations. Right now, it’s a one-two punch where the corporations are rapacious bastards and are EXPECTED to be rapacious bastards, and the government has to swoop in and save the day because democracy.
Meanwhile, saving the day is a bunch of propagandist crap and everyone’s just trying to hold on.
Stahp. Get rid of the democracy and the idiotic egalitarian ideals, and we might get some newer, shinier, better authority out of it.
http://praxamericana.blogspot.com/2013/05/rent-seeking.html
[…] wrote: I wish we could have separation of information and state, but that is impractical, short of the […]
I think that a man can be free only when he reaches the state when he realises that any material possessions are useless because he is going to die. This is the truth that should be taught. The most important thing is to think local and act global. We have all we need to do so right now. Why should we build huge houses and settlements that are constantly deteriorating quality of our lives while we can live on much lower scale by using what we already have? The design of earthship houses can be a way to do so.
I am an admirer of the book Economics in One Lesson, but I think that it is appliable only on the current socioeconomic system. And this system tends to perpetuate itself. Other way is possible. If we accept your thoughts we would end up being almost on the same level as we were in the 19th century. I do not call this a step forward.
Another problem I have is with the perception of inequality. I do not think we are same as a woman, and I think that the institution of matrimony is useless nowadays and tends to complicate our lives. But I think that the line between male and female is blurring.
I would agree that gender roles are deteriorating. A woman and man were much more sexually dimorphic a hundred years ago than today. And even more a thousand years ago. But that those adaptations seem to stop at reproduction which are hardwired from nature and not environment. Nothing short of genetic engineering is going to alter men seeking young, fertile women and likewise for women seeking high status alphas. Our reproductive desires are not consciously controlled and so any social adaptation to contort these desires is going to fail.
Jim do you plan to continue to allow free trade and free immigration? Both will destroy a nations ability to field a cohesive army in the long run. The capitalists you favor very much want cheep labor and a free flow of cheep goods which doesn’t benefit the average man and it’s the average man that makes up a nations fighting force.
Immigration destroys a people by importing a welfare underclass to vote left. I think if we shove people of negative economic value into ghettos and give them very little welfare, and similarly little opportunity to rob or shakedown respectable people, they eventually emigrate, and if they do not emigrate, will starve or fail to reproduce.
Similarly, free trade does not destroy a nation’s economy. A government that borrows money and gives it to a welfare underclass destroys a nation’s economy. If anything imported has to be paid for by something exported, free trade does not undermine jobs.
“they eventually emigrate, and if they do not emigrate, will starve or fail to reproduce”
Of course this is plausible only if you’ve properly restricted the franchise.
Instituting a non left official ideology implies we have properly restricted the franchise – or, more likely, some rather more drastic change such as military dictatorship.
I don’t have a problem with signing on this benign and moderate belief system, but I’m far from certain one can easily be imposed.
Turning envy into the worst sin in the world is a key insight I think. But it is already in Christianity’s Big Seven. Of course racism, sexism, and exclusion are even on any of its canonical list.
My impression is that covetousness is down in the basement behind the water heater, beside Saint Paul on marriage and sex roles. If mentioned at all, it is made into a synonym for capitalism, redefined to mean desiring to earn good things for oneself honestly, rather than defined to mean desiring to take away other people’s good things.
Amelia Earhart had a fatal dose of covetousness. Can you imagine a Bishop saying so?
“If mentioned at all, it is made into a synonym for capitalism”
That’s the rub: making it an antonym. Crack that nut and you’re on your way.
Well I wouldn’t go that far. But capitalism qua capitalism isn’t a bad method of shunting the human energies that surround envy (and make it so socially destructive) into more productive use. You wanna wear a fine silk top hat and smoke fat cigars like that guy? Then get off your ass and earn it, buster!
Amelia Earhart had a fatal dose of covetousness. Can you imagine a Bishop saying so?
Well, no. But at least they can ignore her as a role model, and lift up better ones. The Blessed Mother comes to mind.
[…] we DO need a religion after all, so that the post-Reaction® (i.e., simply sane and just) world can run smoothly again. I, for one, never doubted it. But I’ve already got one… i.e., a religion. And […]
Envy is *the* most basic human social instinct. Banning it is as realistic as banning racism.
One can, however, demonize it instead of valorizing it. Under the ten commandments, covetousness was the most important earthly sin, most important sin against one’s fellow man, not necessarily the most serious sin, but the biggest social problem. Under PC, envy is absolutely required and makes one morally superior.
See the PC argument that there can be no such thing as misandry, because men deserve to be hated, despised, and punished, and no such thing as black racism for similar reasons.
And that created a utopia of secure property rights just after Constantine!
Oh wait.
The flaw in the Roman imperium was the divinity and insecurity of the emperors. That they were divine was too great an extreme of power, that any military officer could hope to become Emperor was too small an extreme of power.
Augustus did create, if not utopia, secure property rights. And so did the restoration.
Yes, but in the comments here I do not think some are properly referring to the judeo-christian definition of “covet” or “envy”.
See my longer comment in this Orthosphere post by Kristor: http://orthosphere.org/2013/05/08/a-modest-proposal-enclose-the-commons/
The commandment “You shalt not covet” refers equally to a man’s house, his wife, his servants, or his ox or donkey. Why are these equivalent? Because it is recognized that private productive property is necessary to be human. This is made explicit in Rerum Novarum. Human action is intentional action, and to be act in an intentional manner and thereby be human a man requires the necessary tools. To be a good husband, for example, is a self-imposed and worthy goal for a man, which he can only accomplish with a wife; that is why we are commanded not to covet his wife. Likewise to provide for his wife and family (in an ancient agricultural society) he requires domestic beasts of burden and servant-helpers; we are commanded not to covet these. To “covet” is to desire to take away another human being’s means of being human, that is, of exercising their free will to act in a manner that can constructively transform themselves into something better. To be dependent on others for our life and livelihood is to be simply another non-human animal.
It needs to be understood that sins are not sins because they harm other people: sins harm the sinner. “Envy” is not a sin because it is a desire to have what someone else has, it is a sin because it is a desire to be someone else. What a man produces is a part of him: he puts some of his own sweat and brainpower into what he makes. Thus to envy another man’s accomplishment or wealth is to desire to, in part, be him – and not you. This is spiritually harmful and thus a sin because the goal of the judeo-christian religion is to make you a better you, which is impossible if you spend your life trying to be someone else.
To desire to be someone else – envy – is not a basic instinct and is not natural, it is the most unnatural thing conceivable. What is natural is that we are created in the divine image and our purpose and destiny is to embody that divine moral spirit; however we inherited a completely unnatural flaw which leads us to sin: sin is a rebellion against our true nature.
As late as the Great Depression, people who desired to be seen as good, eschewed “charity” with all their might, and accepted it only as a great debt, if even then, sometimes at the price of great tragedy. Those people are still around today, the “worthy poor”, but alas most of them have some modicum of honor, and will work hard at whatever there is yet to be done. Most people who need a hand out today seem to think they somehow deserve it… and the only way that is possible is if Envy (one of the 7 biggies IIRC) no longer considered unseemly.
Heck 3/4 of the Democrat party constituency exists on nothing but the politics of envy. (Probably 1/3 of the GOP as well.) Envy is great poison in the polis. Of course it cannot be banished absolutely, but at least people should have some shame imposed (within and without) for articulating it any way. If people can be made to feel embarrassment for happening to notice the kinkiness of someone’s hair, they can surely be made to feel embarrassment for thinking someone of higher station and rank owes them goodies.
I’m, for once, with Spandrell here. It may be as effective as the Christian Church in sin-nifying sex.
The Christian Church never sinnified sex. It commanded that good women should remain virgins until marriage. And, by and large, it worked. Most women were good.
Demonizing male sexuality, while pretending female sexuality did not exist, was leftwing Christianity on the way to becoming godless progressivism.
And, by and large, that worked also. Most males are not getting any. Sweden has made the descendents of the vikings into impotent eunuchs. They don’t bang Swedish women because in Sweden, treating a woman with what is later deemed to be inadequate consideration constitutes rape. So the blond Swedish girls bang dark skinned Muslims because the Muslims treat them as the slut trash that they are, resulting in a flood of milk coffee colored bastards.
I love your proposed sex education video. Hilarious.
There was a time when literature was more colorful and flights of fancy like that would have fit right in. It makes me sad to think how much less room there is for fantastical stuff like that than there once was. Liberalism has really flattened out the arts.
I’m broadly sympathetic to the new religion idea, but I think you picked the wrong answer to “fix or finish”.
You say the religion should be based on rational/scientific truth, but also want to emphasize a Bible-based morality. But since the Enlightenment Christianity has become extremely vulnerable to the rationalist attack that much of the Bible and associated creeds are simply not true. The established churches you draw inspiration from did not have that issue at the time they gained power. The few outposts of modern Christianity that have maintained a strong moral community generally have had to sacrifice respect for science to do so.
A new establishment church needs both intellectual and moral authority. I don’t see any path from Christianity to intellectual authority, or from intellectual authority to Christianity, except on the most cynical grounds of “it ain’t true but it’s good for the common folk”.
A new religion must be publicly espoused by the elite, and I think there is less moral hazard in having elites who are earnest, rather than cynical.
I really think it’s better to aim for some kind of western Confucianism, based on “deep heritage” (i.e. Burke + Darwin). Distill the best of the Western tradition into a few simple apothegms. Biblical morality has a place as one source – among others – of “wisdom that worked”.
To gain energy and converts for the work that must be done, the new religion must appear to be in some sense revolutionary. For this it needs a strong, and new, central principle to define it. Perhaps we need some kind of prophet to appear as the new symbol to cohere around.
Any volunteers for the job?
(Or is that what this post was?)
No, this post is not that.
Observe the Japanese. Shintoism is not much believed, but is treated with deep reverence, because Shintoism is Japaneseness. Actual religious belief in Shintoism is encouraged, but not required or necessary.
We need something like that, and this post is not that, being rootless and atheistic, when roots and faith are required.
OK, I understand where you are coming from. I’ve misinterpreted a few of your recent posts and comments.
My problem is Christianity is not “western-ness”. It was initially a Jewish-ness that jumped the tribal boundaries. Jumping tribal boundaries is something we do not want more of. I think what is required is for someone to locate the west’s Christian history in a broader context that articulates a coherent identity. Reactionary intellectuals do this all the time, but I think it needs to be simplified and condensed to have broad appeal.
And I do think your post is a step towards that.
Also, firm boobs >>> large boobs.
Yes, Christianity is not “western-ness”. Not at all. I mean, fifteen-hundred years is a trifling amount of time. One should be able to gloss over such an insignificant part of history in a heartbeat. All too easy.
I don’t want to gloss over this history, I want to glorify it and mine it for wisdom. The problem is present appearances.
The best candidate for an established church for the Anglosphere is currently retardedly universalist:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/03/21/article-2296812-18D716B8000005DC-949_964x599.jpg
Returning to the roots of Christianity just brings you more universalism. It’s all about other places and other peoples.
You want to focus on the good stuff in the middle period of the west’s Christian history. This is a lot easier if your lens is not Christianity, but something else that naturally draws attention to these elements, that frames Christianity as a component of something greater and more enduring.
I think explicitly Christian reaction would work in Russia (is working in Russia?). Their Christianity seems to have skipped a lot of the universalist nonsense, and appears to still have broad respect at several levels of society.
I don’t see any path from Christianity to intellectual authority, or from intellectual authority to Christianity
Of course not, or you would be a Christian. Don’t make the mistake of thinking others can’t see the intellectual authority.
I was more concerned about how you win over the elites. I accept I’m not cognitively built for religion, but others are. Presumably a large number of the current elites are, but they are also loaded with antibodies against anything but the mildest strains of Christianity.
How do you propose to get to a place where the university lecturers are simultaneously pro-science and pro-Christianity?
I guess mass replacement is an option.
At our elite universities, leftism is a requirement for admission as a student. At all universities, including the supposedly right wing ones, it is a requirement for tenure. Obviously, I say that to halt the left singularity, need to not merely end, but reverse, this requirement, need to forbid key tenets of leftism.
I observe that existing scientists have absolutely no difficulty being pro Gaia worship and pro official science.
Once peer review was introduced, approximately in 1942, official science rapidly ceased to be science, and developed the characteristics of an official religion. Instead of experimenters telling the scientific community what they observe, the scientific community tells experimenters what they observe.
The problem is not getting scientists to be part of the official religion. Rather, the problem is the opposite, the problem is getting real science instead of official religion.
“And the next, and the next, in order of boob size, the one with the biggest boobs first, smallest boobs last”
The simple truth can be so funny sometimes.
I have never understood the fuss over big boobs, not at all, as if all men drool over them and all men want them huge, the bigger the better. I have always imagined this meme as a blown-out-of-all-proportion caricature of a preference that is common-but-by-no-means universal. I find large ones off-putting, personally.
I myself prefer moderate to small. My ideal size can be held in my hand while tweaking the nipple. However, making the male lead stereotypical was appropriate in a script intended to depict likely male behavior. Also, the context, school sex education video, implies that the intended audience will all have breasts on the small to nonexistent side.
It would be better if he selected the girls from youngest to oldest. Makes a point to the girls about the limited window of their sexual power.
You mean oldest to youngest, right?
Assuming actors whose apparent age is only slightly older than the intended audience (schoolchildren), then biggest boobs to smallest boobs, which would tend to be oldest to youngest.
Such youthful actors would, however, set a bad example. (But then, they are intended to be an example of what not to do.)
Assuming adult actors, youngest to oldest.
I don’t care one iota if men like their tits big, small or sideways. What Men think about boobs is of no consequence to me.
From childhood on, it seemed kind of obvious to me that most males (somewhere over 50%) prefer bigger tits to smaller tits, but this doesn’t scale well after some unknown (by me) threshold.
I don’t know if my experience is representative.
I like ’em larger. Not uber-huge-oh-my-god-sloppy-big, but larger. They must fit the woman, and the woman must fit my eyes.
Ass, same thing.
Was the failure to mention either usury or inflation deliberate or should their treatment be understood as natural consequences of the proposal as outlined?
Inflation is not caused by charging interest. Observe that precious metal currencies have no inflation, but normally charge interest. We did not have inflation until the twentieth century.
The 19th Century also had bank panics because the demand for more currency hit the brick wall of precious metals not increasing parallel to the paper claims on precious metals.
The nineteenth century had bank panics because of extensive government interventions to rob the banks – pretty similar the “2007” crisis (actually the 2005 crisis, but they managed to pretend the 2005 crisis away for two years while everyone played pass the hot potato with dud assets.)
The opening of the Frontier in a given area prompts the need for credit. Banks arise to meet that need. But since the bankers can’t poop out more gold, they print out more bank receipts than they have gold coinage. Eventually depositors get suspicious and pull their money out of the banks. The banks cannot pay all depositors so they collapse. I’m sure at some point the government was involved but its biggest error was having a currency that could not grow with the rest of the economy.
For a long time we had price deflation in terms of gold. Price deflation is currency growing with the rest of the economy.
Yes and deflation is great for entrepreneurs in need of credit. I thought you were in favor of value creation and hard work.
Observe credit creation in practice, in today’s America, today’s Japan, and Wiemar Germany. Crony capitalists get cheap money, destroying value creation and discouraging hard work. You don’t encourage value creation and hard work by giving people favored by the state a free lunch.
it’s the 2007 crisis because the labor force participation of White men over the age of 20 started dropping faster later than 2005; maybe we should prefer to call it the 2009 crisis. See the last chart on http://www.dailystormer.com/it-was-a-good-decade-great-job-america-go-democracy/
HA, don’t you mean that the biggest error was bankers thinking they could get away with maturity mismatching indefinitely? Or how exactly does it work that the bankers can make a mistake and it’s the government’s fault for not bailing them out?
If bankers are harshely penalized for maturity mismatch going bad, they don’t do it.
While maturity mismatch financial crises have happened regularly, and are endogenous to banking, a basic banking scam that bankers are always tempted to engage in, the recent crisis, and indeed most crises, were due to politicians robbing the banks.
What tends to happen is that well connected bankers engage in excessive maturity mistmatch, believing that their political connections will keep them out of trouble.
Crisis ensues due to banker misbehavior, and their political connections do indeed keep them out of trouble.
Politicians then say to themselves “Hey, we have these badly behaved bankers in our pocket. Let us use some bank money to buy votes.” And the next crisis ensues from politician bad behavior. The politicians get in bed with the bankers, and the bankers get in bed with the politicians.
Of course the bankers were parasitic but if you weaken the host–in this case, the economy and society of 19th century America–then the host will be attacked by parasites. The cure was not to bailout scamming bankers but to make the supply of currency matched the value of the economy. (Of course with fait currency politicians have erred in the other direction.)
“Making the supply of currency match the value of the economy” was supposedly what Weimar Germany was doing, and it is what the US and the west has been doing since 1971, since Nixon closed the gold window.
Has not been working out too well. Estimates of the required supply of currency tend to be, as in Weimar Germany, unduly influenced by politicians seeking to buy votes, and crony capitalists seeking interest free loans.
This is particularly a problem in today’s Japan, where crony capitalists get huge interest free loans to buy assets with yen that promptly depreciate.
Abenomics has had a bad effect on the economy experienced by ordinary Japanese who work for a living, while making certain well connected Japanese immensely rich.
By a pharisee, I mean people who claim that they know more than others, therefore should be obeyed, that they are more virtuous than others, therefore should be obeyed, are holier than thou. William Wilberforce opposed slavery, and proposed that virtuous people like himself should suppress with fire and steel the slavery tolerated by wicked people unlike himself, thus people like himself should have charge of fire and steel, and people unlike himself, should not.
I think this description gets to the heart of the matter. Spandrell is right that envy is as natural as preference for one’s own ethnic group, so, while you’re right, Jim, that society shouldn’t valorize it or re-frame it as “Human Rights,” the fact is that envy is not going away.
The problem, rather, is giving free reign to people whose arguments for social policy are based entirely on holier-than-thou morality (which is the fons et origo of envy-based politics). People can envy, but so long as they know it’s envy and know that they probably can’t get what they envy, then that natural impulse is neutralized. What’s more, if people do get what they envy, they will see it as an undeserved blessing.
But when people like Wilberforce start preaching, “What we’re doing or not doing is WRONG and IMMORAL and FOR THAT REASON AND NO OTHER we should [whatever it might be]” . . . that’s when all of a sudden victims are created. Someone has been wronged. Those wronged suddenly don’t see their envy as envy—and what they want (freedom, disability payments, Obamaphone) is due to them BECAUSE they’ve been wronged.
A policy of emancipation need not have been Leftist. I can imagine some slave owner granting his slaves some freedom of movement and minimal pay in order to test whether or not that led to a more productive plantation. Or perhaps 19th century techno-commercialists might have argued for the end of slavery because new technology was going to make slaves obsolete anyway. May as well invest in this tech early. There were probably a dozen reasons to end or ameliorate slavery that would have remained generally in line with what we recognize today as reactionary principles. (Similarly, one can be in favor of certain welfare policies simply because it keeps ghetto people from rioting.)
But again, the problem is letting a man like Wilberforce argue for policy ON HOLIER-THAN-THOU MORAL GROUNDS ALONE. All of a sudden, a policy of emancipation (or welfare or whatever) is seen to its beneficiaries as a right owed them rather than as an undeserved blessing, a lucky granting of that which they envied.
It’s the difference between a plantation owner saying, “Look here, Negroes, I’m gonna start giving you some freedom and pay, and in return, I want some extra hard work. We’ll see how it goes. Hell, maybe I’ll even let one of you be a foreman, earn even more pay, if that helps keep morale up and provides a greater yield at the end of the year and keeps me from having to waste time chasing down runaways.”
And Wilberforce saying, “O ye brothers in Christ, so long have ye suffered under the whip! Ye have been wronged to no end! Your freedom is owed you a thousand times over, and we can never repay the debt you are owed! Forgive us! The only moral and Godly thing to do is to free you at once and start providing thee wagons of money!”
We need a belief system that shuts up the people who would initiate the second scenario. In other words, we need a belief system that seriously discourages holier-than-thou moralizing.
A policy of emancipation need not have been Leftist. I can imagine some slave owner granting his slaves some freedom of movement and minimal pay in order to test whether or not that led to a more productive plantation.
I get the distinct impression that many slaveowners probably DID discover this feature, and that at least a sizeable majority did treat their (extremely expensive) slaves reasonably well, with a fair amount of freedom to those who demonstrated a capacity to use it wisely. These were predominately church-going men after all. It was far worse, statistically speaking, for the “free” lumpen-proles of the North.
Yes because a desire to be emancipated from slavery is really just envy…
Like the desire to be liberated from smashed up water fountains, smashed up filthy toilets, and stores that will only deal with their customers through a small hole in bullet proof glass.
Amelia Earhart died of penis envy.
it’s wanting what someone else has without understanding how that person came to have it.
Why is it that Coleman Young’s Detroit ended up the way it has?
Tuskegee Airmen
Help to bomb the Nazi horde
Then bomb Detroit
[…] has identified the problem, the cause of leftward drift and the cycle of history described by Sir John Glubb: The […]
Sooo…a Western Confucionism.
More like a western shintoism
Protestantism is already well on its way to becoming that: an unofficial official religion where Jesus is as distant as any Kami or Zeus or Paul Bunyan or George Washington.
You sound like you want a belief system that is about the organization of society, but one that is different from the Cathedral’s universalist egalitarianism.
Why not just, “Scorched Earth and make way for the Mormons”?
Which, come to think of it, isn’t too different from the History of numerous conquests which had a “mass ideological conversion of the local populace” component or result.
Hahaha, working at the Fort will certainly make one think that this is America’s best hope. Between the pansexual cryptokin and the Mormons, the choice is easy.
The greatest woman of the 20th century: Hanna Reitsch
In 1937 Reitsch was posted to the Luftwaffe testing centre at Rechlin-Lärz Airfield by Ernst Udet. She was a test pilot on the Junkers Ju 87 Stuka and Dornier Do 17 projects. Reitsch was the first female helicopter pilot and one of the few pilots to fly the Focke-Achgelis Fa 61, the first fully controllable helicopter. Her flying skill, desire for publicity and photogenic qualities made her a star of Nazi party propaganda. Physically she was petite in stature, very slender with blonde hair, blue eyes and a “ready smile”.[3] She appeared in Nazi Party propaganda throughout the late 1930s and early 1940s. In 1938 she made nightly flights of the Fa 61 helicopter inside the “Deutschlandhalle” at the Berlin Motor Show.
Adolf Hitler awards Hanna Reitsch the Iron Cross 2nd Class in March 1941
At the outbreak of war in 1939 Reitsch was asked to fly many of Germany’s latest designs, among them the rocket-propelled Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet as well as several larger bombers on which she tested various mechanisms for cutting barrage balloon cables. A crash on her fifth Me 163 flight badly injured Reitsch, who reportedly insisted on writing her post-flight report before falling unconscious and spending five months in hospital. Reitsch became Adolf Hitler’s favourite pilot and was one of only two women awarded the Iron Cross during World War II
Anothr great woman:
Melitta Schenk Gräfin[1] von Stauffenberg, born Melitta Schiller (9 January 1903 — 8 April 1945), was a German aviatrix who served as a test pilot in the Luftwaffe before and during World War II.
She was the second German woman to be awarded the honorary title of Flugkapitänin (English: flight captain) and also flew over 2,500 test sorties in dive bombers, the second most of any Luftwaffe test pilot. Von Stauffenberg was awarded the Iron Cross Second Class and the Gold Front Flying Clasp for Bombers with diamonds, for performing over 1,500 test flights in dive bomber aircraft. In 1944, she was arrested with other Stauffenberg family members for suspicion of conspiring with her brothers-in-law to assassinate Adolf Hitler, but she was later released to continue her test flight duties.
Countess von Stauffenberg died after being shot down by an allied fighter plane on 8 April 1945.
Another great woman:
In March of 1697, Hannah Duston’s tiny farm was attacked by a marauding band of Abenaki Indians (alternate sources say they were Mohawks)). They attacked Hannah’s husband Thomas while he was out working in the field, but he managed to run back to the farmhouse and warn his wife of the impending raid. Unfortunately, Hannah was unable to escape – she had just given birth to a child a couple days prior, and wasn’t in any condition to be moved. Hannah, her nursemaid, and her newborn stayed behind, and she encouraged her husband to get out of there and flee with their eight other children while they still could.
On this day she wasn’t in any position to fight off a swarming horde of warriors, and was quickly captured and forced out of her home. Her house was plundered and torched to the ground, and a subsequent raid on the village of Haverhill resulted in forty additional settlers being killed or captured by the Abenaki.
Along with the other captives, she was forced at gunpoint to walk north towards Canada. For several days they walked through ankle-deep snow and bitter, freezing cold, traveling nearly fifty miles from Haverhill to present-day Concord, New Hampshire. Anybody who couldn’t keep up was brained in the face with a hatchet, and when Hannah’s child wouldn’t stop crying, her captors gave the kid a post-partum abortion by smacking it against a tree. By the time the party left Concord and started traveling by canoe up the Merrimack River, all that remained of the captives were Hannah, her nursemaid, and some fourteen-year old kid they’d picked up along the way.
Hannah Duston was a tough New England broad, and she wasn’t going to let the Indians get away with it.
The next night, while all of the warrior braves were sleeping, Hannah sought her vengeance. She somehow broke free from her restraints and slowly tiptoed her way across the campsite. Using extreme caution, she held her breath, quietly reached into the pack of one of the warriors, closed her fingers around the wooden handle of a razor-sharp tomahawk, and silently pulled it out into the night air.
Before anybody knew what was going on, Hannah Duston was in the midst of their campfire whirling and slashing at everything she could reach. In the span of just a few seconds, she had killed ten indians with a tomahawk and sent two other warriors sprinting off into the woods screaming their heads off.
This angry Puritan mother took out an entire raiding party by herself without even blinking.
The two men who ran off were sure to be returning in the relatively near future. It made sense for the Puritans to not be sitting around a giant pile of corpses when they returned.
Hannah assembled her friends, grabbed a rifle and some food from the campsite, stole a canoe and headed back towards Haverhill.
She also went back and scalped the dead Indians before heading out.
In the canoe, the small group of fugitives paddled desperately trying to get down river before they were caught, recaptured, and harshly executed.
After a couple days of this nocturnal adventuring, they reached the New Hampshire town of Bradley Cove, where they convinced a local farmer to provide them with food and shelter for the night. From there, they headed out for home, walking the remaining 30+ miles to Haverhill.
Hannah Duston really didn’t take kindly to being captured, force-marched, and having her kid brutally murdered right in front of her.
To commemorate the adventures of this frontierswoman, in 1879 an appropriately-grim-looking statue of Mrs. Duston was erected in downtown Haverhill.
She is believed to be the first American woman to have a public monument built in her honor.
http://www.badassoftheweek.com/duston.html
Yes, there have been a lot of atypically great women. But sticking women, any woman, on the front lines is a really bad idea.
I thought you sneered at “poster girls”.
Because real examples are seldom to be found, most poster girls, for example Marie Curie, Amelia Earhart, are manufactured, hence ridiculous.
If real poster girls are to be found, cannot laugh at them. Fortunately, real poster girls are seldom found, and if found, usually have characteristics that the Cathedral does not much like, so the Cathedral invariably goes with making someone ludicrously inappropriate as a poster girl.
>>Fortunately, real poster girls are seldom found
Do strong competent women threaten your manhood? 😀
If strong competent women were to be found, you guys would have better poster girls.
Your poster girl pilots are Amelia Earheart and Kara Hultgreen. Your poster girl scientist is Marie Curie. Your poster girl rape victims are Jackie Coaklie and Crystal Mangum. Where are these strong competent women?
Name a well known poster girl that has not been a huge embarrassment.
You’re evading the point. You said it was actually fortunate that women have not been as strong and competent. Why?
I said nothing of the kind.
It is natural and right that women are optimized for having babies, nurturing children, and maintaining hearth and home, while men are optimized to conquer, win, build, and create. When progressives set to work manufacturing poster girls, they bump up against this natural order of things, with predictable results.
it’s fortunate that there appear to be nigh-absolutely no women who are bizarre outliers, not just few women who are bizarre outliers, because if there were, feminism would sound more plausible to idiots like you.
The only woman to ever have contributed anything significant to the physical sciences was Emmy Noether, 1882-1935, the daughter of a less-famous mathematician. Even so, many mathematicians have daughters that hang out with other mathematicians and are incapable of advancing mathematics.
As for Blacks? If there were world-class Black scientists, we would have heard of them by now, and it would make anti-racism sound more plausible.
The fact that both of the most respected Black men of the last century, Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Junior and Bill Cosby, were philanderers and rapists respectively, means something for Blacks.
The fact that the most famous Jew lawyer, Alan Dershowitz, stands accused of having sex with a young White girl, while working to get Roman Polanski, one of the most famous Jew directors, off for having sex with a young White girl, means something for Jews.
Yes peppermint you are the voice of reason, using a secular half-Jew and an atheist Jew as examples of what Judaism has wrought.
Haha, “Judaism”. Ask B if Judaism is unified. Jews told Americans that they are White with a different religion around the beginning of the twentieth century for a reason. Some Jews objected to this lie, arguing that if they ignore their peoplehood they could be assimilated. Which happened to a significant extent, with Jews like Mencius Moldbug going so far as to see the things Whites must claim to believe as an insult to his intelligence and start blogging about it.
Ask the Jews on any leftist website. Jews are a people. On DailyKos, in their helpful ‘what is a Jew’ article, thy claim to be superior and hated by envious goyim who occasionally kick them out of countries out of envious hatred.
Christianity needs to be freely integrated with philosophy/mythology, psychology, intellect and science. This would not ultimately result in progressive degradation.
http://www.englishfolkchurch.com/
file:///C:/Users/User/Desktop/The%20Northern%20Gnostic.htm
…correct link here.
http://jeffdiehl.com/the.htm
White paganism is dead. Dead dead dead. Christianity is near dead. But Christianity was as recently as 1950 in quite good shape. The Bishops were progressives who believed Jesus was a community organizer, but the pastors were still Christian. No one believed that female divorcees should remarry, or at least no one admitted to believing it when in polite company. If we are going to recover an ethnic, national, and patriarchal religion, has to be built on 1950s Christianity.
Or, y’know, 00 Christianity. And prior.
Otherwise, Amen.
[…] is the outline for such a society. See […]
[…] Issue a clear definition of orthodoxy and heresy and systematically purge government, academia, and quasi …. […]
[…] interesseert zich bezig met een geloofssysteem dat een betere representatie van de realiteit geeft. Deze man geeft een sterk voorbeeld. Interessante punten om over na te […]
Here is why people will not accept this new religion.
According to this http://imgur.com/a/rjvyh we need to cater to the economic realities of this age.
I would call that a pile of glib rationalizations for hostile laws aimed at smashing families and written by angry hateful hostile people.
Role back the laws to what was enforced in England and 1780, and then see what happens. If the collapse of the family is caused by economic and cultural forces, then enforcing the traditional marital contract should not make much difference. I predict it will make a huge difference.
Those are rationalizations for changes in behavior. Why, however, did the laws change to encourage that behavior and forbid traditional behavior?