Pharisaism, Christianity, and Stoicism

Phariseeism is the same thing as modern day Judaism. The Pharisees were eliminated in Israel, as prophesied, but survived in Babylon, and created the Talmud in the sixth century of our lord. Modern day Judaism is Talmudism, and the Talmud is a great pile of horrifying demonic stuff.

Christianity plausibly claimed to revive a faith more ancient than Abraham, of which Phariseeism was a heretical corruption. Christ is King and High priest in the line of Melchizedek (mortal) and also the Stoic Logos made flesh (divine). (Thus Christianity incorporates Greek stoicism)

Worship of the God of Abraham long predates Abraham, and worship by an organised priesthood was operating at the time of Abraham. Melchizedek, King of Salem (and King of Righteousness), interacts with Abraham as a King interacts with an ally who possesses a substantial armed force, and as a priest to an adherent of his well established and widespread faith. As King of Salem, and dealing with political and military troubles, obviously mortal, and nothing in the Bible says he was not wholly mortal. On the other hand, nothing in the Bible says he was not also something more. In the war the bible describes, we see armed forces cohering on the basis of kinship in the male line, and also cohering with nonkin on the basis of shared faith and piety. Christianity is that shared faith, more ancient than Abraham, plus the sacrifice of God to Man bringing forgiveness of sins.

There are frequent unkind references to Jews in the New Testament. These should be interpreted as references to Pharisees, to the Jews of modern Judaism, who are under a curse for Deicide. And the way the wind blows, they are likely to be expelled from Israel yet again.


The problem was that the Jews were holiness spiralling the letter of the law to evade the spirit of the law. They were, and still are, Jewing God. They holiness spiral the letter in order to flat out disobey the commandments.

The letter of the law ended because following the letter of the law had become wicked, and this wickedness led to catastrophic consequences.

Gnon was not amused, so sent his son down to tell them to cut it out. They, as Jesus prophesied, killed him. They then became the unchosen people, eternally cursed for deicide. Kings who accept Jesus Christ as Lord have interpreted his commentary on legalism as requiring them to compose laws suited for their times, their circumstances, the nature of their people, and the history of the people, but which give effect to the spirit of Old Testament law. Which seems an obvious and obviously correct interpretation. King Alfred saw himself as divinely appointed to issue laws for the Angles and Saxon whose spirit followed the Old Testament, but whose letter adapted Roman law and Saxon custom.

I have told this story many times, and will now tell it yet again. (Finally promoting it to a post:)

The Jews were Jewing God. They still are.

In the time of Jesus, as now, the Jews were Jewing God, violating the law by scrupulously and carefully obeying it. Gnon was not amused, and the Jews suffered dreadful consequences.

Legalism had become rejection of the commandments, instead of observance of them.

It was divinely prophesied that if the Israelites collectively violated the commandments, they would be expelled from Israel. They violated the commandments, Jewing God by strictly observing the letter of the law in ways that violated the spirit and intent of the commandments, and, by massively violating the commandments, pissed off their neighbours, among them the Romans. Cause and effect. And because they were terribly self righteous about their violation of the commandments, one thing led to another. Chance and necessity. And the Romans expelled them.

The letter of the law, under the accretion of new laws to deal with new circumstances, and the scribes and pharisees re-interpreting and re-re-interpreting old laws, had come to have meanings and effects grossly contrary to the spirit and intent of the commandments.

This is addressed at length in the New Testament, but is most unambiguously revealed not in the New Testament, but in the incidents that led to the prophesied expulsion of the Jews from Israel and the prophesied destruction of the Temple.

The New Testament ends just before these incidents, probably because the people who were writing it all got killed in them.

Legalism had became the grossest possible violation of the commandments, which violation pissed off not only Jesus and Christians, but also Israel’s neighbours, and among them, the short tempered six hundred pound gorilla, Rome.

Shortly after murdering Paul, James the just, brother of Christ, and James’s wife, the Jews murdered a Roman cop. And because they were as self righteous about this incident as they were about murdering the disciples one thing led to another, and eventually to mass murder on an enormous scale.

The Jews were so uptight about avoiding contamination by blood, that in order to avoid walking on land contaminated by chicken blood, they proceeded to violate the commandments on coveting, stealing, and murder. They got themselves covered in the blood of a Roman cop who was courageously attempting to impartially enforce Roman order to the benefit of all, illustrating in blood Jesus’s rant about whited sepulchers and his lectures on the spirit of the law, rather than the letter of the law. And not long thereafter, they illustrated those lectures in oceans of blood.

Pharisaical legalism manifested as coveting, robbery, and murder, while Christian legalism (which is far less common) tends to manifest first in adultery, then in sodomy and trannieism.

On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: ‘The Wages of Sin is Death’

The Pharisaical Jews at the end of the second temple period wound up murdering a whole lot of Pharisaical Jews, and burned the food stores while Jerusalem was under siege by the Romans.

The second Christian heresy was the super strict chaster than thou sexual morality of Nicolas the Deacon, one of the seven Deacons appointed by the apostles, which in practice manifested as cuckoldry and adultery, as the strict sexual morality of today’s Vatican manifested first in liberally nullifying inconvenient marriages, and now as sodomy. Married priests with obedient children are unacceptable, but priests having sex with each other in a great big pile are consenting adults.

The Logos

I explain the meaning of “Logos” at length in “The Logos

For Aristotle, “logos” (“word”) was rational and responsive debate, and the meaning of that debate – the kind of debate I encourage on my blog. But obviously this debate is going to be substantially about moral truths

Natural law is law and right conduct deduced from the way the universe is, and the way it works: the moral and social meaning of physical law, of material and effective causation.

But meaning requires a meaner, requires a person. So, around three hundred years before Christ, fifty years after Aristotle, “the logos” (“the word”) came to mean a person. That person, the person that gave rise to physical law, logos spermatikos, to material and effective and causation, was The Logos (the word). A person who meant the moral and social truths that arise from material and effective causation.

I explain the tactical and strategic consequences of this doctrine (by their fruits you will know them) in “The Logos has risen“.

Nature is not amoral. It is the logos manifest. A bird must fly, and a human must cooperate. Failure to fly is failure of telos, failure to succeed in cooperation is failure of telos. Our race is about to go extinct by the inability of men and women to cooperate on reproduction, assuming we do not nuke ourselves first. This natural condition implies certain rightful norms of natural law and biblical law, norms that progressivism has repudiated for men and women, repudiated for races, and repudiated for armed nation states, some of them nuclear armed.

The God of Abraham was the God of Melchizedek, and Melchizedek was priest King, and Abraham was not. Christianity is the restoration of a faith older than Abraham. If you purge all the Aryan “additions” from Christianity, such as natural law and sacramental marriage, it is not Christian any more. The Christian doctrine of the Logos gives reality moral authority, since reality is a manifestation of will of God. Sacred marriage comes from the old Greek Aryan tradition, and was plonked into Christianity by Jesus himself. The logos comes Greek philosophy, and was plonked into Christianity directly by the apostles, who attributed it to Christ himself. The attribution is complex and arguable, but they were there and we were not. Christmas comes from a later period, from the fourth century of our lord, when Christians were a minority in power, and wanted to pull in the majority, hence its nature as Christian celebration to which all are invited regardless of faith. Although sacramental marriage comes directly from Christ, also directly from old Aryan faith, the Aryan tradition of only one wife (all children by concubines being illegitimate and not inheriting the property and rank of nobility of the father) seems to have been quietly assumed and accepted a little later, assumed as implied, the Jewish tradition at the time being many wives of equal status.

Anyone who uses the term “logos”, as in “The Logos is Rising” is usually aggressive defender of trinitarianism and Christ’s deity, and is usually also an aggressive opponent of egalitarianism, feminism, and all that. What I see is a strong correlation between forceful support of the ancient other worldly doctrines of Christianity, and forceful support of the ancient this worldly doctrines of Christianity, from marriage to Christmas, “Pagan” additions and all. Those who want to purify Christianity from “Pagan” additions want to count Melchizedek as pagan and will tell us that Paul was wrong or disingenuous to count the temple in Athens as dedicated to “I am that I am”.

The Stoic philosopher Marcus Aurelius justifies the Stoic doctrine of forgiveness and mercy from the fact that we necessarily have imperfect information about the other, paralleling the Game Theoretic Dark Enlightenment rationale for one tit for two tats. And he practised this doctrine, while at the same time performing his job as emperor, which frequently required him, like Saint Justinian the emperor, to kill people in considerable numbers.

138 Responses to “Pharisaism, Christianity, and Stoicism”

  1. The Infant Phenomenon says:

    In reply to “Cub” who posted this on 13 March at 4:02 pm:

    ” […] On the other hand, Whites (the people that have spread Christianity around the globe) are being systematically humiliated and replaced in our own countries by subhumans and psychopaths. Why? Because we love our enemies too much. The only conclusion I can draw is that God wants us to accept the fact that we’re being genocided by the corrupt, overreaching American empire on the insistence of Jews. He wants Whites to walk willingly to the cross. […]

    The young man seems earnest and sincere but he is hopelessly confused, probably owing to bad instruction (if, indeed, any at all) and to a kind of psychic infection picked up from living in a poisonous cultural and religious atmosphere.

    The problem here is one of language; specifically of the poverty of English compared with (koine) Greek, the language of the New Testament.

    Christ’s command has to do with two entirely different kinds of enemy: the private, or persona, enemy: the agon; and the public enemy: the inimicus.

    Christ never at any tine even remotely hinted that we must love the public enemy. He commanded us to love our private, personal enemies. This was *always* understood throughout Christian history until recently.
    It is and always has been perfectly proper to hate and destroy the enemy of your people–the public enemy; the inimicus. So that’s that.

    The second part of this problem of language is that English has but one word for love, to wit, “love.” Greek had/has many others, but they are all rendered into English as “love.” So that is another part of the young man’s confusion.

    What does it mean to love one’s private or personal enemy? Christ made it clear: “If you love me, keep my commandments.” Do you steal from your personal enemy? Do you covet his goods or his wife? Do you murder your personal enemy? And so on.

    The point is that if you grant to your personal enemy the immunities granted to him by God (the Ten Commandments), then you have fulfilled Christ’s law of love because you have kept His commandments. That is what Our Lord meant when He said, “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” in answering the question of which is the greatest commandment of them all. “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God … and thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hand all the law and the prophets.” And note that before loving one’s neighbor, one first love’s oneself.

    Obey the Ten Commandments, and you have fulfilled Christ’s commandment to love thy neighbor. It is as simple as that.

    Second, what is meant by “neighbor”? It’s a simple word understood by pre-schoolers. Your neighbor is somebody who lives near you.

    “What did you pay for your car?”
    “Oh, something in the neighborhood of [amount].”

    This is what “neighbor” means, and nothing else: Something nearby; someone close by. Something (even a number, like a price) that is close to something else. The word “neighbor” does *not* comprise people on the other side of the world or even on the other side of your hometown whom you have never met and never will. Any other “interpretation” of the word “neighbor” is quite simply illiterate or dishonest.

    So what of the Good Samaritan? The point of that teaching is that your neighbor is wherever you find him. But do you find your neighbor on the other side of the world? It’s possible, of course, but generally unlikely. And in any event, the Good Samaritan paid out of his own purse to help the “Certain man who went down from Jerusalem to Jericho and fell among thieves.” He did not try to oblige anybody else to join him in helping the unfortunate man; he took care of the man himself. Nor did he take the robbery victim into his own home; nor did he even consider doing so. If he had, it would have been part of the parable, since the Good Samaritan and the other characters in the parable never existed; they were characters in a story that had a point.

    So the Good Samaritan encountered a man in trouble and helped him on his own and out of his own pocket. He did not consider moving the man into his own home or haranguing others to do that or, indeed, anything else. He acted and then went home, and that was that.

    There is *no* hint, however slight, that the Good Samaritan should have ruined himself on that occasion. Nor is there in *any* of Our Lord’s teachings that we should do anything as self-destructive as ruining ourselves for a temporary neighbor (which is what the “certain man” was to the Good Samaritan–a *temporary* neighbor) or even for a *real* neighbor. We are simply commanded not to murder or rob or defraud our *real* neighbor by granting to him the immunities specified in the Ten Commandments. “If you love me, KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS.” That is how one love’s one’s neighbor. But the commandment concerns your *real* neighbor or a *temporary* neighbor, as in the parable. It does not concern mankind in general. That is not a Christian idea and never was. Christian “brotherhood” is necessarily IN CHRIST. Christianity has never at any time recognized “the brotherhood of man.” That is an “Enlightenment” notion (I won’t call it an idea).

    So that is the proper explanation of “Love your enemies” and “love your neighbor.” Anything else is outright false. That is what “love” means. It’s just that the Greek word has only one English translation, and it is a poor substitute for the richness of the Greek text, which is one reason why the Holy Spirit gave us the New Testament in Greek and not English.

    To recap: There is *no* teaching from Christ or from the Old Testament that requires us to love the public enemy–the enemy of our people. There *is* a commandment to love your private (personal) enemy, and that is done by not murdering him or coveting his goods or his wife or by defrauding him, etc., in accordance with the Ten Commandments. Your emtions do not enter into it at all.

    “If you love me, KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS.” Don’t covet; steal; murder; defame, etc., your *real, actual* neighbor. The commandment is not some vague thing to be applied vaguely by confused and silly people who think that the NT was written in English. There is no commandment concerning absolute strangers unless you happen to encounter them as in the parable of the Good Samaritan. But encountering invaders of your own country is *not* an encounter with your neighbor. It is an encounter with the inimicus–the public enemy; the enemy of your people and your land. And it is perfectly proper and in complete harmony with Our Lord’s teaching to hate and destroy the public enemy–the invader.

    Everybody who is confused about this “love thy neighbor” and “love your enemy” must read (five or six times) “The Politics of Guilt and Pity” by Rushdoony:

    Published in 1968, it describes exactly where we find ourselves today.

  2. someDude says:

    Just a reminder to western reactionaries that we in India are not too much better off than they are with respect to Evil Elites,

    India passed a law easing the immigration and citizenship process for Hindus fleeing persecution in Islamic countries like Afpak & Bdesh and this rat-bastard says foreigners are grabbing jobs meant for Indians. Rat-Bastard never cared about the open border with Islamic bangladesh, indeed he supported unlimited Islamic immigration which had millions of Mohammedans flooding in and changing the demographic profile of the border states, but when the process is eased for poor Hindus with nowhere else to go, he has the gall to call them foreigners taking Indians’ Jobs

    And we can’t even behead him, neither can we boil him in oil in a televised clip, nor can we bury him neck up and have him trampled by an Elephant. Oh, for a Dharmic Monarch. We don’t deserve one, yet ……..

    • Dharmicreality says:

      I don’t pay attention to everyday mainstream politics but yeah, when the dharmic monarch arrives we need to be ready to provide him a helicopter ride list.

  3. Encelad says:

    Apparently, comic writer Stonetoss has been doxxed thanks to a databreach on Gab

    • Bwana Simba says:

      Where did you hear this?

      • Encelad says:

        it’s all over the internet.
        Antifa are parading his head as a trophy looking forward to harm him very soon.

        • Bwana Simba says:

          Thank you. Didn’t see anything on the few dissident sites I frequent so I had not heard a thing. Had to look it up on Reddit.

      • Your Uncle Bob says:

        If I had but one bullet and were faced with an enemy, a traitor, and an oh-so-smart boi asking for the source of something well known and easily verified, I would let the oh-so-smart boi have it.

        • The Cominator says:

          Nah enemies are worse than merely people who annoy you, now people you are stuck being around for some reason who purposely annoy you can be viewed as enemies.

        • Bwana Simba says:

          Why did you waste your time with such a comment? All I did was ask a simple question, not even directed towards you, and you responded with snark. How very clever boys of you.

          • jim says:

            This was an innocent question, but people used to dealing with lefties are accustomed to “Do you have a source for that” — meaning a demand for evidence that claim is part of the official delusion. The reaction was inappropriately hostile, but I deal with no end of shills who want to explain that they are more Christian than I, more racist than I, and so on and so forth, when they live in a world of official lies and delusion and are trying to pump these lies out to deplorables. So I understand why people who have to deal with this insanity, delusion, and evil get snappy when they see innocent questions reminiscent of the usual, because the usual always pretends to be innocent, when it is not.

            Stonetoss was careless, has failed to adjust to the new abnormal. I would never have given Gab information from which my physical location could be found. That may well get him killed, and there are no end of people who have me on their death list. And should they kill me or Stonetoss, the killer would know that police would display a curious lack of curiosity. In Canada, you can go to jail for years for thought crimes. Here they will just kill you. Of course it possible, indeed probable that Stonetoss gave Gab misleading information from which the wrong location will be found. I keep around a large supply of misleading information for that purpose.

            Russia is arguably even less democratic than America, but there is considerably more freedom of speech. I have a little list of Russian bloggers, blogging under their true names and true faces, that Putin really should deal with, but has not. There is never freedom of speech anywhere ever, but the more insecure the sovereign and the state religion, the less freedom of speech. Recall what a long leash Shakespeare got when the Globe became the mouthpiece of the King. A lot more freedom of speech then than now, and the laws prohibiting sacrilege and Lèse-majesté were official on the books laws, enforced by daylight, so you knew what was forbidden. It is really oppressive when you are forbidden to know what is forbidden. The nice thing about Dubai and Thailand is that you do know what is forbidden. Some people don’t like the restrictions, but I find it very restful. Nobody needs to keep a gun, a machete, and two bladed axe handy to their desk in Dubai. It is safe from crime, and if you follow the rules, safe from government, and, unlike America, safe to know what the rules are.

            There ius always a state religion, and there is never freedom of speech. But some regimens restricting freedom of speech are less obnoxious than others.

            • dharmicreality says:

              Russia can be loosely described as “authoritarian” and “national socialist” under Putin as is India under Modi (though somewhat less “authoritarian”). And National socialism, being an older turn of Leftism, does restrict freedom of speech to a considerable extent. Yet, globohomo progressivism is a lot more restrictive than national socialism and far more intrusive into personal freedom than national socialism ever was.

              And the evil state religion of progressivism under the garb of “democracy” intrudes directly into family through family courts, wants to destroy your productive business through regulations and HR, wants to brainwash and turn your children into trannies and take them away, and protect the right of pederasts to rape boys. It has far more apple carts to knock than mere socialism. The Prog religion undermines National Socialism, even as Socialism undermined Nationalism.

              Also we should not worry about “freedom of speech” as an individual issue, but rather as a whole in the context of the ruling State Religion. Because as you observe, there is no real freedom of speech anywhere.

              Ideally we want National Capitalism, Divine Monarchy, restoration of traditional marriage and Patriarchal institutions; (in India, we want return to Varnashrama and Manu’s laws in Ram Rajya) but any form of national socialism is far less evil than Globohomo progressivism, though the socialism part is always undermining nationalism.

  4. Bram says:

    They say it’s a jungle out there, and to keep your family off the streets, and out of public school systems…

    See also video of white teen girl gets mexican thugs pistol in her mouth…

  5. Big Brutha says:

    God is as perfect in His justice as He is in His mercy but the people who preach Hippie Jesus do not believe in the former even as they pervert the latter.

  6. A2 says:

    Americans recently seem to be upset about social media depressing their children for non-specific reasons. (“Cyberbullying”?)

    But isn’t a simpler explanation that children become depressed because their teachers, educators and media tell them they are awful people who in the name of justice (social) must be deprived, set at the back of the line, perhaps killed (tee hee, just kidding)?

    • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

      To start with, I think you may have misapprehended the connotations of the thrust.

      At the same rate, the endarkenment conceit of one ever being wholly remoted from structure, the idea of being ‘non-ideological’ in a categorical sense, a fully abstract and atemporal gnostic presence that can look upon the world but not be of the world, is itself an other a grave mistake, and a major wedge in what served to destroy the old order to begin with, the necessary precondition for post-modernism in the first place.

      • A2 says:

        One may question the very lack of principles, of course. On the other hand, this lack means it can be quite slippery to attack effectively. If forced, I’d say the faith of our fathers, throne and altar, etc, and leave it at that. P-Zombies can’t have meaningful ideologies anyway, right?

        Post-modernism in a broad meaning was a purely destructive academic dark art which, after it had fulfilled its purpose, in essence disappeared. Replaced by infinite academic negro liberation with a very low ceiling of skill. It could serve as a template of critique of the existing order. Nick Land was something like that for a while, I seem to recall.

        • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

          I don’t simply question lack of principles; I declare that perception of lack of principles simply means one is a wholly owned and operated subsidy of principles they don’t perceive.

          • A2 says:

            Well, I certainly hope not! (Though I don’t think the inner party operates according to any higher principle than power.)

    • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

      The profusions of rhetoric in discourse about ‘mormalizing mental health’ are shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic.

      People are in despair because their futures have been stolen from them; no children, no purpose, no property, no patrimony. Sensitive young men turn into school shooters because public schools are soul-crushing dens of misery and woe that are antithetical to their spirit. Modern society is reacting to someone taking a hammer to your windows by trying to install hammer-proof windows instead of taking a hammer to the perpetrator.

      Actual solutions are ‘politically impossible’, leaving only displacement activities to sublimate the feelings of powerlessness, that are useless at best (rare), and excuses for getting them coming and going by ‘solutions’ that exacerbate the travails in new and improved ways at worst (all the more common).

    • Ryan says:

      Social media fucked up kids even before the anti-white stuff got bad. Mostly girls obsessing with popularity, with the mean girl dynamics becoming 24/7 rather than limited. Plus everyone showing a false idealized life that made others feel inadequate.

      Of course things are much worse now.

      • Doom says:

        Popularity means access to top tier men.
        In particular as “age gap” is seen as creepy, this means the only acceptable men for women to lust and compete after are hyper-rare – the 21 year old you tube or media star.

        Women are also socially shamed for low body counts and staying in LTR’s. The path for women socially is

        > have sex with hot guys (that are poor) in your fun years
        > stick the landing with a hot rich guy when you are mid 30’s

        Thats basically why they behave the way they do as teens.

        • Adam says:

          >Popularity means access to top tier men.

          Girls are not sleeping with their onlyfans subscribers and instagram followers. They are receiving social validation and material wealth.

        • notglowing says:

          > Popularity means access to top tier men.
          This isn’t true. Men do not prefer women based on social proof. Women are like that, men aren’t.
          Women do project themselves on men with stuff like this, so you could argue that a woman *thinks* that being popular will make her more attractive just like lawyer women think they’re a catch because they have degrees.

          But it’s just not true. They want male attention, they get it. They do not want the men giving them attention.

        • Handi says:

          In particular as “age gap” is seen as creepy, this means the only acceptable men for women to lust and compete after are hyper-rare

          The age gap taboo only goes one way. I have been hearing young women openly lust after men two or three times their age for my entire life; they are completely unfazed by this and indeed there is no reason for them not to be. (The only case where women get shamed for being in an age-gapped relationship is when the delta is so extreme that it’s clear they’re gold-digging, and in that case they’re not getting shamed for the age gap but for the gold-digging.)

          Girls aren’t even slightly deterred by the “inappropriateness” of a relationship because they can instantly discharge responsibility onto the man whenever they decide things are no longer working out in their favor.

          The reason young women ride the cock carousel isn’t because they’re getting muh shamed for trying to settle down with established older men (???). They ride the cock carousel because they want to.

      • Adam says:

        Instagram is for girls what porn is for guys. Girls want infinite male attention, guys want infinite sexual access.

  7. Bram says:

    Many question the global gerontocracy…

  8. Redbible says:

    I don’t want to give details (since it’s personal), but there is a woman in my life that (because reasons) I want to hurt the next time I see her. Probably pick her up, take her off somewhere away from everyone, and smack her ass many times really hard. She is my friend’s sister. Both he and her still live with their parents. I expect that the next time I am over (in a few days) there will also be guests at there house (since that house seems to always have guests over), And yet the rage I feel makes me want to go through with it anyways, despite the fact that picking her up and taking her away in front of an audience is very risky.

    Some details I can give that aren’t too personal. No, I have not had sex with my friend’s sister. Based on some conversations we have had, I feel pretty confident that he’d be fine if I did have sex with her. They live on a property with lots of land, so it shouldn’t be too hard to be able to take her off to somewhere on the property that is away from everyone else.

    Anyone got any ideas or advice?

    • Adam says:

      What is the purpose of disciplining a woman you are not banging or do not own?

      • Bram says:

        He said “Hurt” her, not “Discipline” her, there is a big difference in reason, intent, method, and result there. [*deleted for lack of thoughtcrimes on a matter impossible to relevantly discuss without committing the thought crimes*]

        • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

          >He said “Hurt” her, not “Discipline” her, there is a big difference in reason, intent, method, and result there.

          Which are all angels dancing on a pinhead, because to the woman, they are exactly the same.

    • Karl says:

      If you smack her ass many times real hard, you should fuck her afterwards and make her your own. Otherwise, what is the point of smacking her ass?

      Revange is what you do to men. Don’t treat a woman like a man, don’t hold a woman to the same standards as a man.

      • A2 says:

        More or less agreed. I seem to recall this coming up before, but it was unclear what the woman had been doing that was so enraging. So advice will by necessity be limited.

        If she’s just being annoying/hostile/feminist, why not take a break and stay away for 6 months or so? Decline invitations and meet your friend somewhere else. Befriend other girls.

      • simplyconnected says:

        That’s solid advice.

    • jim says:

      You are taking her too seriously.

      Women always do bad things to men, because they are always trying to smoke out the alpha. It is just what they are. It is not really malicious. When a man does bad things, he is playing to win. When a woman does bad things, she is playing to lose. Don’t judge her by the standards appropriate to men, and don’t react as if she was a man.

      And if you spank her, bang her.

      • Redbible says:

        This comment is in reply to both Jim and Karl, since they both said similar things. (Though Jim’s comment goes into better detail.)

        If I am reading what you said correctly Jim, it would seem that she is acting badly because she wants a man to put her in her place, yes?

        And if you spank her, bang her.

        And I assume that you mean that I need to bang her right after spanking her, yes?

        • jim says:


          The code for blockquotes is not [blockquote]quote[/blockquote]



  9. Mister Grumpus says:

    Off topic but a big deal:

    As a measure of my own feeble-mindedness, Tim Pool just blew me away with a clip about how this scrupulous new insistence on “undocumented” (citizen) versus “illegal” (invader -> immigrant -> migrant) reveals that the next apple cart is the concept of American citizenship itself.

    “We’re all Americans.” Those three words are everywhere now, in The Biden’s SOTU speech, and the trailer for the new “Civil War” movie.

    Because it’s so unfair that people have to slink around “their country” in the shadows, with no “access to (White) resources”, just because they don’t have “documents”.

    So arbitrary! So unfair. It’s the new slavery.

    And that’s fucking it. They needn’t even wait for anchor babies anymore. For less than $1000 printed up airfare per Aztec, Arab and African, all they have to do is carpet-bomb us with brown biomass, and they’ll vote themselves right into every bank account, house and refrigerator in the country. They’ll steal, rape and slay all they want and women will LOVE THEM for it.

    It’s the infinigger strategy. The one weird trick.

    That one concept — citizenship abolition — was the key that turned the lock for me. I finally see it clearly. The apple cart is America itself. It’s just a self-amplifying wildfire Heritage American Genocidal Feeding Frenzy now, without limit.

    (Ask an American Indian.)

    How does one “Brezhnev” this? How can this possibly “stagnate”? All they have to do is dump, dump and dump. Infinigger does all the work itself, entirely off the books. No one on top has to decide anything, or say a word.

    • S says:

      They’ve been pushing that a while- New York passed a law to allow non-citizens to vote in 2022 that was struck down by the courts this year.

    • Pete says:

      Yup, America is now just a cookie jar for any dirty brown fingers from anywhere in the world to root around in.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        It’s not really about the dirty brown fingers. They’ll roam where they can, and eat and fuck what they can, all while reflexively DESERVING every bit of it. Like wolves or ants. No surprises or scandals there.

        It’s that this is an intentional and genocidal assault. It’s so evil that I’m having trouble comprehending by whom.

        One take is that it’s the Chinese, solving their geopolitical problems as quietly and efficiently as possible, leveraging their almost God-like ability to not give a fuck about strangers, and especially not non-Chinese strangers. That makes a lot of sense.

        Another take is that it’s the Jews, tikkuning their olam and finalizing their solution. Because Jewish. That makes sense too.

        But the Cthulhu that really scares me is the probability that pink hands are behind all of this. The vampire can only enter a house when invited. They’ll drop their own children into the Brown Mass to dick over White strangers with the wrong fucking religion. God I hate us sometimes.

        • someDude says:

          What you are ascribing to the Chinese is something that is way out of their sense of realpolitik. It’s not that they are incompetent. This sort of internal sabotage would not even cross their mind.

          This is your own evil Elite in action. In life, the biggest wounds are self inflicted

          • Mayflower Sperg says:

            This sort of internal sabotage would not even cross their mind.

            Because if anyone tried to conquer China by flooding the country with wild brutes, the Chinese would say, “Those were delicious — please send more!”

        • The Cominator says:

          It is the gays mostly because the Jesuits are Catholic Priests and thus gay…

    • Arkyshrugger says:

      I think God is giving America the Ten Lost Tribes treatment. The people pouring over the southern border are the current-day Assyrians.

      • jim says:

        If we continue to allow ourselves to be ruled by demon worshippers, we will suffer collective punishment. The solution is for Christianity to rule.

        Democracy is over, and Christian Nationalists are the largest cohesive group that thinks it should rule, so it is in the running.

    • RMIV says:

      considering this very habbening, i am curious what comes to y’all when considered in this context

      indulge me, ’tis a brief read.

      it seems the case to me that we must fight in ways Sauron, so to speak, does not know but not only in those ways. rather that such ways must necessarily be included. i hope you will regale me with your thoughts friends i have begun contemplating this a good deal.

      • someDude says:

        Jim’s already fighting in a way that your evil elites can’t comprehend, indeed, do not want to contemplate. I saw Jim’s one step ahead. Fighting in a way Sauron dare not contemplate. Sand, ostrich, etc

        • RMIV says:

          i am not sure what you mean. is it that he is re-interpreting the product of the enemy’s million megaphones in light of what we here lovingly call Jimian Christianity (Jimianity) and revealing the demon-infested enemy as such thereby?

          i am unclear on the rest of it.

          >I saw Jim’s one step ahead.
          >Sand, ostrich, etc

          thank you friend.

      • jim says:

        The demons are trying and failing to fill the space left when they murdered official state Christianity. As the officially unofficial faith has become ever more demonic and ever less Christian, the vacuum pulls more strongly, demanding to be filled by something.

        The belief system of the Christian right implies that they should rule, regardless of infinite niggers, regardless of votes. Very few in the Christian right want to think their way all the way through to the logical conclusion, but throne and altar is where it goes.

        The Republic has reached its use by date. We have been under uniparty rule for some time. Which is regrettable. Republics are great while they last, but they depend on elite virtue, which they undermine. In the end, one man will rule. And he is going to need an official faith, a state Church, a state sponsored ideology, that makes that OK. Cult of personality has been repeatedly tried, but really does not cut the mustard. Working OK for a while in El Salvador, because of the character of the dictator, and because the previous uniparty regime was, like ours, currupt, stupid, and incompetent. But the usual schlerosis of dicatorship is setting in.

        No man rules alone. You need an apparatus for finding, generating, and representing consensus — the ship of state is small fragile boat sailing on a storm tossed sea of anarchy. The trouble is that you need a synthetic tribe, and Bukele does not have one. The El Salvadorean gangs do have one. They worship demons, related to the Old Gods of Mexico.

        There is a vacuum, which is currently being filled by demons, in America, and in El Salvador. The tranny cult is the old cult of Ishtar, and the warmists are the old cult of Gaia.

        Demonic rule is intolerably bad. If we are lucky, someone will appear, as in El Salvador, to fix it. Maybe Trump will become dictator, but he is too old, and a merchant, not a warrior. But there will be a dictator, one way or another, sooner or later.

        Bukele’s efforts in El Salvadore to fight the gangs are reckless, brutal, and indiscriminate, because he fails to recognise that he is fighting an enemy faith, and has no faith of his own with which to fight it. The coming American dictator is likely to find himself in the same boat. We are always ruled by priests or warriors, and warriors need priests. They need a synthetic tribe.

        There is a very old fomula for this. A very old social technology. It worked before, and with the Republic dead, or undead on its feet, it is time for that formula again.

        Our strength is that they just cannot think that stuff at all, because it is all thought crimes piled on thought crimes, and if they could think it, would not take it seriously.

        That Nuland finally got shafted for the failure of her Russia project is another indicator of the conflict that I am calling Team A and Team B, which usage seems to be spreading. Inevitably there are going to be people in the regime that are unhappy with it. The man now in charge of the Russia project is the man responsible for the disastrous retreat in Afghanistan, which makes a similarly disastrous retreat on the Russian borders likely.

        The conflict in Afghanistan was a classic conflict of faiths, old type Islam versus progressivism, symbolised by teaching girls to put a condom on a banana, demonic architecture, and modern art. All of which they believed were popular and that Afghans would fight for them. Nuland knew better, and sponsored the Nazis and the worship of manlier demons that Ishtar and Gaia in the Ukraine. (The Russians have lifted some rather interesting icons off the bodies of Azov Brigade troops.) So she has been purged for rightism, rather than leftism. Team B wanted her purged, but did not get a more suitable replacement. A monster has been replaced by an insane fool, who will continue the RussiaRussiaRussia project with means more deluded and less effectual.

        During the fall of Afghanistan, as in today’s Europe, we saw a great deal of deluded confidence in the progressive elite. They believed they were strong when they were weak. And people went along with it, because authority believed it, so the people believed it, so they seemed strong. This, however is fragile, and when organized violence pushes on it, it crumbles.

        In Afghanistan, progress met a faith organised for war. Russia is not a faith organised for war. Prigozhin organized faith for war, but Putin murdered him. In America, Christian Nationalism is a faith, but it is organised not for war but for politics as usual. But we no longer have politics as usual, and the new abnormal is likely to get a lot more abnormal.

        If Team B allows Trump to win, they are divided and wobbly on allowing him to rule, and Team A is fanatically and rigidly determined to prevent him from ruling. If he is alllowed to win, his woes are just beginning, not ending.

        An outsider, like Bukele or Trump, can only rule if he organises a faith for war. An outsider is an outsider because he is alone, and no man rules alone. Bukele may appear to established a popular absolute dictatorship, with limitless power and considerable popularity, but without a faith on his side, still cannot do much. Sadly, his dictatorship is suffering Dictator Schlerosis.

        • alf says:

          . Bukele may appear to established a popular absolute dictatorship, with limitless power and considerable popularity, but without a faith on his side, still cannot do much. Sadly, his dictatorship is suffering Dictator Schlerosis.

          Sucks. He waves his Christian faith around prominently though, so from the outside it seems like he is building more a Christian-based nation than a cult-of-personality nation. Where is he going wrong?

          • jim says:

            He has a lot of people locked up for which he has no specific identifiable crimes, but does have plausible grounds to believe them gang members — locked up on the basis of the group they identify with.

            The gangs are synthetic tribes — what makes them powerful and dangerous is that they cohere on much larger scale than a gang that just coheres on the basis of being able to grab stuff. He is not addressing the enemy faith as an enemy faith. He should be offering gang members who have no known crimes the opportunity for conversion and repentance. Needs priests as well as cops addressing the gang problem. Also, he is a dictator, and unavoidably winds up doing a lot of the bad stuff that dictators do, but since he is pretending democracy and republic, this is stuff is illegitimate, while for the Kings of Dubai and Thailand, it is completely legitimate, done out in the open, and no one has problem with it, because hey, they are Kings, while he does it furtively, denies doing it, and doing it makes him less popular. He needs a different basis of authority. If he is going to go the Christian path, he has to dive in full, and seek the anointment of the Lord.

            • alf says:

              Unsurprisingly, you are totally correct. Putting some more thought into it, I first figured that to the extend he is outspoken Christian, is probably Catholic, and hell will freeze over before the pope will give him the mandate of heaven.

              But he is not even all that outspoken Catholic. He is playing to all sides; Jewish wife, Catholic mother, Islam father. Yeah OK, I can see the problems that’ll bring to the table.

              If he is going to go the Christian path, he has to dive in full, and seek the anointment of the Lord.

              Pretty much huh. Same thing with Trump: just waving a bible in front of a church is nice, but equates to perhaps five steps in a thousand mile journey.

              • Riga says:

                People question what Bukele’s religion or faith actually is.
                He mentions soundbites that pundits say are Christian.
                But [*held pending the affirmation*]

                • jim says:

                  Before I will allow you to tell us what Christianity requires, you must affirm that Jesus Christ is Lord, born in Bethlehem, died at Jerusalem, and is, is from before the beginning of the world. Fully God and fully man. God is three and God is one.

                • Riga says:


            • Anon says:

              “Bukele’s efforts in El Salvadore to fight the gangs are reckless, brutal, and indiscriminate”
              This ,
              I always felt something is off about his rule. It seemed wrong to lock 2% of the population without any way out.
              And he has to continue this indefinitely.

              • Pete says:

                Well Bukele could simply shuttle all the gangbangers to mass graves, but then El Salvador would have the option to vote Bukele out of office (without the gangs coming back).

                With the bangers only locked up, the population has to really think hard about who they vote into office, because you get some liberal idiot in there, she will free all the gangsters and they will mass-murder everyone back home who tipped off law enforcement and turned them in.

              • jim says:

                He is locking people up on the basis that they identify with an enemy group, with whom he is at war. Which is completely reasonable. War is hell. But because he will not recognise that this is a holy war, he is unable to offer them repentance and conversion.

                If you are locking people up on the basis of who they identify with, what they identify as, you need to talk to them. Which is a job for a priest.

        • RMIV says:

          >Very few in the Christian right want to think their way all the way through to the logical conclusion, but throne and altar is where it goes.

          why would thinking this through to said conclusion be undesirable to the Christian right? who is the Christian right that you refer to?

          >the conflict that I am calling Team A and Team B, which usage seems to be spreading.

          i see this usage on Poast sometimes so it is spreading on fedi.

          >Prigozhin organized faith for war, but Putin murdered him.

          why do we believe that Putin in fact murdered Prigozhin, and what was it that motivated said murder why get rid of the guy? thank you friend.

          • jim says:

            > who is the Christian right that you refer to?

            The facefag and doxxed Christian right. As for example the Republican candidate for governor of North Carolina, and all the men at CPAC.

            > why do we believe that Putin in fact murdered Prigozhin

            We don’t know, but he was murdered shortly after he became a threat to Putin.

        • skippy says:

          “There is a vacuum, which is currently being filled by demons, in America, and in El Salvador. The tranny cult is the old cult of Ishtar, and the warmists are the old cult of Gaia.”

          jim, are you aware of this tradition/theory?

          Do you have a view on it?

          • jim says:

            Nah, it was the perverts, not the pagans

            And emperor Constantine was innocent in that one.

            The perpetual virginity of Mary comes from the fraudulent ProtoEvangelium of James, which was promoted, and probably forged, by Origen, who was always suspected of being a pervert — that is him depicted in a medieval manuscript.

            • Anon says:

              *you mean ” Origen of Alexandria”
              the wikipedia entery has a glowy biography about him presenting him as founder of christian theology .
              also the picture supposedly his casteration.

              • jim says:

                The implication of the picture is that he castrated himself out of sexual deviance.

                Clerical celibacy is a heresy, because it contradicts the instructions of Paul on recruitment of clergy, and it is a heresy that promotes the interests of sexual deviants who want to get into the clergy to get at other people’s children, and the protoevangelium of James was created to promote clerical celibacy. And was originally promoted, and probably written, by a man generally suspected of sexual deviance.

                • jim says:

                  The protoevangelium of James is not merely apocrypha. There are lots of good and worthy apocrypha. It is a forgery. And who forged it? Probably Origen, because we have no evidence that it was known before Origen promoted it, and the oldest existent manuscript dates to around that time.

            • FrankNorman says:

              I know little about Origen beyond that he wrote a good deal as an apologist, but later got denounced for a pile of heresies.

    • Mister Grumpus says:

      One thing I can say is that everything is wet with gasoline out here.

      Of course there’s more to it – it had Jewish and Ivy League fingerprints all over it, I know – but I once read that what Chairman Mao had effectively done was to find a way to channel and harness the Chinese peasantry’s desperation into self-amplifying action. Everything had been unfair for them. There was no lever, no court, no rule, no petition, no means of redress, that hadn’t been cut off. The aristocrats could fuck with, humiliate and exploit the peasants with absolute impunity, so there was gasoline everywhere. He found a way to light that gasoline, and channel the energy released, all the way to Peking.

      It must have been quite a rush.

      But does that make me a leftist now? Are Harvard, Manhattan and DC just “apple carts” to me? How do I search myself to find out?

      I don’t want their stuff. What stuff do they even have that I’d even want? I don’t want my kids to get a free ride to Harvard. Fuck Harvard. I don’t want them to pay my bills. I barely have bills anymore. I just want freedom from them.

      I want criminal niggers in jail, or at least deported to Manhattan with a complimentary $1000 cash in one hand and free claw hammer in the other. I want HR, Karen and Shaniqua out of the workplace. I want to trust and really work with my colleagues again. I want to intelligently observe what I see and talk about it. I don’t want their stuff. I just want to be free from them.

      PS: Shoutout to PC, I think it was, for noticing that Brown Biomass is the new weapon of choice. Any free state left in America should close all its prisons and just ship the contents to Manhattan. Maybe Infinigger can work for us too.

      • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

        It’s been noticed as far back as by our friends the Native American Party nearly two centuries ago, but my good friend MayflowerSperg_FGC has been poasting the most about it lately.

  10. gaikokumaniakku says:

    In the past, Jim has seemed to urge the revival of conventional Christian religion, stressing conformist ethics. Jim’s latest writings make me wonder if I have misunderstood his position.

    >Worship of the God of Abraham long predates Abraham, and worship by an organised priesthood was operating at the time of Abraham.

    >Those who want to purify Christianity from “Pagan” additions want to count Melchizedek as pagan and will tell us that Paul was wrong or disingenuous to count the temple in Athens as dedicated to “I am that I am”.

    If worship of the God of Abraham predates Abraham, Christians might as well relegate Judaism to the history books and refer to Christianity as the Perennial Philosophy. If worship of the God of Abraham predates Abraham, who is to say that Socrates was not closer to God than Abraham? Who is to say that the Rig-Veda is not closer in spirit to Jesus than the Book of Job?

    I was first introduced to the notion of “perennial philosophy” by Catholics, who were convinced that their church was (and is) the ONE TRUE CHURCH. But if you loosen the constraints of Catholic perennial philosophy even slightly, you end up sitting in a New Age drum circle of Neo-Vedantists who quote Aldous Huxley’s “perennial philosophy.”

    So what is Jim advocating for the common people, who do not have strong mystical inclinations? Should Christian preachers operate? Should Christian preachers demand that the flock submit to the conformist ethics of conventional Christian churches? Or should Christian preachers say that it’s enough to be a New Age individualist mystic like Aldous Huxley and his many imitators?

    • jim says:

      This question presupposes such a weird, off the wall, and out of the blue interpretation of what I have said, that I have no idea how you interpreted what I said.

      Jesus Christ is Lord, born in Bethlehem, died at Jerusalem, and is, is from before the beginning of the world. Fully God and fully man. God is three and God is one.

      Does that clarify what I said? How does anything of what I have said contradict or undermine any of that?

      The faith goes all the way back to Adam, but Abraham got a new covenant, and the incarnation gave us another new covenant. Abraham’s covenant has not ended, for his children are numberless, but the among those children, the covenant with the Jews was ended by the curse for deicide. The parable of the wicked vinedressers tells us that we are the new Israel.

      Does that make anything any clearer?

      • gaikokumaniakku says:

        Thank you for your response. I hope you will address my underlying confusion in depth.

        Assuming God is the epitome of goodness and holiness, were the pre-Christian Jews the closest people to God prior to the incarnation of Jesus?

        That is to say, (some) Christian Neo-Platonists point to some important pre-Christian thinkers (Akhenaten, Socrates, Lao-Zi, Zarathustra, et al.) and assert that these non-Jewish pre-Christians were closer to God than Melchizedek and Abraham were.

        You might say these non-Jews are not worth thinking about; I imagine you would probably say these non-Jews were less holy than Melchizedek and Abraham.

        • jim says:

          Nope. “Chosen” does not equate to closer to God. It means God is taking a special interest in your performance.

          That is to say, (some) Christian Neo-Platonists point to some important pre-Christian thinkers (Akhenaten, Socrates, Lao-Zi, Zarathustra, et al.) and assert that these non-Jewish pre-Christians were closer to God than Melchizedek and Abraham were.

          There is no reason to believe this is true. As for Akhenaten, it is very hard, though not impossible, for a ruler to be close to God, because performing his duty as a ruler is apt to require killing large numbers of people. Zarathrusta was just a cult leader who believed in a multiplicity of Gods, with the two biggies, God and Satan, having equal or comparable power, whereas the true faith is that “I am that I am” is source of existence itself, is the ground of being. Socrates was just a guy who asked some good questions, most of which probably are not particularly interesting to God. Lao Zi’s Tao, on the other hand, does bear a distinct resemblance to “I am that I am”, but the Tao is not a person, while God has chosen to present himself, or some parts of himself, to some people, quite a lot of people, as a person. (Or three people, as in his little chat with Abraham) If the holy spirit speaks to one, that is in some sense God being close to you. Which is not at all the same thing as you being close to God. He reaches out.

          Abraham was talking to God, and God was talking to Abraham. Maybe the same was happening with Akhenaten, but we have no particular reason the believe so. God is not the sun.

          Shortly following the Exodus, the children of Abraham (most of them not of the tribe of Judah) were offered a new deal from God. Follow the commandments, and be the chosen people, and get the promised land.

          We have archealogical and geological evidence of some very large and extremely convenient earthquakes that happened when someone was invading the holy land and utterly destroying the cities. So the Hebrews were the chosen people.

          And then all the tribes fell away into idolatory, except the tribe of Judah. So the Jews the chosen people. But the tribe of Judah got cleverer and cleverer at weaseling the commandments.

          And, by the time of Jesus, they were full on Jewing God, and God called them on it. So they got an opportunity to remain the chosen people. Which, of course, they mucked up, as prophesied. So, no longer chosen.

          Instead, everyone gets the opportunity to sign up individually, or be signed up shortly after birth by their parents.

          • gaikokumaniakku says:

            > “Chosen” does not equate to closer to God. It means God is taking a special interest in your performance.

            That is a major idea I had failed to notice. Thank you.

            >Shortly following the Exodus, the children of Abraham (most of them not of the tribe of Judah) were offered a new deal from God. Follow the commandments, and be the chosen people, and get the promised land.

            I don’t have an estimated date for this event. It might be possible to get possible years from sources such as


            >We have archealogical and geological evidence of some very large and extremely convenient earthquakes that happened when someone was invading the holy land and utterly destroying the cities. So the Hebrews were the chosen people.

            I don’t have any knowledge of earthquake evidence, but I would be interested in book or journal recommendations to learn more. Thank you.

            • jim says:

              Canaan burned, and its cities were levelled, at the end of the Bronze Age collapse. Which would put the incidents in Egypt at the beginning of the Bronze age collapse. Jews have pulled some other date out of their asses, but that date was conjured up around the year of our lord 800 or so.

              There was a whole lot of that stuff going on at the beginning bronze age collapse all around the Mediterranean, but we have no record outside the bible of this particular incident. Though we have ample evidence that there was a whole lot of it going on. The question then is, who burned Canaan? There is one clue from history outside the Bible. Tribe of Dan was killing people and burning stuff around that time, We don’t have any records that put them in Holy Land, other than the Bible, but they left their fingerprints all over the Mediterranean. They were one of the sea peoples. Sea peoples went down in history, but we have plenty of evidence that much of the operation was land peoples, whose identity remains unclear. apart from the Biblical record — not that the identity of most of the sea peoples is much clearer. The sea peoples, including the Children of Dan, were all illiterate.

              • jim says:

                People tend to fail to record history when civilisation is collapsing, and literate people are killed on sight, because they were priests of demon worshipping religion, tax collectors, and debt collectors. We have records from Assyria and Egypt, because those civilisations survived the collapse, though vastly diminished, and we have records from the Hebrews, because they snatched up a couple of Egyptian priests to lead them, and the priesthood were the literate class. But the records only supply small fragments of the big picture.

                • Mister Grumpus says:

                  “…and we have records from the Hebrews, because they snatched up a couple of Egyptian priests to lead them…”

                  Moses and Aaron, you mean?

                • jim says:

                  Yes, of course.

                  Hebrew alphabet is simplified Egyptian glyphs for Egyptian words starting with the consonant. All the peoples that overran Bronze Age civilization were largely illiterate, and the written languages were largely lost, and today mostly untranslatable, but the Hebrews alone among the peoples that burned the decadent and degenerate Bronze Age civilisation retained some literacy. Presumably due to priestly leadership. Hard to lose literacy when your founding event is stone tablets with writing on them.

                  I don’t think most people were aware that civilisation was collapsing, because they were a little busy at the time, but Ipuwer seems to have realised what was happening.

                  It is interesting that we have a scroll carbon dated from approximately the time of the collapse that says civilisation is collapsing and it is collapsing for the following reasons in the following ways, (at least one of those ways, the collapse of international trade, confirmed by archaeology) and official history interprets it as a cautionary tale about far away and long ago, because they don’t like the reasons, and they don’t like the parallels between its account and the Exodus account. Not to mention the parallels between its account and what is happening to our civilisation. (Infanticide paralleling abortion, collapse of family paralleling collapse of family, suicides paralleling suicides, collapse of property rights paralleling collapse of property rights)

          • skippy says:

            “whereas the true faith is that “I am that I am” is source of existence itself, is the ground of being”


    • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

      How many legions do the drum circle command? What great works can they point too to recommend themselves?

      None of this happens in a vacuum. A good teuton and a good nihonjin could both be said to be operating with respect to divine law; divine law as expressed via the particularities of their circumstances and history and heredity. A good teuton is Christian not just because it is good, but also because he is teuton. It is part of his extended phenotype. Cladistically speaking, the non-christian teuton in 2024 is an inherently suspicious malformed shape. It is a big ask to trust someone who has – at least nominally – turned his back on his ancestors, community, and patrimony.

      >who is to say that Socrates was not closer to God than Abraham? Who is to say that the Rig-Veda is not closer in spirit to Jesus than the Book of Job?

      So tell me about your relationship with your father…

      One of the most commonly recorded demonstrations of a man with elevated spirit in the bible, is the ability to themselves recognize elevated spirit in other men. Simeon and John the Baptist being classic examples.

      There is no talk of systems, processes, or procedures, that will produce even a tinker’s dam of fruit, without talk of virtue preceding it first. There is no One Weird Trick to making polities work, except the One Weird Trick of personnel; the subversion of which bringing all the other weird tricks in.

      To know good, and lionize them; to know evil, and destroy them.

      At the end of the day it all comes back to natural nobility; agency; world formation. Some things have more of it, some things have less of it, and all works depend on it.

      Were you to have a revelation tomorrow, how would you express it to other men?

      If all beings equal holy sparks why all beings not writing bible. If all beings fungible holy sparks by what means were records for bible canon selected from the rest forthwith. By what means were some beings selecting instead of all beings. Why not all books by all beings being the bible.

      The words you can speak are like sieves; some things can be caught by them, while other things pass unnoticed. Like apertures; where certain forms go through, yet aught else gets shorn off. Like sapling trellises; in one case it helps guide, in another case it traps like straight jackets.

      The whole idea of ideology is the idea of fungible genius; the idea of an extra-personal artilection that can do all necessary and sufficient thinking for you.

      The value of words, the value that can be gotten out of words, each and all depend on the value of the subject itself.

      • Contaminated NEET says:

        >The whole idea of ideology is the idea of fungible genius; the idea of an extra-personal artilection that can do all necessary and sufficient thinking for you.

        This is gold. I’ve been trying and failing to articulate this idea for years; it explains a lot, but I can never seem to get people to understand what I’m saying when I explain it. I’ll borrow your phrasing next time and see how it works.

      • A2 says:

        Any ideology can be subverted and then you’re expected to accept with a strained cucked smile that your daughter becomes a hooker (libertarian) or that you have to give away your country to infinity arabs and negroes (socialist, conservative). No thanks. I consider myself post-ideological these days.

      • notglowing says:

        > The whole idea of ideology is the idea of fungible genius; the idea of an extra-personal artilection that can do all necessary and sufficient thinking for you.

        Stealing this.

        I would also say that the premise of ideologies is that we can explain the totality of the universe, in its infinite complexity, with some system of ideas, an *artilection* as you call it, that we can comprehend it and build a full understanding from whatever first principles the ideology invented.

        Tradition, in contrast, is built from trial and error over long periods of time, which is the only reliable way to navigate an infinitely complex universe while lacking information.
        Ideology necessarily implies dismantling tradition because it wishes to build new systems and institutions from scratch based off of its principles. The problem is that the people dismantling the institutions do not fully comprehend why they work or why they are necessary.

        It’s impossible to be certain of why and how exactly something that arose out of trial and error works, much like we cannot fully explain neural networks that are built through backpropagation, ie, training, ie, trial and error.

    • S says:

      Jim’s position is conventional Christian religion. If you crack open ‘Proof of the Gospels’ (from about the 4th century) it talks about how Christianity has continuity with Noah and Abraham (since they were obviously not following Mosaic Law).

      Socrates is not closer to God because Socrates is a wordcel; we are working off descent from tradition because social organization that exist for extended periods of time without killing those who follow them or degrading them into garbage are good.

      • jim says:

        So your interpretation of gaikokumaniakku’s interpretation of my post is that he understood it correctly, but failed to recognise it as the standard, ancient, and usual Christianity, because his idea of Christianity is some weird complicated crazy postChristian heresy or other.

        That it is not that he had no idea what I said, but rather that I have no idea of whatever strange thing it is that he thinks traditional Christianity is.

    • alf says:

      Perennial philosophy is a post-Christian heresy which finds all religions equally valid. Which is the opposite of Jim’s point.

      The single part of perennial philosophy that Jim does apply is the timelessness of the truths he speaks: Jesus is from before the beginning of the world. Fully God and fully man. Timeless Christian doctrine.

      • skippy says:

        I have not read Huxley’s book.

        As I understand it, Perennial Philosophy is the idea that a certain shape of religion necessarily arises because it is conformal with the laws of nature (the Vedics had a different formulation because they didn’t have empirical science or physics but the essence is the same), which is surely the deeper point being made by everything on this blog.

        Normies will always require some kind of structure and not to ‘work it out for themselves from first principles. For this reason, I do not advocate replacing the state church with “a New Age drum circle” (or, indeed, a free thought circle);; but societies, especially successful societies under selection pressure, can and will work it out from first principles themselves.

        To deny this is essentially to deny that nature has laws at all.

        • alf says:

          Ha, neither have I!

          But I know enough about 20th century spiritual movements to add up 1 and 1.

          • skippy says:

            His framing of these ideas as “spiritual movements” is misleading. Perhaps not intentionally so. 1960s English speaking hippies are not the only people who took an interest in these ideas, and they were rather far from the actual content, and that was perhaps deliberate (all post-war culture has been intentionally tilted away from ‘Aryanism’ in all its forms).

            Unfortunately it is difficult to explain what they thought without recommending an 800 page book. The cultural bases have been lost.

      • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

        For that matter, this is the first time I’ve seen someone cite Aldous Huxley in a discussion of perennialism. Not because noone knows him or is unaware that he wrote a book literally called ‘perennial philosophy’, but because the primary figures that come to mind for such things are Guenon or Evola, with perhaps mention of Schuon and Coomaraswamy when being more exhaustive, while a name like Huxley is far down the list in this context.

        If you read the wikipederast article on ‘perennial philosophy’ they put him at the very top of the page though, which leads me to suspect that that’s GK’s primary ‘source’ of familiarity on this topic.

        • jim says:

          This would explain gaikokumaniakku’s unfamiliarity with what Christianity is.

          • gaikokumaniakku says:

            My ignorance speaks for itself. Thank you for reducing my ignorance as much as possible.

            • jim says:

              When I was a lad, it was impossible for anyone not to pick up general knowledge about what Christianity traditionally was from the culture and environment.

              Today, even if someone regularly goes to Church, the pastor probably hates him and seeks to harm him for being male and straight, so is unlikely to learn about Christianity from Christians. And non Christian sources (Aldous Huxley) are industriously poisoning the well, telling tall stories about Christian morality and theology.

              Plus there are have always been bunch of ancient heresies around, each confidently announcing itself the true Christianity. The post above is primarily addressed to the Judaizers (Judeo Christians) who tend to categorise everything before the current year as a pagan addition. (Or anti semitism, or ignorant racist bronze age goat herders rendered irrelevant by Jesus the Jewish Community Organiser) The attack on Christmas and the sacrament of marriage as pagan additions goes back to the seventeenth century radical protestants, who were industriously looking for new stuff to be pure about. The Judaizers have been around for a very long time, but more obnoxious today as each current year becomes more current.

              The Sacrament of marriage does not come from the Jews and in this sense is indeed a “pagan addition”, but what Jesus said about marriage implies the necessity of a divine sacrament. Not everything in Christianity that comes from outside the Jewish tradition is pagan, for Christianity claims older and considerably larger roots than Judaism. Older than Abraham, and larger than the seed of Abraham.

    • skippy says:

      You are giving a very incomplete view of ‘neo-Vedantists’ limited to post-war Californians. Many of those people were very serious and on our side.

      It must be true that Jesus is preaching a sort of “perennial philosophy”; he attached it to actually existing Jewish religion because he appeared among the Jews. The confusion arises because – as Jim points out in his post – “the Jews” at that time were simply a loosely confederated collection of families much like other antique nations (whose formation is described in The Ancient City), and have since been defined to be the Talmudists, who are a specific strand of descent from the Pharisees who were themselves just one sect among many among the Jews at the time Jesus lived.

      Between about 1890 and 1930 the German far right, at least the intellectual part of it, came to the conclusion that the inclusion of Judaism in Christianity was dangerous, because it opened the door to Judaizing, and Judaizing meant specifically Talmudizing, which is not what Judaizing would have meant when Jesus lived, before the Talmud existed. I think this is a reasonable and defensible position.

  11. Penfold says:

    I just got your red pill on women blog poast sent to me. I’m glad you still write.

  12. The Cominator says:

    Factual quibble… Emperor Marcus Aurelius considered the Christians extremely dangerous subversives and authorized that they be rooted out via informants and denunciations (something he forbade for other crimes and groups).

    • jim says:

      My use of the term “Christian” in this context was misleading and likely to confuse the reader. Rather, Stoic doctrine that is also Christian doctrine.

  13. Ron Dodson says:

    Jesus condemns the Oral Law Tradition, the additions to the Law by the Pharisees following the Hasmonean takeover of the High Priesthood and Throne — despite the fact they were not Zadokian and certainly not of Judah.

    His burden is easy and His yoke light. The OLT evolved into the Mishnah and then was commented on endlessly (in both Talmud editions). Now we see our American law endlessly Talmudized in needless burdensome complexity and poured over like Rabbis.

    We can do better.

    • jim says:

      In one of the many Chinese revolutions, the new emperor abolished the previous enormous and incomprehensible legal code, and issued a two line law code: “He who kills, shall be killed, he who harms, shall be proportionately harmed”

      It grew.

      Henry the Lion of Justice issued a legal code that provided procedure and process — more concerned with how cases were decided, and by whom, than what the outcome was. Witnesses, forms, written records, and all that — hard to implement is a society where literacy was rare, forms were hand written on irregular bits of slate coated in beeswax, and communication was by messenger. It was nonetheless a very good legal code, relatively simple, popular, and immensely influential to this day. I have long advocated restoring the legal code of Henry the Lion of Justice, only using networks and remote procedure calls rather than beeswax and messengers.

      I also like the legal process of the Judge Dredd series, where the cops have immense discretion, but everything they do has to be recorded by AIs and is subject to scrutiny and overwatch. The Australian Border patrol, back when it was actually allowed to patrol the borders, had a similar legal process. Seemed to work very well.

  14. bob sykes says:

    By “Aryan” do you mean Zoroaster and Ahura Mazdā? The first exiled Jews would have encountered them in Babylon via Cyrus.

    • jim says:

      No, I mean the Aryans depicted in “The Ancient City”, who dominated and heavily influenced the middle East at the time of Abraham, and from whose faith the Greek faith and culture descended.

      • Your Uncle Bob says:

        Who’s the author? Title alone gets me several possibilities.

        • jim says:

          The Ancient City: A Study of the Religion, Laws, and Institutions of Greece and Rome by Fustel de Coulanges.

          It is one of the standard Dark Enlightenment texts.

          • Your Uncle Bob says:

            Thank you.

            My education is still very patchwork, although not completely non-existent. Are there any other standard texts I should look for?

            • alf says:

              Here’s a thread that answers that very same question:


              My experience has been that it is very hard to make a definite book list. Yes, there’s a couple of classics, but I haven’t even gotten around to reading The Ancient City. Mileage varies a lot.

              The biggest habit I’ve picked up here is just read about history. Doesn’t even matter which author (although older = better), as long as the subject matter interests you.

              • Hesiod says:

                Thanks, anytime I flatter myself as literate, I can just look at this list to disabuse myself of that vanity.

  15. cub says:

    How are we to know the spirit of the law? Many Christians genuinely think that Jesus would be okay with sodomy, trannyism, etc. not based on any writings, but on what they consider to be the general “spirit” of Christ’s teachings.

    Human language undoubtedly lacks the full capacity to express the will of God, but our attempts to fill the gap often reflect our own immorality, rather than a genuine desire to live rightly. What do we have to supplement the law aside from our intuitive moral sense, which is arguably simply a product of evolution?

    • skippy says:

      Jesus explicitly denounced both homosexuality and transgender, says that most men should have children, and that men should be masters of the house.

      Those “Christians” do not read the Gospels, and do not care what Jesus said or thought; they are not misinterpreting Jesus, but expressing their adherence to Progressivism while preferring to remain members of a church. Since the church adds nothing in this case, younger people just express Progressivism without being members of churches.

      • cub says:

        I am not sure that qualifies as denunciation of those things, and at any rate my question also applies to things like socialism (“Jesus said give to the poor!”) and mass immigration (“Jesus said to love thy neighbor!”)

        Gnon is against these things and for good reason, they are disastrous for society and for humanity- but that is an entirely secular argument. My question is if Christianity has a more robust and objective (but still not overly legalistic) approach to these problems aside from trying to simply market Jesus as a sword-wielding badass instead of a communist community organizer.

        • skippy says:

          It is not possible to read this explicit instruction on family life other than as an injunction to marry and bear children. Jesus also says sexlessness is permitted if the cause is that one devotes one’s life to the service of God.

          Anyone who will wave away this explicit teaching saying that as we should love our neighbor we should endorse and promote any lifestyle anybody chooses anywhere, has already made up his mind. And you will find that this same person also has a whole list of lifestyles he does not in fact tolerate, though he is meant to love his neighbor, where those lifestyles deviate from the teachings of Prog.

        • Fidelis says:

          >give to the poor
          Absolutely fine, the problem is people assume the government money is free. Once we’re out of the present darkness that pretends confiscating property to carry out whatever utopian project of the day is Good and Right, there’s no issue.

          >love thy neighbor by importing billions of bomalians
          It makes no sense whatsoever. How is importing people who rob, rape and steal from the people next to you helping them? How is removing bomalians from the place on this Earth that they are adapted to helping them? Even if we are pretending the parable of the Good Samaritan wasn’t in the Gospel, which very quickly clarifies who exactly you’re meant to love as your neighbor, this mass flesh transport business is clearly evil the second you put any thought into it. Anyone supporting it is thoughtless, an NPC, or evil.

          • skippy says:

            Again, when one reads the Gospels (e.g. the above) it becomes clear that Jesus’s reason for telling the rich to give away their possessions is more about them lacking attachments so they can devote themselves fully to his cause, rather than primarily to enrich the poor. Jesus does not spend much of his own time enriching the poor, rather he spends it struggling with the Pharisees and the Sadducees.

            • Pete says:

              And more to the point, giving to the poor is a free choice. If you see a poor person who deserves help, reach into your own pocket and help him.

              Instead liberals vote for a government that will steal money from someone else, skim a good bit off the top into government pockets, then trickle a tiny bit down to the poor (and with no checks to see if the poor man will spend it on drugs instead of a nice suit for a job interview).

              And for this they walk around puffed up with self-righteousness, patting themselves on the back for “helping the poor.”

              • Jehu says:

                If you’ve never been audited by the IRS for your charitable contributions, you don’t really have standing IMO to be calling other people greedy. Curiously, I know several people who have been thus audited—not a single one virtue signals about it or scolds others about being greedy or stingy.

              • skippy says:

                “And more to the point,”

                What you are writing is a fair, good, and useful point, but not more to the point. The material condition of the poor – however it is served – is an Enlightenment Anglo/Marxist interest. It does not seem to have been of great interest to Jesus Christ. It was an interest of Jesus Christ that riches morally corrupted *the rich person who owned them*.

                What is more, Christ repeatedly condemned various people (including poor people) for their behavior, typically their lack of faith; while he sometimes reached out to the poor, he did not take the view that someone is deserving simply because he is poor.

                It is another example of people approaching the text (or, more often, not approaching the text beyond a few cherrypicked quotes from the Sermon on the Mount) with a preconception of what they ought to find, a preconception drawn from a post-Christian, non-Christian ‘secular’ religion they already adhered to.

                The Gospels are not about the Universal Public Mommy coming around and bailing everyone out for their bad behavior, no strings attached. They are about a man waging a political struggle with a corrupt religious authority.

                • alf says:

                  Greed is obviously a very real sin which Jesus spoke out against. But so is covetousness, and the favorite pastime of Christian entryist is to rail against greed in name of their covetousness.

          • Uriel says:

            The Didache is an early catechism that spells it out pretty plainly, and is indicative how early Christians applied the principles of charity, mercy etc. “Let your alms sweat in your hands before you discern whom to give them”, “don’t let a bum stay in your house if he’s a freeloader, if he is a skilled laborer offer him productive work, if he is unskilled let him stay 2 nights then kick him out”. You can find a PDF on most search engines. If I remember correctly, it is about 17 pages. For reference, the modern Novus Ordo cult catechism is 1000+ pages. Didache doesn’t have an exhaustive list of applied principles, but has enough, to where it expresses application pretty clearly.

        • Robert says:

          We are to give to the poor, but we also should be giving to the rich. But the “currency” by which we trade is love. The material conditions of our fellow man is something that we should care about, but we should primarily care about his spiritual condition. Socialism is dangerous because it results in the prioritizing of material things over spiritual things. The ideal Christian society isn’t a bunch of rich guys giving to a bunch of poor guys. It’s a group of people laboring diligently for material needs of his family and community.

          We are to love our neighbor. You do not love people by looking the other way while they sin. Christianity supports private property. Our country is our property. It is wrong to allow people to steal it. We as Christians are under no commandment to allow people to take our property. Furthermore our country is not just the property of any one of us, to support immigration is to support the giving away of property that isn’t yours to begin with. “Ourselves and our posterity” is the christian approach to countries.

    • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

      By their fruits, you shall know them.

      • jim says:

        Which implies that to discern the spirit of a law, you have to consider what the consequences were intended to be in it place and time, and apply law appropriate for this place and time which accomplishes analogous fruits. Which was the approach of notable Christian Kings such as King Alfred the Great.

        • cub says:

          Here’s a better example: One of Christ’s most important teachings was “love your enemy”- he practiced it all the way to the cross, while being executed by the corrupt, overreaching Roman empire on the insistence of Jews. In my opinion that seems pretty easy to do when God himself calls you His son, and says you have a throne waiting for you in heaven. It’s like a billionaire trust fund baby taking pity on the homeless guy mugging him.

          On the other hand, Whites (the people that have spread Christianity around the globe) are being systematically humiliated and replaced in our own countries by subhumans and psychopaths. Why? Because we love our enemies too much. The only conclusion I can draw is that God wants us to accept the fact that we’re being genocided by the corrupt, overreaching American empire on the insistence of Jews. He wants Whites to walk willingly to the cross.

          So, one of Christianity’s core teachings has led us down the same path as Christ himself, and now presumably White Christians are supposed to accept our own persecution and genocide. Except… where is our throne?

          • jim says:

            Loving your enemy sometimes requires dispatching him to judgment.

            Christians have never had any problem understanding this. From the beginning, Christians had no problem serving in the military and when attending Church, were required to say “peace on earth to all men of goodwill

            Implying that the Old Testament solutions were still applicable to men of bad will.

            Good Christian pioneers always ensured that they had adequate casus belli before exterminating the indians. And after they had good casus belli, exterminated them.

            • cub says:

              But Christ Himself never served in the military. He wished peace onto men of very bad will. He never even had kids, as far as we know.

              For Whites to be truly Christ-like seems to imply self-sacrifice up to and including our very lives. Christianity has demonstrably great value when there is nobody to exploit it, but unless the fundamentally self-sacrificial nature of Christianity is resolved, not by appealing to past Christians (flawed beings) but to Christ himself, we may have to choose between it and survival. I would love to be proven wrong.

              • jim says:

                This spin on Christ, hippy pacifist Christ, is plausible, and some Christians have believed it. Not very many of them.

                I do not believe it, and throughout two millennia, the vast majority of Christians have not believed it.

                His injunction was to be gentle as doves and wise as serpents. Hippy pacifist Christ is missing the wisdom of a serpent. Hippy Pacifist Christ is not the man who knocked over the money changer’s tables and applied a whip, and not the man who told his disciples to buy swords. Hippy Pacifist Christ is not the man who cursed the fig tree. Christ wept for Jerusalem. not for himself, foreseeing its fate, he loved Jerusalem, he loved those that crucified him. And he cursed them. (The fig tree that withered symbolised and foreshadowed Jerusalem)

                One can love one’s enemies, and still kill them as needful.

                • cub says:

                  Then I hope God does not judge us too harshly for Doing The Needful, because the only alternative to death is for us to live lives very different from that of Christ Himself.

                  “To every thing there is a season,
                  A time for every purpose under the heaven.”

                • Walt says:

                  As Jim provided-
                  “Loving your enemy sometimes requires dispatching him to judgment.”
                  God is Orderly. His Order provides the Judgement Seat when needed. Hate what He hates, protect what He loves.
                  If he gives you innocent people (see Kinism) to protect, He is responsible for the spiritual outcomes of you dispatching the corrupting force. Not you.

                • Walt says:

                  And to qualify the email, modern day jews are the evil channel used by Satan to corrupt Creation. They are at the root, or close by, of the explicit evil we are dealing with today.
                  Oh, and niggers may not be human.

              • Jack Vien says:

                Jesus walked on Earth as a priest, and as a rule priests disdain to bear arms personally. Also, and as He taught, there are circumstances in which, by refusing to fight an enemy, you both deliver a cutting insult and deprive him of the possibility of gaining satisfaction, thus raising your status and lowering his in the eyes of the crowd. Christians in general are no more forbidden from fighting just wars than they are from marrying, eating, or drinking; they are permitted and indeed, required to resort to force in matters where Divine law is being transgressed.

Leave a Reply