The papacy is maintaining a studied ambiguity as to whether they worship God or Satan
Outside view of papal reception hall
Inside view of papal reception hall
Close up inside view
This resembles the infamous Socinian ambiguity when they were conducting entryism against the Church of England in the late seventeenth, early eighteenth century, as to whether Christ was God or an enlightened Jewish community organizer who was regrettably less enlightened than their much more enlightened selves.
I have noticed that when someone preaches the parable of the Good Samaritan as that we must love all people of all races everywhere equally, rather than that we should love our neighbor, and anyone who is neighborly to us counts as a neighbor even if he is far from us, and any actual neighbors that act unneighborly do not count as neighbors, he flinches from the short affirmation as if I was aiming a flame thrower at him.
This is consistent with the hypothesis that Christian Churches today have a big problem with entryists who are literal demon worshipers.
Check if your pastor can give you the short affirmation.
Jesus Christ is Lord, born in Bethlehem, died in Jerusalem, and is, is from before the beginning of the world. Fully God and fully man. God is three and God is one.
The power and effectiveness against our enemies of this affirmation suggest that we have a lot of literal demon worshipers around
However I would add that while Catechisms and Creeds should be unchanging forever, shill tests need to be adapted from time to deal with the latest group of enemy entryists. The Filoque is the result of the error of sticking your shill test against your latest entryist infestation in your creed. The above shill test is a pastiche of bits and pieces of various creeds that trial and error shows me have proven effective against the enemies we are dealing with today, the currently effective bits. We will probably face different enemies in a few decades or centuries. Not intended as a replacement for the existing and ancient creeds. Intended to set our current enemies on fire. Creeds are for friends, shill tests are to identify enemies posing as allies in order to do you harm.
And to clear your palate after being exposed to the above ugly, disgusting, depressing, and blasphemous images
The Great Cathedral in Russia
White men are once again building Cathedrals.
The head-on interior shot is definitely NOT from a distorting lens. The lines that divide the lower brown parts of the wall from the upper, tiled parts are straight. The lines of the tiles themselves are straight. That’s how it actually looks.
Yes, the hall is wider on one end and gets narrower towards the wall where the sculpture and throne are. And the roof really is arched that much.
(See the sketches here: https://theforeignarchitect.com/blog/pier-luigi-nervi-in-rome/ , also Google Earth)
Reading about Nervi himself:
“From 1961 to 1962 he was the Norton professor at Harvard University.”
It seems he was very much part of the intellectual elite of the Cathedral of the time.
Thanks for the link. Hadn’t noticed that the pope is seated as if speaking “from the serpent’s mouth” (see the throne location in “Inside view of papal reception hall” head-on picture in Jim’s post).
Yes, Pope speaks from the serpent’s mouth, positioned right between the fangs.
Yes, it’s obvious in hindsight that you’re right and that there’s no camera trickery involved.
I still think that the exterior shot/resemblance is thin gruel, but everything about the interior screams demon/devil worship. I’ve seen plenty of bad design, and that’s not simply bad design, it’s design that looks like it was supervised by Aleister Crowley.
You’ll get lots of REEEEing for this post…
And probably wide wide accusations of being a kike.
Why? This is normal content for Jim’s blog.
Before Francis there at least used to be an extensive Vatican tradcuck/fedcath shillings operation. Anyone who criticized the Vatican or the Catholic Church was a kicked I know because I said a lot of shit about the Catholic Church.
I don’t remember that. I don’t think that’s the case anymore. Tradcaths spend a lot of their time criticizing Francis nowadays. Taylor Marshall, who has one of the largest tradcath following, basically criticizes him daily with a new youtube regarding whatever new weird shit Francis does.
I’m still trying to find my feet in terms of faith, and I can’t challenge anyone theologically, but I share TC’s feelings on Roman Catholics. The good ones I know I can count on one hand. The ambiguously catholic I need two hands and a foot. I have a growing list of evil Catholics, and I actively avoid meeting them. The church of Rome is converged. And I don’t just mean the Pope, sad though that poster child of diabolism is. The majority of Catholic men I meet are men with hollow chests. I’ve yet to meet a priest that doesn’t give off pedofag vibes, and I’m not saying that based on progressive propaganda. In fact, I bet most of the publicized cases are piles of lies hiding phallus intrigue. I firmly believe the priesthood is lousy with faggots. Why in fuck would you want the spiritual father of a community to be a childless celibate that wears a dress to? Until the Church mandates wives and children for priests, I don’t really see them being allies. This is my own view, and I know there are at least 5 good Catholic men in existence. But the priesthood seems evil, and the images Jim posted are Tranny Story Hour unsettling.
Most Catholic churches are converged, but I did find a traditional Latin Mass church in my previously residence.
The main priest seemed based and red pilled as was most of the congregation (low mask compliance during the height of covid hysteria) even in the non-latin masses (although the assistant priest seemed like a fag). Many young married couples with kids out the wazoo which was a happy sight. This was a healthy congregation to my amazement.
The Latin Mass seems like a marker for basedness which is why Francis is attacking it so hard. The tradcaths who attend it should separated from the typical normie Catholic.
Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. (Psalms 146:3)
Roman Catholicism is the Papacy, and the office of the Papacy defecting against Christ falsifies the system (Sedevacautism is self-refuting). If the Papacy abolishes the Latin Mass, the “based†Latin Mass is no longer Catholic, and even if a “trad†Pope were to return he cannot refer to the previous Pope’s actions as “not Catholic.†A house on sand cannot stand, and Roman Catholicism without the Pope is a man with a severed head.
Preposterous.
And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Matthew 16:18)
Jesus built his church on a rock, not on sand. He promised that Satan will not prevail against it. He did not promise that Satan would not try to prevail against it, nor that Satan would not win any battles in this war. There have been evil popes before, and there will be evil popes again. But unless you think Jesus is a liar, they will not succeed in destroying the Church.
Is the Pope the successor Saint Peter?
You are arguing apostolic succession. And, when a priest or Bishop is ordained in the modern Roman Catholic Church, the modern Roman Catholic Church is as carefully ambiguous about apostolic succession, about whether they are granting the power and authority that Christ granted the apostles, as they are about whether they worship God or Lucifer. They slither around the delicate sensibilities of those that do not like apostolic succession very much.
Was Saint Peter supposed to have a successor? Or was he just the first apostle to receive apostolic powers?
Christ granted the apostles certain authority and spiritual powers, and also granted them the authority to pass that power onto others. All of them.
This resembles the somewhat anarchic medieval system of knighthood. During the medieval period, expensive weaponry and long military training made a trained and equipped warrior enormously more capable than a mob of hastily conscripted peasants. The right to have this sort of weaponry was restricted to knights, but any knight could make a knight. And anyone granted apostolic authority can grant someone else apostolic authority.
During the early period of the Church, we don’t see the equivalent of a Pope. We see the national Churches of various nations, resembling the organization of the modern Orthodox Church. When the Emperor summons the Bishops to discuss some matter and issue a ruling, it is not an assembly of equals, far from it, but neither is the Bishop of Rome in charge.
In the great schism, the Bishop of Rome was schismatic and heretical. He coveted that which was Caesar’s. If there was bad behavior on both sides, one side coveted Church buildings and rectories, while the other coveted armies and Kingdoms.
Further, most Bishops in the Roman Catholic Church not have apostolic succession. The ceremony was altered in a way that does not explicitly grant apostolic spiritual powers. Pope Francis, and the nest of pederasts sitting behind him in the serpent’s mouth, do not have that grant of spiritual authority and spiritual power that Christ granted the apostles.
The Latin mass Bishops were generally granted that authority in the old ceremony, which is on the edge of being flat out banned. Most of the post Vatican II Bishops have not received apostolic power and authority. The demons, whether they be real or metaphorical, have an allergy to the old ceremony.
Despite the Iconoclasts, the Ottomans, the Mongols, the Bolsheviks, among many others, the Orthodox Church has stood steadfast and true because the Church is headed by Lord Jesus Christ and is guided by the Holy Spirit, not some hierarchy of fallible men in Rome.
The problem is not that the Pope has committed sins, it is that he and his entire office have effectively apostatized from the faith he is supposed to represent. If the Pope and the Roman Curia have defected from the faith, the system fails.
That being said, I hold no ill will towards Roman Catholics of good character, and feel bad for them given the current state of the Papacy. Hopefully these next hundred years will prove humbling and meaningful for all those affected.
St. Peter certainly received powers beyond the powers granted to the apostles, just look at Matthew 16:13-19 and John 21:15-17. He is the rock on which the Church is founded, holds the keys to the kingdom, and takes over Christ’s role as shepherd. These are powers and responsibilities never granted to the apostles broadly. Unless you think Jesus would grant Peter special powers but not transfer them to anyone when he dies I’d say they are granted to his successors as well.
Even aside from that, I have no idea where you get the notion that early Bishops did not recognize the Bishop of Rome as their leader. In the Acts of the Apostles St. Peter exercises authority over the early Church on numerous occasions, and the apostles recognize this and do not question it. The immediate successors of Peter also exercise this authority. In the first century Pope Clement I wrote a very well received letter to the Corinthians commanding them to repent after they had had rebelled against their hierarchy. St. John was alive when this letter was written. Surely without a hierarchy among Bishops St. John would have been the one to correct them, not the 4th Bishop of Rome. In the 2nd century, St. Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyons, wrote that Church founded at Rome by Peter and Paul has pre-eminent authority and every Church must agree with it.
There are plenty more examples, if you’d like me to list more I can. The pattern is this: the early Church recognized that the Bishop of Rome had the power of excommunication and the final say on Church matters and doctrine. There are cases where other Bishops disagree with the Pope, and cases where they reprimand him for one thing or another, but they never question his final authority. If it wasn’t Christ’s intention to place authority over the Church in Peter and his successors, I think we would not have seen such immediate deference to Peter from the apostles and their pupils.
As for the validity of modern ordinations, I admit I have not looked very closely at it personally. Have you? If so I’d like to hear how they are invalid, as being “carefully ambiguous about whether they are granting the power and authority that Christ granted the apostles” is a very vague accusation. Lots of traditional Catholics (who would have no issue calling out problematic ordinations) have tried to find flaws with modern ordinations and decided they are valid.
I am getting it from the New Testament. Where are you getting the idea that the Bishop of Rome was anyone that mattered much?
Where are you getting the idea that there was any such office as Bishop or Rome before Paul appointed a Bishop for Rome?
Because Paul is acting as if he is the apostle to the gentiles, and the leader of the gentile Churches, and, after Peter passes and James brother of Christ takes over as leader of the Jewish Christians, as if James Brother of Christ is the leader of the Jewish Christians, an equal of great weight, and the Bishop of Rome is nobody very important. Paul obviously does not think that Peter is Bishop of Rome. He thinks that Rome does not have a Bishop, and needs one, so, in consultation with Peter, appoints one. There is no suggestion and no plausible reading of the text that Paul thinks he is transferring authority from Peter or from himself. Peter is in charge, and Paul, under him, is in charge. And after he appoints a Bishop for Rome, Paul is still in charge.
You are giving the Papal spin, and the Papal spin is just not consistent with the New Testament. The Bishop of Rome does not have authority beyond Rome. Paul has authority beyond Rome, but not authority in Jerusalem. We just don’t see a single head of the Church, other than Christ, and initially Peter, in the New Testament – if there is a head, the most plausible candidate would not be Bishop of Rome, but the Bishop of Jerusalem, which was first Peter, then James, and after James, no more Bishops of Jerusalem for quite some time.
Yes, Peter has authority resembling that claimed by today’s Popes. But within the time of Paul and James Brother of Christ, during the period covered by the New Testament, that system passes away, and we see a system that is strongly hierarchical, but has no single hierarchy with a single earthly man as its head, similar to Christian Orthodoxy throughout all recorded history.
The organization of authority and hierarchy in the New Testament resembles modern Orthodox Christianity, and you have to turn somersaults to torture the text to interpret them as having the papal system, which simply did not exist in the New Testament, nor in the recorded history of the Church until after the Bishop of Rome started leading armies in the battlefield and seizing Kingdoms, in the events leading to and following from the great schism.
Where in Scripture do you see that Peter and Paul appointed Linus as the Bishop of Rome while Peter was still alive?
Linus is only mentioned in the New Testament once, as some significant Christian in Rome, when Paul was writing to Timothy. At this point Peter is no longer in charge, having gone underground and out of sight. Paul is in charge in Rome, but is about to be martyred. If any one person is in charge, it is James the the Just, Bishop of Jerusalem, and in Paul’s dispute with James, they had acted as if leadership is collegial, rather than vested in a single man – as if no one man has inherited the authority that Jesus gave to Peter. In this dispute, Linus is not mentioned.
So, we have the first collective decision made, and it is a collective collegial decision, with Peter not in sight, because underground, and Linus not in sight, because no one important, prefiguring the way decisions are made in modern orthodoxy. Everyone agrees that after Peter went underground after the style of Elijah, James was leader. And in the New Testament, Saint Paul is the most significant leader, and acts as if leadership is collegial, rather than James having final authority. The collective decision made primarily by Paul and James is not ratified by Peter, who is underground, and possibly dead. Peter’s passing is not mentioned in the New Testament, and he may well have outlived James and Paul, but history records that James was leader when Peter went underground, the New Testament implies James was leader, and the New Testament records collegial leadership after Paul’s missionary work to the gentiles bears fruit.
James was the second leader after Peter, and at that point there was no Bishop of Rome, because no Roman Church. The Roman Church comes into being as a result of Paul’s missionary work to the gentiles, carried out in fulfillment of Christ’s prophecy that God, pissed with the Jews, will create a new Israel.
It is not recorded in the New Testament that Linus was Bishop of Rome, but the letter of Paul to Timothy would hint that at that time, he was a bishop of Rome, but no such person as the Bishop of Rome, probably because Paul was exercising authority in Rome. If any one person was the Bishop of Rome, it was Paul. And if any one person was the head of the Church, it was James, brother of Christ.
That Linus was appointed leader in Rome by Paul in consultation with Peter is not New Testament, but rather a later conjecture, albeit a quite plausible conjecture made by people who quite likely had good reasons to believe it. But at the time of the first collective decision, on what Jewish practices apply to all Christians, neither Linus nor Peter are involved, and we have clear historical and New Testament evidence that James Brother of Christ succeeded Peter as leader of Christians, not Linus, and Paul at that point not yet a Christian.
When Peter went undeground, the authority granted by Jesus to Peter, in anticipation of his crucifixion, was inherited by James, and subsequently, as a result of the successful envangelism of Paul, became collective authority, and has remained collective all the way from the time of Paul to present day orthodox Christianity and throughout the entire recorded history of Christianity.
In the dispute leading to great schism, everyone acts as if leadership is collective, until after the Schism, where the Bishop of Rome, who is at this point leading armies in the field, starts acting as if he has unilateral authority.
From the time of Paul to the great schism, the consensus of Christian leadership was collective leadership, no special and extraordinary Petrine authority exercised by the Bishop of Rome.
Peter did not pass his authority to anyone else. He just disappears, and then leadership by James brother of Christ, then collective collegial leadership during the life of James. Which collective leadership continues in the East all the way to the present day, and in the west all the way to the Bishop of Rome leading armies in the field during the great schism.
In particular I see no Scriptural support for this:
> Peter cannot have been the first Bishop of Rome, because he was consulted by Paul when Paul appointed Linus Bishop of Rome
And this claim seems to be core to your view. If Linus were instead made Bishop of Rome after Peter died, Linus would be the second Bishop of Rome, second Pope, and preeminent authority of the Church only after Peter and Paul died. This is what Tradition has passed to us, this has support in early Church writings, and the New Testament says nothing to the contrary since it says nothing at all about Linus except in passing.
Your argument presupposes that there was such an office as the Bishop of Rome before Paul was executed and that Peter was Bishop of Rome.
If there was such an office, Paul was first Bishop of Rome. There was no Bishop of Rome while Peter was overground, because no Roman Church, and Paul busy persecuting Christians in and near Israel.
You cannot tell a story in which Peter was leader, then Linus was leader, because if any one person was leader after Peter, it was James, brother of Christ, and once Paul’s evangelism bore fruit, leadership was collective and collegial, and Linus was not yet a significant part of it.
Christ grants special authority to Peter. The historical fact is that authority vanishes with Peter, and the claim to that authority does not reappear until the Bishop of Rome leads armies in the field a millennium later.
In contrast, the special authority granted to the Apostles has been continually and explicitly passed on and exercised from New Testament times to the present day.
You say that the Lord intended that special authority granted to Peter to be passed on continuously from one single human to another single human all the way to the present day. But that is not what he explicitly said, and if that is what he intended, what he implicitly meant, that is not what happened. That special authority granted to Peter alone disappeared when Peter disappeared, or if it continued to exist for a little while, was inherited by James Brother of Christ, not by Linus, and disappeared soon afterwards, well before James Brother of Christ and his wife were martyred.
And you cannot tell a story in which the Church had a singular leader after Paul’s evangelism bore fruit, because Paul the most significant and influential leader, and leadership was exercised collegially, and has been continued to be exercised collegially throughout recorded history to the present day. The tradition of singular leadership in the Western Roman empire only appears after the Bishop of Rome starts leading armies in the field in 1054.
Christ granted special authority and power to the apostles, and granted them the power to pass on that power to others. He granted special authority to Peter, but no explicit mention of that power passing on to others, and, as a matter of historical fact, it simply did not pass on to others. Peter goes underground, and not long thereafter, collective leadership ensues, with Paul and James pre-eminent in that collective leadership, and Linus nowhere to be seen.
Orthodox Christianity has an uninterrupted tradition of collective collegial leadership all the way from the New Testament to the present day. Singular leadership disappears with Peter, and reappears in Rome when the Bishop of Rome starts leading armies in the field.
Singular Papal authority disappears in the West in 1414, four centuries after it appears, resulting in a reconciliation between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, but reappears in 1458, ending that reconciliation.
It needs to disappear yet again, making possible a more final and permanent reconciliation.
This is wrong. The Bishop of Rome’s succession from St. Peter and primacy in the Church is explicitly recognized by multiple authorities beginning in the 2nd century and earlier sources don’t contradict it. St. Irenaeus wrote in 180 that “the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul…it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority”.
But we see the agreements being constructed collegially and disagreements being resolved collegially, not resolved by the Bishop of Rome speaking ExCathedra, starting with the disagreement between Paul and James the Brother of Christ, in which disagreement no one of your list of supposed Roman pontiffs played any significant role, and we see that continuing to be the practice for a thousand years.
Your interpretation of St. Irenaeus was not in fact practiced by the Communion of the Saints for a thousand years, so you either have to show him the door as a dissident from the communion of Saints, or interpret his words in a manner consistent with the actual practice of the Communion of the Saints, in accordance with the practices of the first thousand years of the Church, starting with Saint Paul and and Saint James, brother of Christ.
The Roman Church was pre-eminent when Paul was in charge of it, and pre-eminent when Constantine made Christianity the de-facto state religion, And then Constantine moved the state capital to Constantinople, and it rapidly ceased to be pre-eminent.
Back when it was pre-eminent, we see the emperor summoning councils from across the empire, and in these councils, the Bishop of Rome was doubtless highly influential, but we just don’t see him pronouncing the outcome of the council ExCathedra. He is doubtless a very important and influential Bishop, but he just another Bishop.
The decision making processes of the first thousand years of the Church do not involve the Bishop of Rome speaking ExCathedra, and the decision making process recorded in the New Testament do not involve anyone on your list of Bishops of Rome at all.
And Saint Iraeneus says that all Churches should agree with the Church of Rome, but he does not say that everyone should agree with the Bishop of Rome – the leadership of the Church of Rome was itself substantially collegial much of the time.
Fascinating.
I think a minor argument can be made for the Catholic interpretation, although I must say I find Jim’s interpretation much more credible.
Bears out in history as well — if the bishop of Rome was truly meant to represent a lineage of God’s New Kingdom on earth, we’d expect Rome to become the hub of said new kingdom. Instead, we see the opposite; Rome petered out as the center of the civilized world, and it moved north-west. The great schism merely formalized what had already happened.
That the great Christian kings showed deference to the Roman pope shows that the Catholic interpretation of Christianity held some sway. That these kings all lived far away from the Roman popes and eventually broke with them shows that the Catholic interpretation does not hold sway today.
As has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, Pope Victor I excommunicated Churches in Asia Minor (including the Church at Ephesus) for refusing to conform to the date of Easter celebrated at Rome and in other western Churches. In your view, Ephesus, having been founded by St. John, would be on equal footing with Rome. But nonetheless, Victor excommunicated them, and not St. Polycarp (Bishop of Ephesus) nor St. Irenaeus nor anyone else questioned his authority to do so, even though they disagreed with his decision.
I don’t disagree that the authority of the Bishop of Rome has increased over time. And I don’t disagree that many decisions in the early Church were made in collegiality with the Bishops. But the fact is Tradition and the earliest Church writers tell us that the Bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter and he has pre-eminent authority over the Church.
I feel obligated to admonish you as a brother to speak with more reverence for the Chair of Peter, and to consider the weight and glory of the Catholic Tradition. I will pray for you to find the true Church.
That “tradition” would be news to every patriarch of Constantinople and Moscow.
I don’t see general acceptance of this “tradition” in the Communion of Saints.
The “tradition” of which you speak has blood all over it, much of it spilled by Pope Leo. It comes from the battlefield, not from monastic libraries. Not merely is far from universally accepted by the communion of the saints, but the disagreements tended to involve the sword more than the pen.
Rome argued for its pre-eminence from the earliest date, but at the councils we see no indication that their arguments were broadly accepted, and they shut up about it for centuries shortly after the emperor, fleeing an entrenched, corrupt and unresponsive state bureaucracy, built a new capital in Constantinople. They started to rediscover that “tradition” after Charles the Hammer installed his pet Pope in Rome, guarded by his troops, but did not really go hog wild on it until the Holy Roman Emperors retreated from Rome, and the Roman Church started deploying armies in the field to steal Kingdoms, rather than monasteries and rectories.
And it is simply not true that the authority of the Bishop of Rome increased over time. It increased abruptly when Roman emperor, residing in Rome, made Christianity the unofficially official state religion, and then proceeded to decrease when the emperor decided to build a new apparatus of government in Constantinople a safer distance from all his enemies within the government.
And then, a millennium after the founding of Christianity, it increased rather suddenly when the Popes, coveting that which is Caesar’s, started leading armies in the field.
It is Byzantium, not Rome, that protected the Bible against copyist errors by from time to time gathering up variant versions and reconciling them. For many centuries, the headquarters of Christianity, its primary center, was Byzantium, and Rome was subordinate, passive, and inactive, at least to judge by the history of variant versions of the bible.
It is not like this tradition was quietly developed by learned Church fathers sitting in libraries. It was “developed” in the midst of buckets of blood.
The proposition that Peter is first Bishop of Rome, and some nonentity mentioned in passing by Saint Paul was head next is obvious nonsense, for the Church of the New Testament was governed by James the Brother of Christ from Jerusalem after Peter hit the dirt, and then collegially by Paul in Rome and James in Jerusalem. There was no Roman Church until some time after Peter hit the dirt, nothing for him to be Bishop of.
After Paul was martyred, the Church continued to be primarily governed by James from Jerusalem, and then James and his wife were martyred, and all the Christians of Israel hit the dirt, for much the same reasons as Peter already had, and then probably the Church then was primarily governed from Rome by some nonentity mentioned in passing by Paul.
When Christianity became the state religion, the Roman Church found a whole lot of power falling into its lap, but shortly thereafter, the seat of government moved to Constantinople, and a whole lot of power promptly fell out of its lap.
It is not the ancient tradition of the Communion of Saints, it is buckets of blood all over the place.
In the eleventh century, the Bishops of Rome split from Orthodoxy to grab power at the head of armies in the field. This program was somewhat successful, but came to a bad end in the Sack of Rome. By their fruits you will know them. The sack of Rome was the Judgement of Gnon on this program.
The doctrine of Papal supremacy was born in blood in the eleventh century on the battlefields of Italy, and died in blood in the sack of Rome in the sixteenth century.
It is dead.
Nuts.
Text torture, selective quotation, and reporting only one side of a controversy – which controversy went quiet when the emperor moved to Constantinople, and got hot and bloody from the eleventh to sixteenth centuries.
Belisarius court martialled and deposed the bishop of Rome, and his deposition was undisputed at the time.
You’re making cope claims based on supposed correspondence between fugitive underground churches. You talk like a fag and your shits all retarded.
Charles the Hammer’s reign starts in the eight century, but already in the seventh century English Christian kings, notably Caedwalla, Ine and Aethelwulf, went on spontaneous pilgrimages specifically to Rome, not Jerusalem. What do you make of that?
My interpretation was that the pilgrimages were to power. They were getting pointers on how to establish order in a country that had suffered centuries of chaos and incapacity to create or maintain states.
When young King Alfred went to Rome as a child, he was given the title Caesar in a religious ceremony. They went to Rome, because they were doing pilgrimage to the State religion.
If they had gone to Jerusalem, Prince Alfred would not have been invested as Caesar.
The Christianity of those Kings was intently focused on the practical application of Christianity to state building, administration, and tax collection, in a region suffering chronic chaotic violent kinglessness and statelessness.
I think they believed sincerely, but they had obvious major practical reasons for believing and major practical applications of the belief system. The English Christian saints of this period were generally royalty, the bureaucracy that rendered tax collection more orderly were priests.
These Kings were struggling with state building a region where state building had been going very badly for centuries, and the thought of separation of Church and State would never have occurred to them.
The most prosaic answer would be that Rome was more accessible than Jerusalem.
Maybe, but that’s not the way Bede describes it. Bede describes it as a pilgrimage “to the threshold of the blessed Apostles.”
Makes sense for later kings, but the first, Caedwalla, specifically resigned his throne, went on a pilgrimage to Rome, and died in Rome. Talk about genuine faith….
But I think none of this disputes your claims. Bede calls Rome ‘the threshold of the holy apostles’, not the center, not the representation of God on earth. A doorstep to the holy lands where the events of the bible took place, where Peter settled. So it’s both holy and practical, just not holy in the way Catholics claim.
Jesus does not say that Peter’s successors are a direct lineage of God. He says Peter himself will be his rock, no more no less. The popes of Rome have no more authority than any random bishop, although of course, as they falsely claim to represent God’s highest word, have very little authority in fact.
So all that’s left is dealing with the usual catholic response: “yeah well we’ve survived bad popes before we’ll do so again.”
Insert meme of crying wojak saying exactly that while next to him a cartoon pope sacrifices a child to a snake demon saying ‘hail satan!’
He was wounded in battle, was dying, abdicated and went to Rome knowing his death was near. Was baptized in Rome shortly before his death. As I said, states were shaky and state building was hard. He converted to Christianity after having problems state building, after suffering mortal injury in state building. Doubtless he was sincere, and his sons and grandsons were sincere, but state building was very much on his mind, and theirs.
If the church can remove a (relatively) good pope, it can remove a bad pope. Of course firing one bad Pope would not make much difference, but the restoration of collegiate power would make a difference. The solution is conciliarism. The council of Constance, finding itself with an oversupply of popes, fired them all and appointed another. This seizure of power by the church from the Pope, made possible reconciliation with Orthodoxy, but the reconciliation evaporated when subsequent popes grabbed power back.
The problem is not so much excessive papal power (any unitary organization needs a strong CEO, and the stronger the better) but supranational unity. The Roman Catholic Church needs to be a collegial coalition of national Churches like Orthodoxy, following the model of Paul the Apostle and James the Brother of Christ. Each such church should have a strong CEO (high priest), but there should be no supreme executive, no supreme high priest.
Jim, what authors are you relying on for your reading? Besides Acts, you haven’t actually cited anything. I would like to read the other side of this controversy.
A lot of authors, I cannot remember all of them, and would have to dig around to find the sources for any one fact.
I don’t think any of my claims are seriously disputed, merely widely ignored, except that people will sometimes dispute on priestly celibacy. for which acts and the earliest church fathers suffice. Priestly celibacy is a very old holiness spiral led by sexual deviants.
I don’t think any of them even qualify as a controversy. The other side is just ancient fake consensus.
Until holy Roman Empire fell back from Rome, it was standard operating procedure for the Holy Roman Emperor to appoint the Bishop of Rome, and for local Kings to appoint the Bishops of their region, resulting in each national church being headed by a different authority, with the result that then as now, Orthodoxy was a collegial collection of national Churches.
When the Tsar conquered a Kingdom, and installed a King of his own choice, he would send a Russian priest to ensure Orthodoxy, but the kingdom’s Church would not then be Russian Orthodox. The priest would fiercely defend the prerogatives of Kingdom’s Church, as an independent Orthodox Church. Much the same story as Paul, a Jewish Christian, becoming the head of the gentile churches, and telling cities all over the place to appoint their own Bishops.
When the Pope started leading armies in the field, then the Papacy started making claims of universal supremacy, leading to Roman Catholicism splitting from Orthodoxy.
At this point we’ve reached the limit of my reading of early Church writers. If you’re not going to cite any actual sources, there’s not a whole lot I can do other than point out the irony of being accused of torturing text and reporting one side of a controversy by someone who has not cited a single source in this entire discussion because apparently it doesn’t even qualify as a controversy anyway. Well, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and an awful lot of other saints reported that same side of the controversy. Maybe they fell for that same “ancient fake consensus” too.
That is indeed what I think should happen. Have to reset to first principles, ex nihilo. Love him or hate him, Yarvin seems correct in that regard.
Although I agree with the principle, I will only consider this argument valid if the Pope creates false dogma Ex-Cathedra using his papal authority, in the same way the virginity of Mary was affirmed.
The official Roman Catholic position on divorce is false dogma, being considerably more restrictive than the New Testament in theory, while considerably less restrictive than the New Testament in actual practice, which is characteristic of dogma issued by demon worshipers, in practice allowing female serial monogamy.
Similarly the official position on celibacy. Being married with well behaved children disqualifies you for the priesthood, but regularly lying with a male as with a woman does not. For the last sixteen centuries every holiness spiral on priestly celibacy has been closely coupled to an unholiness spiral on priests buggering each other and the choirboys.
Neither of these positions were affirmed in the way I mentioned, though.
In any case while I agree with you on the problems these dogmas create, and that the alternative is more practically sound, I don’t know if that is enough of an argument to discredit them.
God’s will and His reasons can be beyond mortal understanding, and I don’t think you can pick and choose dogma based on practicality, that’s just how they are.
I am not in principle against allowing divorce in the case of the woman cheating, and I would agree with such a law when it comes to civil law, but changing it in the official teachings of the Church is not the same matter.
To begin with, if the faith is a result of logical arguments and debate on the consequences of one rule or another, then the result will be a faith that can be questioned at any time by a malicious or foolish actor, not a dogma.
If you can logic yourself into some idea you can also logic yourself out of it, and leftists have no end of “logical” but fallacious arguments which can be difficult to dissect, that they use to dismantle traditional rules.
Not only can you not rely on everyone being capable of defending them in such a debate, but there’s also the problem that as I said some of it can be beyond our understanding. One can see religion as “social technology”, but if there is a real metaphysical God, then it is not *just* that.
Of course being more practically sound justifies it, by their fruits you know them.
@TC, I knew this answer would come up, but it doesn’t really solve the issue I raised with the method in itself.
I don’t doubt that “by their fruits you will know them”.
But as I argued, I think that going solely through this route, can be self defeating. In the sense that a faith constructed this way can be dismantled this way.
To the nominalist, all aspects of an ideology (or more specifically, the ideology that exists in his perception), however great or trivial, are each and all taken as equal in import, to be enforced with equal stridency; and likewise, were any aspect of the associated collage, however great or trivial, to become devalidated in his eyes, this in turn is experienced as a condemnation of the whole mass of it.
@PC, Right. I don’t really think that way though. It’s impossible to have a system of beliefs that, with the indefinite complexity of the real world, doesn’t run in a situation where one has to choose to follow one principle or another, and that’s why they cannot be equal in importance.
This is also why I am an advocate for determining laws and correct behaviour through trial and error, which seems to be the only way to navigate the difficulties of the real world, which cannot be completely understood by us.
Why does Eastern Orthodoxy have monks, and why does it not allow Bishops or Patriarchs to be married? Or men who are already priests to get married?
That position is very wrong.
Every holiness spiral on celibacy was accompanied by an unholiness spiral on priests lying with males as with a woman.
I come from Catholics on both sides, many in the family are lapsed, myself included, some have changed to Eastern Orthodox or protestant (not sure exactly what). All the Catholics feel comfortable openly mocking Francis and are horrified at his words and deeds.
After the comments in the last thread I was looking into what happened with Ratzinger resigning, because it always seemed obviously fishy but I hadn’t heard any theories that were very concrete. All I saw at a quick glance was that they basically kicked the Vatican out of Swift until he resigned. Is that the case or is there more to it?
The priest who taught Catholic Religion at my high school at the time would say that freemasons infiltrated the Church at high levels, and that Ratzinger was forced to resign due to him being too weak to stand against them.
Ratzinger was the Vatican Trump. He failed because he was to weak to do what was necessary. The blood of the wicked needed to flow in the faggot orgy chambers under the Vatican dome. Instead a bunch of child raping poofters tossed him out on his ass.
Jesus Christ is Lord, born in Bethlehem, died in Jerusalem, and is, is from before the beginning of the world. Fully God and fully man. God is three and God is one.
I consider myself Catholic. Though I don’t disagree with this post, or Jim’s view that entryists have subverted the Church at many levels. I cannot defend what the Pope says or does, but that doesn’t change my view on Catholicism itself. I was raised Catholic as it constitutes nearly 100% of my country’s religious base.
I can say that my views are probably not far from Jim’s in regards to Christianity, because you seem to endorse Orthodoxy, which is the closest to our Church in beliefs.
I respect certain but not all protestant churches though I fundamentally disagree with the idea.
The Church might be cucked today but it’s not as bad as the worst of protestant churches. Some of the better non-Catholic churches including protestants have less enemy infiltration, which has to be recognized. That is the benefit and also the negative of having many independent Churches.
Eventually, I believe that the Church will overcome the evil that gained control over it. There are prophecies about it, though I don’t know how reliable those will be.
The fact of the matter is, every institution of this scale is subverted and turned evil. I disagree with people who claim the problems come *from* the Vatican. They came from outside, and then the Church was destroyed from within.
The papacy’s grandiose claims on a historical basis are a clear usurpation of powers it did not originally have and echoes the claims of what the church even now calls the Donatist heresy.
Francis is a Cathedral puppet, nothing more. He has no grandiose claim for any higher power.
The Roman Catholic Church was based as recent as recent as 1945 when it helped smuggle Nazis out of Europe to South America. Became Cathedral-subverted afterwards as the American Empire began colonizing Europe.
Nazis were non marxist socialists and I dont like them much…
Agree. Trolling normies is fun, but a socialist is a socialist, no matter how dashing he appears in the cupola.
If you have not investigated the legal problems surrounding Benedict XVI renunciation, I encourage you to do so. Barnhardt.biz has a good analysis.
Happy Advent.
Jesus Christ is Lord, born in Bethlehem, died in Jerusalem, and is, is from before the beginning of the world. Fully God and fully man. God is three and God is one.
The Catholic Church as the one true Church eatablished by Christ will be restored to its glory. God will not be mocked and will not let the false prophets be in charge forever. Because Catholicism is true, the demons focus all of their attacks there so those in the Church can easily fall to the demonic temptations if they stray from the right path in their lives.
The big crisis in the Catholic Church since the 1960s is basically the leaders’ refusal to stand up to the world and strive to convert to the world from it’s sin and error. So they just go along with what the powerful say.
Paul VI was a terrible pope who was all talk and no action. He knew the enemies of the Church had infiltrated but he was too pathetic to do anything about. John Paul and Benedict were too absorbed in their own philosphical ideas about the Church’s relationship with the world. Too much time spent in the academic ivory tower basically. Francis is a vicious power greedy man who rules for others, not as a Catholic. But God never said the leaders of the Church will always be good.
If the Bishop of Rome had claimed the powers in Dictatus Papae during the time of Constantine or even Charlemagne the Emperors would have at best deposed them and locked them up as madman, likely they would have been declared a heretic and executed though.
The papacy is an usurpation and the Donatist heresy and the Orthodox Church is the only church with a historical claim to tradition.
Whether the papacy has claimed more power than it had in the first millennia, and whether this would have been acceptable to Constantine, Charlemagne, or any other great king is besides the point. Christ promised that the Church will not fall. By this Church he meant the Catholic Church, as the Pope is the successor of St. Peter. I don’t see anywhere in scripture where Christ says that this is true contingent on the Church not overstepping what Constantine would find acceptable
I don’t see the succession from Peter to the Bishop of Rome. Why is that just considered fact?
Arguably there is succession from Peter to James, brother of Christ, but where it went from there after James and his wife were martered is anyone’s guess. During that period the Church was underground and was not too big on keeping records.
And when the Church came out from underground, no top leader in sight.
Where are you getting that? Pope Linus was the second Bishop of Rome after Peter.
That is the Papal story, which is heretical and is flatly contradicted by Paul in the New Testament. Apostolic succession by laying on of hands is directly supported by the New Testament, But papal succession is directly falsified by the New Testament. The true Church does not have one earthly human head, but many national earthly human heads.
Peter was not Bishop of Rome, but Bishop of Jerusalem, for Paul appointed Linus with the advice and consent of Peter. Nor was Linus the Pope, because obviously Paul and Peter were higher in authority than he was. Peter was in charge of Jewish church, and Paul was in charge of the gentile church, foreshadowing the division of Orthodoxy into a collection of national Orthodox churches each behaving collegially and each being in communion with all of the others.
Peter was the first Bishop of Jerusalem, and James brother of Christ the second, and after James, Jewish Christians hit the dirt and shortly thereafter ran like the dogs of hell were after them. No more Bishops of Jerusalem for quite a while. That was the end of that succession.
James Brother of Christ had higher or comparable authority to Paul, and Paul higher authority than Linus, so, Linus was not the first Pope, and neither Paul nor James were Bishop of Rome since Linus was Bishop of Rome, again foreshadowing the division of Orthodoxy into national churches each collegial to and each in communion with all of the others, each hierarchical, but no single hierarchy.
Linus was not the first Pope, nor the second. He was the first Bishop of Rome, and was under Paul’s authority, and Paul’s authority was collegial with the authority of Peter, Bishop of Jerusalem, and subsequently collegial with the authority of James, Brother of Christ, who was second Bishop of Jerusalem. Peter cannot have been the first Bishop of Rome, because he was consulted by Paul when Paul appointed Linus Bishop of Rome, nor Linus the first or second Pope, because Paul was higher in authority than Linus was, Peter higher than Paul, and James Brother of Christ higher than or comparable to that of Paul.
The Papal interpretation of events is just flatly contradicted by Paul in the New Testament.
If you accept the practices of the New Testament on apostolic succession by laying on of hands, hierarchical national churches logically follow, but if you accept the practices of the New Testament on appointment of bishops, no papal authority, no papal succession, no broader special authority for the Bishop of Rome, no single universal hierarchy. The head of the Church is Christ.
The organization of Orthodox Christianity is consistent with Scriptural Church organization. The organization of the Roman Catholic Church is contrary to scripture and thus is heretical. And thus the Pope wound up seated between the fangs of the Serpent.
“Whether the papacy has claimed more power than it had in the first millennia, and whether this would have been acceptable to Constantine, Charlemagne, or any other great king is besides the point. Christ promised that the Church will not fall”
But the Catholic Church has fallen, ergo the Catholic Church at least not since the heretical and blasphemous Dictatus Papae was not and has never been the Church Jesus was talking about.
Apostolic succession clearly has support in the New Testament, that Christ granted special spiritual powers to some Christians and not others. Papal succession?
We see Bishops exercising special authority from the beginning, some Bishops a lot more than others. We don’t see Papal authority. We see a form of organization similar to modern Orthodoxy.
Thomas Hobbes describe the papacy as “no other than the ghost of the deceased Roman empire sitting crowned on the grave thereof”
There is early Papal authority in the pre Nicaen fathers. For example the letter of Clement to the Corinthian Church. St Iraenaeus says ironically now that the Roman see is the only one which has held to the full faith. Pope Victor I clearly thought he had the authority to tell the Churches in Asia Minor to change the way they calculate the date of Easter, with both Irenaeus and Polycarp agreeing that he could do so even though they recommended against it.
>If the Bishop of Rome had claimed the powers in Dictatus Papae during the time of Constantine
The Roman Empire and its institutions disappeared over time in the west during the collapse. The Church picked up where the lay institutions disappeared and replaced them over time when there was nothing else left.
It is the ultimate legacy of the Western Roman Empire. If the Roman Empire had persisted, or later the Holy Roman Empire was actually able to take its place, its position would be different.
The Orthodox Church is different and obviously it represented the oriental side, where the Empire persisted for another one thousand years.
The bishop of Rome had no business claiming secular power, he certainly had no business claiming secular power beyond his immediate area over other nations and kingdoms.
Then why does Orthodoxy allow for divorce? Seems that is at least o e Achilles heel for claiming it is the one true Church.
Orthodoxy allows for divorce and remarriage under certain conditions and restraints as established by Saint Basil the Great. Men are given the option to divorce in the event of infertility or adultery and both sexes are allowed remarriage up to three times.
The Roman Catholic position on divorce is part of the holiness spiral which led to the adoption of clerical celibacy. The prohibition on divorce led to the development of the “annulment†and the idea of the “soulmate,†the latter of which was a precursor to chivalry, the troubadours, and contemporary feminism. There is no such thing as “unconditional love†in marriage; if the man does not perform the woman will cease to love him, and if the woman commits adultery the marriage is destroyed. Being forced to remain with a woman who is infertile or has committed adultery is emasculating and debasing, hence the adoption of the annulment.
It is regrettable but there seems to be an improper reading of my comment; perhaps I should have worded it better.
The Orthodox Position on Divorce:
There are in addition to adultery other grounds for divorce, infertility may be one of them, but these are left rather vague. Divorce is allowed as a dispensation, referred to as oikonomea, the act of permitting something bad as a means of preventing a greater evil in extenuating circumstances, for example found in 2 Kings 5. There are various grounds for a husband in order to obtain a divorce, but the matter is not taken lightly.
Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church: Personal, family and public morality
After reading through the above link to the Social Concept, it turns out I was wrong about infertility being a reason for divorce.
Apologies given for the above comment. A divorce may be granted if the man is impotent before the marriage or if he castrates himself, but a divorce cannot be granted if one or the other spouse is infertile. Please forgive my misreading of this passage.
Moses allowed divorce. Using your standard, you have to discredit the Old Testament which Christ obviously did not intend.
>>>
His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
>>>
Christ says right there that some men will divorce and that He accepts (or forgives) this.
If you are interested in having a discussion, I’m interested to hear you explain how the Papacy is Donatist.
The Donatists claimed that all aspects of church government were exempt from all secular authority in the way the Papacy later did, “what has the Emperor to do with the Church”.
That is not why the Donatists were condemned. The Donatist heresy has to do with the validity of the sacraments. In this case, the sanctity of the priest does not have an effect on whenever the sacramental act of performs is valid or not.
“That is not why the Donatists were condemned.”
But it was their position was it not.
So your position is the Donatist were wrong about Sacraments but right about that, while the Orthodox at the time were right about Sacraments but wrong about that.
The Donatist position was that priests who sinned could not longer do the sacraments. St Augustine and everyone else said that is preposterous. The Donatists then proceeded to holiness spiral and say anyone they didn’t deem holy enough could be part of the Church, which is basically everyone because everyone sins. The fact that they told the state to buzz of is accidental to their postition, all the other bishops including Augustine were more than happy to have the state intervention on behalf of the Church. If the state came out for the Donatists, the Church would have told the state to buzz off.
No it is not accidental, but absolutely central, for the reason you have a holiness spiral in the first place is always that the State is granting state power to a priesthood, some priests want more of the state’s sweet sweet goodies, and want other priests to have less.
The Donatists were telling the state that they, not the state, should oversee the distribution of sweet sweet state goodies. The state and the mainstream of the Church agreed that the state should have final say on the distribution of state goodies to the priesthood.
They would not have cared so much about who could give sacraments except that those who could give sacraments got sweet sweet state goodies.
When they said the emperor should have nothing to do with who could give sacraments – nothing stopped them from refusing sacraments from priests they deemed insufficiently virtuous. Was the emperor making them accept sacraments they deemed invalid? The problem that they were outraged about was that priests they deemed insufficiently virtuous were getting those sweet, sweet, state goodies.
You’re avoiding the question I asked. And you’re ignoring the fact that in practice that the bishops exercised collective leadership until around the time of the Norman Conquest and if any one man generally headed the church it was the emperor in Constantinople.
Jim, wikipedia says that the papal reception hall was constructed in 1971. So, they have been worshipping Satanic imagery for 2 generations now? I would imagine, Catholicism having been strong in 1971, and people having been more old-school then, someone would have made a racket about it then. And yet it did not happen. Or else I never heard about it.
Vatican II was 62-65 and then they built their temple to set. The Fish rots from the head down.
I was around in 1971. Demon worshipers held obvious power in the Churches back then, and were backed by state power. Because backed by state power, no one wants to make a fuss. People were quietly noticing that Roman Catholicism had died at the top shortly after Vatican II.
Vatican II is taught to us officially as being about making mass easy to understand, since it was no longer in Latin, so the faithful would know what they were listening to.
One of the essays written by priests of the time that I was given to read as material in high school also mentions how regrettably the beautiful Latin singing was replaced by new and less compelling Italian versions of the same songs. His opinion was positive other than that.
The old versions were in fact much better. I wouldn’t call the new ones outright demonic in any sense, but they sound very gaudy and have lost their edge.
It’s going from Gregorian chants to what feels more like children’s songs for kindergarten.
A fastidiously correct but low energy man is still not a real threat. The highest priority targets for shilling are not necessarily the fastidiously correct – though there is some overlap – but the high energy; the sort of men who generate impetus, who are liable to tip boulders downhill and set wheels into motion, one way or another.
Who did you have in mind?
I am speaking in tactical generalities right now of course. But it’s a funny thing; all sides are rather short of such qualities in our most current of years. So it’s more relatively speaking in terms of the general trend.
That’s why I asked. I couldn’t think of anyone. Of course such a person were to become publicly known he might quickly commit suicide with 2 bullets to the back of the head, so keeping a low profile is priority.
Probably someone who would rather not be named doing things that need not be mentioned.
It’s amazing how bad evil Architecture makes me feel and how energized and alive I feel after looking at a good Cathedral. I watched that Russian Naval cathedral video at least 30 times. As a sperg I don’t have a good feel for the sorts of things that people describe as the religious experience as it mostly seems like invisible made up bullshit to me, but I’m very sensitive to building design and the feelings those building naturally impart.
They put these things out in the open for the thrill of it, and have a laugh over how bewildered it makes the peasants.
https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1557263562146.jpg
(DIA is probably one of the most ‘on the nose’ examples.)
Any theories on the Georgia Guidestones? Ted Turner maybe?
Demonic stuff makes you sick in the head, Divine stuff makes you strong. This has been known for a very long time. It is like the difference between a drag queen and a pretty girl, manufactured food and real food. Demons never deliver.
The new military cathedral in Russia is obvious crypto-Mithraist military-shamanist stuff, like from a Conan adventure, or, conversely, from a 40K warhammer adventure.
Commissioned by shamanist minister Shoigu, from a shamanist designer. Powered by Hitler’s private things kept in a crypt.
So, many parallels currents taking place there as well.
BTW, today Russia banned TOR.
As someone fluent in Russian living in Eastern Europe would know, Russia is not “based†and “trad†ruled by Tsar Putin God-Emperor of the Rus, rather a Western liberal democracy with an elite under Progressive mimetic domination even if politically and militarily independent. It is obvious that the Russian elite even if sympathetic to Christianity are still cynical.
The new military cathedral may have some minor problems, concerns which could be fixed, but overall the cathedral is not a concern. Both Christianity and Satanism use the cross and the snake; it is the way these symbols are used which defines them and their spirituality. The dome was used by the Roman Pagans for centuries, yet one would not call the dome of the Cathedral a “Pagan†symbol.
It’s best if the elite is cynical (without being too corrupt). Believing too much leads to an elite that holiness spirals rather than optimizing their societies civ score…
But if the elite is too cynical, it is vulnerable to entryism by entryists who are true believers in a faith hostile to the official faith.
Europe fell when the official Churches came under the dominion of non Christians – the Socinian heresy being a complex ambiguity about the nature of Christ, which in practice amounted to demoting him to a Jewish community organizer, who was commendably enlightened for his ignorant and backward times, but the Socinians were vastly more enlightened than he was – and therefore more Christian than the official faith, because so much more enlightened than they were.
And ever since then they have been getting ever more and more enlightened, which eventually became outright worship of demons.
We don’t want the military hierarchy to be cynical about being willing to fight and die for God, King, and Nation, and we don’t want the official priesthood to be so cynical about things unseen that they are unable to protect the Church against entryist groups united by a different and hostile belief in things unseen.
The silly quarrels of the early Church about things unknowable and beyond human comprehension were the result of attempting to accommodate entryists who were holier than they were about things unknowable and beyond human comprehension. Accommodating the heretics with complicated and incomprehensible formulae had, as in Egypt, disastrous results.
The priesthood needs to be cynical enough to laugh off such hair splitting about the unknowable and incomprehensible, but serious enough to burn the heretics.
This.
You want an elite that is skeptical and a tiny bit paranoid, not cynical. I see people using these terms freely as if they meant the same thing, but they do not.
Cynicism implies rejection of public morality and a readiness to exploit those who still adhere to it. While the public morality of Globohomo is fake and (quite literally) gay, making it maybe a transiently positive quality to be cynical in the west, that is absolutely not the kind of thing you want to see in a real nation ruled by a virtuous elite.
A cynical elite is an elite in defect-defect equilibrium, either already in a death spiral or about to be.
I’ve never lived in a society (haha) that didn’t deserve extreme cynicism to the point I think non cynics were npc idiots.
None of us have lived in such a society, but the entirety of the movement is centered around the idea that such societies did exist in the past and could exist again.
And if we are not fighting for the (re)creation of such a society, then there is no reason to execute the “Cominator Plan” or even any plan of lesser magnitude. If you are going to be cynical no matter who is in charge or what they believe, then you may as well stick with the current elite, it’s less friction.
I want a society where the ordinary people don’t have to be cynical… but an elite that doesn’t know their machiavelli is likely to be swindled out of their country.
We are commanded to be gentle as doves but wise as serpents – and in the game theoretic language of the Dark Enlightenment wise as serpents means to be on our guard against cooperate/defect, wise to it, and sufficiently the knowledgeable about it that we could be good at it. We want our elite to know their Machiavelli, not to practice it. Though it is totally OK to lie to liars who intend you harm. That is part of what it means to be wise a serpents – that you should be good at deceiving those who deceive you.
But when you stare into the abyss the abyss stares back at you.
If you are morally weak, then you will fail when faced with anything. I looked into the abyss and I came out stronger, with more faith than I had going in. All it does is temper you. If you were poorly made, you will break. If you are strong inside, tempering will make you harder and more flexible.
All Machiavelli does is point out in plain language that if you want loyalty you have to put skin in the game, a strong people means a strong prince, punish enemies and reward friends, and that people will look out for themselves when trouble comes. It is not some dark art of politics or a book of black magic. It is a realistic look at what people really do, and not what they should do.
Cynics think that cynicism is a strength, until and optimist forms up his men, and drives through all the cynics.
I don’t consider merely knowing one’s Machiavelli to be a form of cynicism. As I said, this is skepticism, realism, wisdom, maybe a little bit of paranoia.
Cynicism is the deep-down belief that Machiavellianism is the end, rather than the means to an end. Cynicism is throwing out the red pill and taking the black pill.
Abyss staring back, and drawing you.
https://nypost.com/2021/12/04/ghislaine-maxwell-makes-drawings-of-the-court-artists-during-trial/
Poetry is at its best an attempt to speak the Ineffable.
Holy Architecture is at its best the attempt to show the Glory and the Beauty of the Unseen. Your gut gets perhaps what your brain can’t grok.
Spergs are gifted in certain ways and lacking in others; that certain buildings make one feel sick while others elevate the soul does not make sense on a purely rational level, yet even the least superstitious among us can sense it. The key element in understanding this is humility, that there are certain things that are out of reach of mortal man that cannot be understood with our simple minds.
Nuts. “Divine beauty” can make for good rhetoric, but there is nothing “out of reach of mortal man” when it comes to principles of good architecture, and there are perfectly rational reasons why classical art and music and architecture feels uplifting and modern art and music and architecture feels disgusting and depressing. The masters in the Baroque and Renaissance periods studied and refined these principles extensively, and the elite encouraged them to do so, which is how they were able to produce such a consistently high quality of art and culture.
Just because one doesn’t know or understand the reason doesn’t mean that there isn’t one. The mad rush to classify perfectly natural phenomena as transcendent and unknowable comes off as total cringe to the intellectually curious. Like believing in ghosts, gushing over “transcendently beautiful” chicks, cringe factor 11.
Don’t mistake this as me saying that we understand everything, or even that we’re capable of understanding everything. It’s just extremely irksome and cringeworthy when it gets said about things we definitely can and do understand.
I think I understand what makes great architecture great a lot better than most, and I doubt that we can and do understand it. It is certainly not definite that we can and do understand it.
Conceptualizing the difference as occupation by angels or demons, or worship of angels of demons, may not be literally true, but it is far from cringeworthy. In many cases it is literally, objectively, and empirically true that the difference depends on whether the architect and/or occupants worship God or Satan. When a building is new, the faith of the architect matters. When it becomes old the faith of the occupants comes to matter, perhaps because of the little changes that come with maintenance and occupancy.
While my knowledge of architecture is rather limited, my knowledge of music is not.
For the purposes of this thread music is sonority based upon an underlying mathematical structure. Modern music since J.S. Bach is based on equal temperament, also known as twelve-tone equal temperament, which gives us the modern scale from C to B. Later Baroque and Classical composers refined and cemented various voice leading and structural rules and conventions which create what is referred to as “classical†music. These rules descend from a tradition within the church to seek God through his creation, the precursor of modern rationalism.
The problem with thinking of music in purely mathematical terms is that mathematical structure in music does not correlate with spiritual breadth. For this exercise, let us use the examples of two composers from the same era, Sergei Rachmaninoff (1873-1943) and Arnold Schoenberg (1874-1951).
Rachmaninoff was a devout Orthodox Christian who fled the Bolshevik Revolution for the United States. This is one of his sacred works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYvw7jm-lsw
Schoenberg was a controversial figure in 20th century music who developed the 12-tone technique. This is his piano concerto: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-fyWc6Mpd8
The first work emanates divine beauty, while the second work, while interesting at first, begins to emit a foul stench as if one were talking with a well-dressed transsexual, a cosmic horror of sorts. Yet one cannot disqualify Schoenberg based solely on rational grounds, for there is nothing in his work which is mathematically unsound.
For an example of rationalist understanding of music, here is an excerpt from Mozart’s Magic Flute: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuBeBjqKSGQ
Viewed within the historical context of the Enlightenment, the Queen of the Night represents the Ancien Regime, whereas Sarastro symbolizes the enlightened sovereign ruling according to the principles of reason and leading humanity towards enlightenment. Even though Schoenberg and Mozart are of completely different musical styles, the overall ethos behind both composers are the same. In truth, Mozart is a great composer not because of his musical ethos, rather in spite of it, because the rules and conventions in his music were constructed under the domain of the church in service to God. There is no rational reason why Mozart is beautiful yet Schoenberg is disgusting, thus it falls under the domain of beyond human comprehension.
As a clarification, I am not saying that there is no rational reason for understanding Mozart’s music as beautiful, rather that there is an element of spirituality undergirding his music which cannot be explained by mere reason in comparison to modern composition.
I know my music too, and can issue no end of diatribes against the twelve-tone and other “modern” or “contemporary” systems.
As you said, music has a mathematical structure to it, and the composers of the Baroque and Classical periods had figured out which mathematical structure was virtuous and aesthetically pleasing. We can play our five-whys game here and demand to know why some of those structures sound good and others sound awful, you can call it divine something-or-other and I’ll say it comes down to evolution, the pattern-recognition components of the human brain that make music interesting in the first place, the similarity to sounds that appear in nature, and so on and so forth. But all of that is beside the point, which is that the music of Mozart and the music of Schoenberg follow completely different principles, thus it is completely rational for one to be beautiful and the other to be ugly.
Classical musical theory is naturalistic. Yes, they were under the domain of the Church, but their methodology was to look at what was already beautiful, infer commonalities and then try to adapt and refine them into something new, and this has generally been the process for everything beautiful and good throughout human history, starting from nature itself if we lack any direct experience (flight, for example, which I doubt we could ever have achieved by imagination alone).
The Second Viennese School did to classical musical theory what Keynes did to classical economic theory and Brutalists did to classical architectural theory: pissed all over it and said, “I’ll invent a new system, one which is mathematically perfect but has none of the old confining rules!” Instead of drawing on what was already good, they thought they could simply invent a new system from scratch and that it would work because it used math – figuratively speaking in the case of music, literally in the other two. Failing to realize that the “math” was simply a way of describing a system that already worked, they tried to apply it in wildly inappropriate ways and ended up with… wings on a rocket. Things that looked (or sounded) cool but had no meaning.
If you’re trying to argue all the way down to the metaphysics and ask why the laws of the universe are what they are, then sure, that has historically been and always will be the domain of religion. But that is different from saying that we don’t and can’t understand what those laws are. Schoenberg did not try to follow the same laws as Mozart, he invented his own from thin air, yielding the characteristically ugly outcome.
“Look at what was already beautiful” is the spiritual part, “infer commonalities and then try to adapt and refine them” is the rational part. Schoenberg is ugly because he did the latter and eschewed the former. Mozart is good because he did both.
As a fugue aficionado, I have an appreciation for the numerous laws which govern classical music and understand why they are as such. As an apostate of the Cathedral, “this works because it does†does not answer itself without a proper foundation. If evolution was sufficient there would be no need for this blog’s disposition towards Christianity. Indeed I am trying to argue all the way down to metaphysics and why the laws of nature are the way they are because they form the foundation of society and civilization.
My opinion is modern classical music begins with Hector Berlioz’s Symphonie Fantastique and to an extent the War of the Romantics, although its roots are much earlier. Mozart espoused Freemasonic ideology in his music (this is not conspiracy theory), Progressivism before Darwin, which is why I associate him believing in a system that would ultimately evolve into twelve-tone pseudo-aestheticism.
Schoenberg … This is his piano concerto: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-fyWc6Mpd8
Writing sheet music for that “piece” is like writing a recipe for a shit sandwich.
I’m a fan of Mozart. However the example I would use, as his greatest composition, is the Requiem Mass K626, his last work. And my favourite piece of music.
In particular, Introitus, Kyrie, and the later Dies Irae and Hostias.
I never liked Lacrimosa, though strangely I remember the lyrics (which of course aren’t Mozart’s invention). The Suessmayr parts I find lacking.
What do you think of it? I think it’s the greatest expression of his faith in God.
I understand the rest of your explanation but I am confused as to why you think Mozart was good *despite* his musical ethos. I agree with the point about his spirituality being a determining factor.
The first two movements of the Requiem are among the best music Mozart ever composed; the best sacred music Mozart ever wrote imo was the less-renowned yet equally genius Mass in C minor, in particular the Kyrie and the Et incarnatus est. Strongly recommend John Eliot Gardiner with Barbara Bonney.
As for J.S. Bach the Mass in B Minor, St. Matthew Passion and St. John Passion are his most renowned sacred works, although I can recommend BWV 140 and 147, the latter of which is famous for “Jesu, Joy of Man’s Desiring.†For those who do not like sacred music, BWV 201 “Phoebus and Pan†is one of his best secular cantatas. Karl Richter is recommended for everything; Gardiner is too fast, Harnoncourt is sloppy, although Herreweghe is ok.
However, after being introduced to Orthodox Chant I can no longer find spiritual depth in Western sacred music, even Handel. Rachmaninoff’s “All Night Vigil†(Op. 37) is on a different level compared to Western European music.
The matter is not that there are not means of re-preseting products of genius; the matter is thinking that there is a means of representation sufficient to replace the genius that is creating both in the first place; that there are representations sufficient to banish once and for all the uncertainty you are already feeling now when grappling with the issue; an idea that one has lead oneself to wanting to believe, as a means of sublimating this insecurity.
The guy who did the “La Resurrezione” sculpture was Pericle Fazzini. All his “art” looks like abstract on prozac.
The guy who commissioned it was Count Galeassi. Not much info on him.
This odious work does not inspire. In the old times, they had Michelangelo. We have Fazzini. More rotting from the head down.
It’s an evil work, and this is obvious to anyone with eyes. It looks like the final boss of a JRPG. Using this to frame the papal throne proves that the Vatican is evil. The options are:
1) They genuinely think it looks good. Only diseased souls with fried aesthetic senses think this looks good.
2) They know it looks bad, but they put it up there anyway to curry favor with the diseased souls with fried aesthetic senses who run Western Civilization.
3) They think it looks bad, but they trust self-proclaimed art experts with diseased souls and fried aesthetic senses more than their own judgment.
Evil.
Evil.
Evil.
Melt this thing down and cast a genuinely uplifting and beautiful statue out of it.
â˜ðŸ»
If the deformations and the tortured souls weren’t enough, it’s the way his arms extend forward, as if coming to get you. And who knows, perhaps JK Rowling took inspiration from this when she had the evil snake guy hide on the back head of a hogwarts professor.
Thinking on it, the tortured soul waves imply motion, as if they and ‘Jesus’ suddenly burst out from below. So it conveys a feeling as if you are walking and are suddenly ambushed by this snake demon and his army of the undead.
But of course, you are silly for thinking that and really it’s just good ole’ Christian Jesus. 🙃 Great example of late stage entryism.
The position of the left hand in particular is strikingly demonic, rather than christlike.
So that’s the official context for it
It does look very ominous and evil, but I have to admit that it is a masterpiece in that sense. It’s incredibly theatrical, I could imagine Michelangelo making something with such a strong aura as part of a greater work, as the side of evil and hell like in “Giudizio Universale”, with a good side to match.
It feels very evil, but it’s not purely disgusting like some modern art is.
However, it doesn’t radiate divine beauty either.
Obviously it is the side of evil and hell, and it sits behind the Pope, between the fangs of the serpent.
The reason that it is such a downer is that the meta message in the context is “We are the bad guys. We won, you lost. Ha ha. Entropy always prevails.”
The metamessage of God is that order prevails. Eventually, with much unpleasantness in the process.
The metamessage of Gnon is that well ordered life prevails over less ordered life. Evil always consumes itself.
Fazzini’s “La Resurrezione” could be a scene from Dante’s Inferno (the poem) where “Giudizio Universale” could be seen as from Dante’s Paradiso. The counterpart. Catholics believe in a Purgatory. One of the areas was described like a maelstrom.
>So that’s the official context for it
I know the official context for it. Officially it’s raining, and officially, nobody is pissing on my foot.
They’re leaving people with no other recourse.
https://nypost.com/2021/12/03/italian-man-wears-fake-arm-in-attempt-to-avoid-covid-19-jab/
So i guess the moral of the story is, don’t try to use a prosthetic arm. Until lifelike fuckdoll tech is applied to building lifelike arms, you’ll have to acquire a real human arm.
Beyond the obvious and undeniable value as an act of humour, these sort of solutions are admissions of defeat., and only lead to an arms race – pun intended. Faking the pass》sliding some paper to be left alone in the booth》prowling the dark web 》gettting a prostethic arm》who knows what. Increasingly intense acts of desperation that work badly for a few until exposed.
There is no alternative to coordination, everything else is “I said nothing when they came for the commies…”.
That being said, if I had a personal solution at hand i’d take it in a heartbeat.
Faking it -if done well- involves a lot of cooperation. Unless one of your group defects, the government cannot find out.
There is cooperation on a scale that creates armies and enables a change of government. There is useful cooperation on a smaller scale, e.g. Mafia or other organized crime.
This same woman probably would have taken a bribe, or a pity lay. She’s furious because he tried to trick her, and picked an expensive but very stupid and insulting con, not because he was looking for a way around the clot shot.
The temples are beautiful, yes. It’s a pity that it all ends there. I am glad that the covid situation has somewhat shaken your mythical ideas about Russia and Putin’s rule.
In fact, this is a very sad outcome. This man had a historic chance to turn the country in the right direction. But he missed it. And this is not enough, it also increased the gap between Russians and Ukrainians, thereby inflicting a catastrophic blow on the Russian world, Russian people and Russian influence. Also, economic stagnation and brain drain, the solution of the demographic issue by the import of migrants from Asia. No excuses.
The same applies to Lukashenka, but to a lesser extent. BELARUS lives up to its name, and people are much less traumatized by privatization than in Russia.
“Traumatised by privatization” you believe in a government planned economy?
I don’t think there was much wrong with Putins rule before he cucked on covid.
I think he means “privatization”.
No, I do not believe in the effectiveness of government planning. At least if we are talking about a country with the development of Russia or higher. Russia needs a market. It is difficult to convince a person of this if he associates privatization with oligarchy, corruption, crime and fraud, as well as a terrible financial crisis and humiliation. Which complicates the reform of the Russian economy in the future. In Belarus, the level of socialism of the economy is not lower, but entrepreneurs are associated with labor and talent, and the public sector is associated with ineffective management. Which makes it much more convenient for market reformation.
But it is not important. Putin had the opportunity to reform the economy. It’s the same with federalism, taxes, education, medicine, the issue of self-defense, and of course the women’s question. He did not take advantage of these opportunities, although in his first terms he had successful steps (for example, the release of the land market).
Since the topic of marriage and divorce has come up again, what do you think of prenups?
Having a prenup to at least attempt to protect your wealth in case of divorce, and make sure your wife doesn’t think she can take your money and get paid for cheating on you, seems like an absolute necessity to make the gay marriage that is modern marriage a little less gay and more correct.
I have heard arguments that it sours marriages, and from some cucked Christians that it’s wrong because you are telling your wife you don’t trust her, which you are supposed to. How can she trust you if you don’t trust her, your own wife!?!
In my case I have a decent amount of wealth to protect which makes a prenup automatically more justified (I am not getting married any time soon though unfortunately)
My take is redpilled men don’t get divorced, only betas. However, assuming you are alpha and sufficiently redpilled on female nature, the time may come when your wife has grown old and you want to divorce her for a younger, hotter women.
What does the Church say about? In, Orthodox Christianity it’s apparently ok to divorce an infertile woman. So then it’s ok to pull a Trump and marry, procreate, then divorce (he had prenups signed to protect his wealth) a series of women? Essentially polygamy in sequence not in parallel?
I expected this reply but it’s sidestepping the question, I cannot know that I will make no mistakes in my marriage, and that she will never leave me for another man, or go crazy or what not. Not to mention how society can turn on you for being a man and lower your status, ruin your position.
I wouldn’t do this, although I can understand the drive, my part of the marriage is to provide to her even after she can no longer provide me what she used to.
I don’t think this should really be allowed, I don’t think it ever was except for very powerful and wealthy men who could do whatever they wanted.
I am not married so I cannot give a wise answer from experience like Jim or others, but assuming she is very attracted to you at the time of marriage (because your status/value is sufficiently higher than hers) it will not take 1 mistake for her to leave you. It will take a series of fuckups and shit test failures for it to reach divorce.
Betas likely have no idea they are fucking up so bad until it’s too late. A red pilled should be able to see where he failed a shit test and quickly correct it.
red pilled man*
Divorcing a wife for a younger, hotter woman is not allowed; Pooch is resorting to straw men. Divorce is only permitted as a dispensation in extreme circumstances like adultery, abortion without the father’s consent, etc.
The question one asks regarding the subject is whether or not divorce is something which will prevent further evil or not. Categorizing each and every possibility is difficult and leads to ambiguity.
Old Testament position is that you should keep your old wife around as well as your new wife, and continue to look after her and sexually gratify her. You are not supposed to dump the wife of your youth, but you can marry as many additional wives as you can look after, plus concubines.
There is no new testament position repudiating this, except that for priests, it is a nono. However there is a large Christian position, the community of saints, that extends the one wife only position to the laity.
To me this seems suspiciously like holiness spiraling, but if you start rejecting the community of saints without compelling evidence of division on the question and bad conduct by one faction, there is no end to that, destabilizing Christianity. We don’t want people going sola scriptura, because then they grab one phrase out of context, throw the rest of the bible in the ditch, and construct a whole new religion around one phrase. Also, the Christian rule adopted by the community of saints does have the effect of stabilizing society and facilitating cooperation between the classes. The lower classes are seldom all that troubled by the rich hogging material things, unless bread goes short, but if the rich hog all the women, you get the problems the Muslims have always had.
>if the rich hog all the women,
What I find funny about this, is that it’s a problem that both a reactionary and a communist would agree with.
Forming a nuclear family is the antithesis of what leftists want, but it is ironic that when it comes to the most important property (women) the correct equilibrium seems to be reached with everyone having an equal amount, and laws are implemented in that direction.
It’s a problem that a communist will claim he agrees with, but really the communist’s problem is that other people have things that he’d like to either take or destroy.
So he’ll tell the man with one wife that the man with two wives must be put to death, but only so he can later kill the man with one wife, then kill the wives and get sodomized by a man with no wives.
Does not mean that we should have polygamy, only that you should never listen to what a communist says.
Please do not resort to straw man tactics…
Paraphrasing the canons of St. Basil, divorce is allowed as a dispensation, referred to as oikonomea, the act of permitting something bad as a means of preventing a greater evil in extenuating circumstances, for example found in 2 Kings 5. There are various grounds for a husband in order to obtain a divorce, but the matter is not taken lightly.
On the other hand, the Roman Catholic annulment debases the sacrament of marriage, for if the sacrament can be undone, then the sacrament is not strictly binding. I am not going to say Roman Catholicism approves of Trump marrying, then annulling the marriage, then remarrying, then annulling, and so on. However, a divorce by any other name does not smell as sweet, especially by an organization which claims to oppose it.
And this is why the orthodox faith is a joke. Angry little brother looking skyward at the Roman faith. Lukewarm on birth control, allows remarriage (what Christ joins together no man can put asunder), denies Catholic dogmas… not marks of the true faith at all. Orthodoxy is pretty gay, and unfortunately, all of its members will burn in Hell save for conversion to Catholicism.
Remarriage is only forbidden for someone who leaves wrongfully. Paul gives the legitimate -reasons for ending a marriage, which approximately correspond to the modern Orthodox reasons.
The New Testament nowhere forbids marrying additional wives. It merely says that men with multiple wives should not be recruited as Bishops or Deacons – the prohibition against polygyny is a post New Testament addition by the consensus of the Communion of the Saints.
If true, so what? Is a Christian supposed to serve in God’s army for the pay (avoiding hell), or because the work must be done? (I really do not know, BTW.)
PS: people remember 869.
Bro not to sound like a dick or nothing but you’re fucked up, you talk like a fag and your shots all retarded.
I recently learned that Orthodox priests are getting character assassinated on national TV in Greece. Turns out this is what they preach to the public:
https://maryrefugeofsouls.com/2021/09/23/are-the-vaccines-affecting-our-spirituality-orthodox-church-father-savvas-agioritis-testimonies-of-the-spiritual-trauma-of-priest-monks-who-took-the-covid-19-vaccine-maryrefugeofsouls/
Excerpts:
“As St. Chystostomos says, “The lukewarm Christians are living in comfort.†The lukewarm are those who want to combine everything; the world, Christ, hedonism (love of sexual pleasure), avarice (love of money), the external appearances (vanity)… to not be disenfranchised (segregated), go to Church, take Holy Communion, Holy Confession, etc. These lukewarm “Christians†cause the most damage to the church.
[…]
To a faithful person of God death does not exist, this is the reality. We have forgotten this and we presently fear death. Not only do we fear death, we also fear being fined, possible imprisonment, and prosecution. In NO case can a person call themselves a Christian if they fear death. When a person fears dying, they become an idolater or an atheist.”
Catholics have the mad lad in Belgium, so the honour is safe at least: https://www.archyde.com/for-a-conspiratorial-priest-of-bullange-it-is-bill-gates-who-possessed-by-the-devil-is-responsible-for-the-coronavirus-pandemic-he-has-been-fired/
> the time may come when your wife has grown old and you want to divorce her for a younger, hotter women
I knew few guys who pulled this off. It was great in the beginning then karma turns against them real fast (lost job, got swindled, cucked out by new wife).
I mean if you think you are a person bigger than life like Trump, go for it man.
She’s less likely to divorce you or even think about it if she doesn’t think she’ll get much out of it…
No, women are not like that. They are startling indifferent to the likely material consequences of sexual choices. Even whores are a lot less impressed by the material consequences than you would expect.
She is less likely to divorce you if she thinks you might kill her and her lover. Not because she is all that worried about getting killed (girls take terrifying risks while looking for alpha cock) but because the fear makes you look alpha in her eyes. Girls are attracted to men they are afraid of.
Well that too.
You are not considering all factors. Having a prenup puts you in a better position to begin with, as the man. Having to worry less about divorce makes one less likely to act as the husband shouldn’t, leading to less likely divorce.
At worst, you won’t lose everything. You will know that, and be more confident. It’s easier to call her bluffs.
Also, if your wife is being unfaithful or otherwise behaves unacceptably and you are not able or willing to correct it at that point, it gives you a way out.
Trump’s prenups worked, but the state has largely closed that door. Today, if you talk to a lawyer about a prenup, he starts thinking about plotting with the other lawyer about how to acquire you and your wife’s assets.
Your wife has to have her own lawyer to consult over the prenup, or the courts will almost automatically invalidate it, and her lawyer will tell her if she divorces or gets divorced, she will get rich and marry a handsome athlete with a bigger dong than yours, while the lawyers plot together so that a divorce will enrich them and leave both you and your wife in the street with no pants.
If you set up a prenup, your fiancee is going to spend a lot of time talking to someone who will be enriched by her divorcing you, and you and your fiancee are both talking to advisers who will be enriched by the prenup not working out as either of you expect.
Combine it with trusts in the right countries, and you will have a better chance. There are ways to treat properties such that not even the US government can get to them.
One woman and her lawyer aren’t any better.
And crypto.
I would not rely on that as your source of confidence. I have heard of courts overruling prenups for being “too one-sided”. That’s likely to be a trend which accelerates. You should be confident that you can replace her (because you are a redpilled game aware man) and she should know it and fear it. If she fears YOU will be the one divorcing HER, she won’t leave you.
>You should be confident that you can replace her (because you are a redpilled game aware man) and she should know it and fear it. If she fears YOU will be the one divorcing HER, she won’t leave you.
Zero Fucks Given game is great for plowing through a mass of whores – but is something of a square peg to the round hole of stable family formation.
The foundational problem underlaying inceldom in modernity is that ultimately, no *individual* solution is sufficient.
>If she fears YOU will be the one divorcing HER, she won’t leave you.
Indeed, but making her sign a prenup is suggesting in that direction. Besides, how can you replace her, if she can take half your money?
It is true that prenups often don’t work, though. One has to be careful about it.
Another problem is children, no prenup can solve that, but maybe it failed even before that stage, all the more reason to get someone else.
Money matters not for gaming women.
I would not marry unless I was ready to have children immediately. There is no point of marriage if not to start a family.
I basically agree with this view but I also think it’s fundamentally more just and a little closer to how marriage should be.
There is an argument that it can sour marriages, but I think such marriages were already doomed, if the wife decides to divorce based on this. I think people here understand female behaviour, and how women actually make such decisions.
A piece of paper notarized by a representative of an entity with the blood of children and innocents, the obesity pandemic, and the faggotry of frogs on its hands does not a marriage make. Marriage is natural, not legal. Fruitful reproductive sex consummates the marriage. Non-reproductive sex is somewhere between adultery and onanism. God killed Onan, you know. Death to the regime.
Why even get a legal marriage in the first place? It’s not like legal marriage in any Western country has any genuine relationship with real marriage. Legal marriage is a “contract”, real marriage is a transfer of ownership of a woman from her father to her future husband. But if you are “in a relationship” these days, that should mean that you already own her. And if you already own her, there is nothing more to do; you are already married. Just tell people she is your wife and tell her to tell people you are her husband.
>Why even get a legal marriage in the first place?
It is not a choice. If you get religiously married, or you act as a married couple, you will receive all the issues from marriage in practice. It’s better to get married and also enjoy the benefits, along with the ability to sign a prenup.
You are right, I forgot about common-law marriage.
I’m still not convinced about prenups. As jim says, “she is less likely to divorce you if she thinks you might kill her and her lover”, but drawing up a prenup makes it look like, if she cheats on you, you will not kill her and her lover but will instead file a legal divorce and pay lawyer’s fees and cry in the bathroom etc. Even if it doesn’t doom you, you can expect some extra hard shit testing for a week or two after signing it.
Tell her that you will kill her if she cheats on you. The prenup is for the case that she turns out to be barren.
That’s a good idea. I suppose my objections are unfounded.
Prenups are a legal contract. Difficult to say anything specific on the legal side of the issue unless you also specify which which law shall apply and where you live. There seems to be a general tendency of courts to look critically at any prenup, certainly in Germany, but they are not worthless in German courts, if within the range of what the law allows (and the law allows quite a lot).
So you get something for an attorney’s fee that might later be useful. If the fee is not too high, a prenup is reasonable if viewed financially.
Emotionally is a different matter. I do not think it will stabilize a marriage. Women do not care all that much about money. Oh the other hand, I do not think that it will place a burden on a marriage. If a man keeps his frame that marriage has a religious side with a promise not to divorce and a legal side that involves the state’s law where you live, I expect the bride to agree to a prenup.
As divorce is possible, you only have a choice between taking your country’s divorce laws unmodified as they are (more precisely: will be) or making your own.
Assuming law will apply is normalcy bias. The court will do whatever is most holy, and what is holy is that a woman should not suffer any adverse consequences from stupid, wicked, and self destructive choices.
Law applies less and less. Courts are not yet completely irrelevant. It is still possible to size assets with a court order. I live in a country where contracts sometimes still can be enforced and it is there useful to have them.
How soon courts will be irrelevant, is anyone’s guess. I expect the process of law and courts becoming irrelevant to accelerate, but that various countries will not be completely synchronized.
I trust your assessment of what a US courts will do with any prenup. Are you sure a Chinese court would do the same?
Marriage is internationally accepted. If you marry anywhere, it is very likely that any court anywhere will agree that you are married. If you marry in one country and then move to another, that other country’s courts will rule on your divorce and will look at your prenup.
Your are telling us that when the shit hits the fan, you’ll leave your guns and gold behind and take the last plane to a place that still has working technology. I’m pretty sure that place will have laws and courts and police to enforce a court’s order.
You see this issue about laws applying as either yes or no. I find the real world to operate in shades of grey where laws matter less and less, but are still sometimes relevant. A long term contract might be useless or might help a little bit
You do not need to enter into an official marriage. Well, in our legal and cultural setting. It is nonsense.
In Russia, by the way, a marriage contract is worthless if it is at odds with the “Family” Law, which makes it completely useless. There are countries in the world in which he still works, but they cease to be so. But even if it worked, you put a judge (usually a cunt) in making decisions on family conflicts.
While it is still possible to agree with Jim’s assertion about polygamy under patriarchy, in conditions of anarchy, rejection of polygamy is meaningless. From your refusal to have a second wife, the other man will not have a wife, but you simply send another girl to the cock carousel. I would prefer my daughter to be a happy second wife with many children, and not to waste her youth entertaining hooligans.
Condensing to point form:
1. It may or may not be enforced by a court. Don’t rely on it.
2. It will make you look less alpha – not confident that you really own her.
3. Before marriage, she’ll be spending lots of time talking and thinking about divorce.
I think prenups are kind of like clot shots at this point. They do nothing to prevent a divorce, have a real but extremely slim chance of saving you if divorce does happen, and a rather less slim but still somewhat slim chance of causing their own problems even if you don’t get divorced. Just seems like a waste of time and money to me. 30 years ago it would have been a definite “yes” but not today.
Exactly. I want her thinking that I own her and leaving is not even in the realm of possibility. Last thing I want is her lawyer and family giving her ideas to the contrary.
To a lesser extent, I also want her confident that I will not leave her and she is secure as my property therefore divorce would never enter my mind. Women who feel their ownership to an alpha man is not secure also can cause problems in different ways.
Vari karin, indulge my Luddite self, are you able to switch these back on if you want yo?
What?
NASA is PBSkids for Adults. Space is real but NASA serves to hide the real space projects. While the public is shown rockets in the shape of a penis there are already ships that exist that can travel through worm holes.
I think that’s one of the many theories they want to promote. Secret space program idea hides the technological decline and wasteful spending. But there’s no reason to believe it. I also think the reports of UAP are there to suggest we have better craft than we do hidden away for later, like the F117 back in the day. Except there’s nothing new on the horizon, just the shitty F35.
“Hail fellow reactionary, did you know that the enemy has technological powers far beyond your imagining, that could destroy you with trifling ease if you dared act against them?”
I generally agree, but sometimes I feel like a few things, like common space plane use for a select few, human clones, human/software interface, and certain kinds of “super powers” inducing medicines (effectively awake for days, blood oxygen doping, emotion/conscience suppression) are extant and in use behind closed doors. These are all things that could have been developed in the 80s and 90s. Just a pet conspiracy theory.
America had legitimate superweapons in the hydrogen bomb, and now there is growing uncertainty as to whether or not those superweapons actually work. Why? The people that would maintain them and keep them ready retired and were replaced with diversity hires. Diversity hires would be in charge of the clone vats, the neural interfaces, and producing the superpower drugs. Even if they had them, I doubt they do anymore.
My little theory is about certain industrial and corporate interests or private scientific collectives, not governments or large entities. But you’re absolutely right about the tech stagnation. More like Marconi and Tesla types, doing real science outside the scope of the mainstream. I grant you, it isn’t likely.
I’m not in the loop with any private scientific collectives, but without allowing this to get overly specific, I am probably familiar with the practices of the industrial and corporate interests that you are probably thinking about, and the days of fantasticool deniable skunkworks projects are long gone. Were on their way out in the late aughts, and by the mid-teens were starting to become a running joke.
There are some actual, real, cutting-edge R&D projects going on such as those related to AI and quantum computing, but I don’t think any of them have known military applications, and the success of those projects depends on the ability to draw from an ever-shrinking pool of talented engineers who are being aggressively hunted by SJWs, sacrificed to clot shots, sidelined for diversity hires, buried under a mountain of bureaucracy, and in general getting unintentionally but inexorably purged or demoralized by the same people funding these projects.
I predict that without a regime change, virtually all of these projects will plateau within five years, after which the teams will soon find themselves unable to even recreate their initial successes, never mind improving upon them. To the extent that the parent organizations retain any productive elements whatsoever, it will be largely focused on maximizing revenue from existing/repeat customers.
If there are Marconi or Tesla types out there, then they are probably mad scientists working out of their garage. And despite what you may have heard about people like David Pares trying to build the mythical Alcubierre drive in his garage, most of that is just outright silliness with no chance of success. One can never be certain, but I believe we’ve already passed the point where individual scientists working with individual resources can make serious and significant breakthroughs. There’s still plenty to be discovered, but it requires increasingly advanced technology, scarce resources and large-scale coordination just to do the research.
They are all long dead. I know what is happening inside the quantum computing projects. Deurgy and scammers. The deurgists take over, making success impossible.
Not sure about that. It’s impressive what one can do with huge amounts of data and computation and a simple brute-force function approximator.
Other than that it’s hard to say there’s been new cutting edge understanding. Ali Rahimi (coauthor of the famous random features paper) created a controversy by claiming that AI research is currently at the level of alchemy. On the other side of the argument is Yann LeCun who claims that what a NN does when it labels pixels in an image is perception (!).
I meant to say “an artificial neural network”.
I think the best example I can provide of the above is “drop-out”, which is some technique of the “we tried this and it works” sort.
The explanation for why it works is hand wavy, so was that of “batch-normalization”, which works because it reduces “internal covariate shift”. Maybe that’s true in a vague sense, but a lot of cutting edge AI research is “we tried this, here how it worked better for the examples we show, here’s a vague explanation for why”. It’s a great field and extremely interesting, but a lot of claimed advance is not that solid.
You can’t trust mainstream accounts of it because a lot of people have vested interests. I recall IBM made some claim that they simulated the brain of a cat. Meaning they had a similar of number of connections in a cat’s brain and of parameters in their model. Saying they can simulate the brain of a cat is very misleading.
I found this to be a nice account of the current hype cycle in AI.
There are tests for that, and the quantum computers are able to squeak by – if only barely.
Or rather, they were able to squeak by, a few years ago. I would have expected some modest improvements by now, yet the tech press has been strangely quiet on the subject, implying that the projects are either failing to progress or actually regressing, because if they were making real progress then the tech press would be creaming itself.
The AI systems being used by Google, Facebook and the rest of Big Tech are all getting worse, because of “Inclusive AI” and “ML Fairness”. However, AI research and applications in general have been limping along because of small businesses and open-source projects finding new ways to apply the old algorithms without involving Shaniqua.
I’m not talking about AGI, which, like flying cars, has been mere decades away for the past 3 or 4 decades. I’m fairly confident that we could achieve it with today’s silicon tech and last century’s social tech, but not with today’s social tech and any kind of secret futuristic silicon tech. AGI has to be taught morality and philosophy, and we have lost the ability to reliably teach morality and philosophy to humans, never mind machines.
Likely with better social technology we would’ve made better progress in understanding the hard problems of AI.
It’s not clear that the current silicon technology would support some kind of AGI. I’m not talking about the architecture, but the physical substrate. Who knows, but it is common in the field to think that AGI cannot be replicated using algorithms, as currently defined.
As Jim says we don’t even know where to start when it comes to consciousness. So far it has eluded any attempt to formalize it (turn it into math/algorithms).
AGI is not “consciousness”, it is simply the theoretical ability of a machine to intelligently solve problems in the general domain as opposed to very narrow domains.
The framing of AGI as being “conscious” or resembling humanity in some way is and always has been a strawman – a reductive, cartoonish way of thinking about AI brought on by a lack of imagination and a lot of trashy sci-fi flicks.
The substrate is there. Obviously not in a form that’s sufficient to put one in an Echo-sized device in every household, but enough to run one of them in an entire Amazon or Google datacenter. That’s why such projects cannot be completed by individuals, only by larger institutions with immense resources and extremely high levels of trust and cooperation. We have institutions with the resources, but they no longer have the trust and cooperation.
It has long been obvious that consciousness is needed to solve problems in the general domain, and every supposed breakthrough in artificial general intelligence painfully rediscovers this, with the result that each AI spring is followed by an AI winter.
How is your self driving car coming along?
Every project runs into Moravec’s paradox, that hard problems are easy and easy problems are hard. We have computers that can beat us in any IQ intensive activity, such as go, but we cannot bring up a computer emulation of the nervous system of Caenorhabditis elegans, even though we have a complete map of every single nerve and synapse.
There is no “general domain”, because mankind is not a “general being”.
I should clarify by “physical substrate” I didn’t mean silicon, but logical gates.
You’ll notice that at “deep mind” (the company), they like to talk about how they are making lots of progress in AGI, but their (very nice) Go-playing, or protein folding systems try to solve narrow problems with well-defined formal rules. They talk of AGI because it sells, or because they try to differentiate against their competitors. We know it’s not AGI.
Even transfer learning, which would be, maybe, some kind of stepping stone towards AGI, doesn’t really work very well.
Not everyone agrees that consciousness is needed for AGI. But it’s hard to argue that the only things that we consider actually intelligent are conscious. And everything unconscious isn’t intelligent when you dig deep enough. So it’s a good starting hypothesis.
No, that is not obvious. We can’t even define in reasonably precise terms what consciousness is, so it is impossible to say that consciousness is needed for AGI without resorting to unhelpful and tautological definitions of both.
Poorly. And self-driving cars are a Narrow AI problem. This says a lot about the declining state of the industry, but not much about what is theoretically required for General AI or the nature of consciousness.
Which, again, is apt to fail because it conflates artificial intelligence with artificial consciousness. For one thing, proper emulation of a living being would require perfect emulation of that being’s environment, and our attempts at virtual reality have not fared a whole lot better than our attempts at artificial consciousness.
I don’t think that’s clear at all.
It’s not clear that lack in advance toward AGI has anything to do with raw computational power. Small creatures with small brains have more versatility and adaptability than huge datacenters full of TPUs programmed with the latest algorithms. For a simple example of that see Chris Atkeson’s talk where he describes a DARPA robotics competition where, despite the latest technology, none of the robots “thought” to simply grab an easily available handle as to not fall down (link to video at exact time).
Something fundamental is missing.
Aren’t you now saying the same thing that I am? It’s not a lack of computational power that’s holding back AI research, it’s a lack of human capital and coordination in organizations doing the research.
You and Jim, both, keep referring me to the miserable failures of AI, but I’m not sure why, because I’m very familiar with those failures and have been saying since the start of this conversation that the field is either stalled or regressing.
The only counterpoint I added was that if we knew what the hell we were doing, collectively, which we don’t, and if were able to coordinate properly on the design and development, which we aren’t, then we would probably have sufficient computing power by now to see it through. That’s all. I am seeing failure in the present and predicting more failure in the future, same as both of you.
I understood your previous comment to imply that AGI was possible on say a datacenter as substrate. I was just pointing out that that is not clear. Plenty of people in the field think it is not. I’m not sure, but I suspect not. The reason is that the tools we have for understanding the problem (optimization, control, etc), which lend themselves to algorithmic implementations, seem to be lacking something fundamental. Perhaps what we are missing is not algorithmic in nature.
Iirc, Roger Penrose seems to think consciousness isn’t algorithmic, on the basis that the incompleteness theorem has a constructive proof which builds a statement that humans understand to be true but formal systems cannot possibly discern whether it’s true or not.
Really not trying to dunk on you or anything, I just don’t see the same thing that you see.
Lack of human capital could be, but I can assure you there are plenty on actually smart people working on this problem (AI, and thinking about AGI). In fact AI has swept CS research and has become for quite some time the hot topic so everyone tries to get in, e.g. use AI in systems research, etc. There is no lack of smart people interested in it.
As for cooperation between organizations. I’ll give you a funny anecdote. I recall at a talk with “celebrities” in the field, the speaker says that biologist are waiting for theoreticians to explain to them how the brain works, and theoreticians are waiting for biologists to explain to them how the brain works. Would more cooperation help?. It seems to me that both hit a wall.
The neocognitron spawned eventually CNNs, so one could say fundamentally the initial idea for the neocognitron, and possibly backpropagation are the two advances in AI (though Hinton claims backprop should be scrapped and we should start over).
Afaik typically the sort of advance we are talking about happens with a single person, or few people, and is seldom helped by forming large teams (even if it happened in a large organization it’s usually one or a very small number of people).
HerbR wrote:
Maybe in the sense of taking the car from point A to point B. But if you add “without hitting anyone” or “safely for all people involved”, I don’t think it’s narrow in the sense that it’s not something you can easily formalize.
Yes, but what wall did they hit? Perhaps they truly ran out of ideas. Or perhaps, as is much more likely to me, the wall is actually a wall of crimestop.
AI research has a long and storied of history of digging up “unwelcome” patterns and conclusions. Every time it comes up with something genuinely smart and unexpected and almost invariably un-woke, the researchers scramble to find out what “went wrong” and make sure it never happens again.
This is all in relation to the intelligence I am still not talking about consciousness, and not going to keep beating that dead horse.
“Lack of human capital” does not always literally mean “lack of smart people” – it might sometimes mean that, but it can also mean lack of ability of smart people to coordinate effectively or pursue projects that are likely to bear fruit. If you took the hundred smartest people on earth and dumped them in Dilbertcorp, none of them would produce anything useful.
Artificial intelligence most certainly exists, and is deployed in most smartphones. Artificial General Intelligence does not exist. No one is inclined to anthropomorphize his Tesla, even though it has more data than he does, powerful senses that give it a lot of information about its environment, and by most measures more computing power than he does.
It’s not crimestop. Look at the current state of the art in machine learning theory. It’s a wall of “it’s a tough nut to crack”.
My understanding is that the wokeness in AI where they try to “remove racial biases” may make a difference to some practitioners (possibly only at woke companies), not to people actually trying to understand how/why those systems work, or how the brain works.
Well, I don’t think crimestop is affecting AI research of the more rigorous type.
But that may change. I recently saw this theory paper which includes the sentence:
Of course they try to get away from the woke police by claiming this is just some abstract thing who cares. But the fact that they feel compelled to add a disclaimer is not a good sign.
Increasingly US mil “projects” are just wrappers for “investigating” a concept that spins out for a bit until it is cancelled, replaced by another such “investigatory project.”
Began with things like the Crusader artillery piece, ended up affecting the pinnacle weapons systems like bombers (current “investigatory project” to possibly maybe start building more B2s except that they destroyed the tooling and forgot how to rebuild it, hot on the heels of previous similar projects with different names).
This is what happens when the technical experts are hollowed out but the management remains. They cannot admit that they cannot do things, but, also, they cannot do things.
It’s very noticeable that rapid progress in the past fifteen years in the US has only occurred in areas outside the government orbit.
“It has long been obvious that consciousness is needed to solve problems in the general domain …”
I’ll tell you my views.
1. Conscious experience is a real objective phenomena, although currently outside the realm of objective test and measurement.
2. Consciousness is a physical process, resulting from physical brain architecture and operations in the brain, possibly interacting with omnipresent unknown fields outside the brain. The rest of the physical body is irrelevant.
3. Consciousness cannot be implemented by a digital finite state machine. There’s obviously something more. Tell me how to go from digital logic to the sensation of “RED”. Digital machines can certainly recognize red light, but they don’t experience “RED”.
4. It certainly seems plausible that we can increase human intelligence somewhat by “stamp collecting”. That is surveying genes and other biological features that are associated with higher intelligence and “concentrating” them in specific individuals, possible with iterative trial and error.
@Kunning Drueger
Space plane boosters are a shit concept.
But if they can work, and someone monied enough wanted the ability to get anywhere on the globe in a few hours, why wouldn’t they use it? SSTO is the midwit wet dream because it seems “better,” but as anyone that actually knows, and those of us that have read/watched deep enough, SSTO is horribly inefficient and is (I believe) incapable of high Earth orbit. I see it as having a slave powered train. It wouldn’t make sense in a world of steam engines or better, but if it is just manpower alone, those that can would be pulled around by teams of submitted. Terribly inefficient, but possible. Or are you saying it just doesn’t work period? Which may be the case. I stated from the beginning that this was a conspiracy theory. Unrelated to my ignorance, the conversation that came about was fascinating.
The use case for winged reentry vehicles is mainly rapid global suborbital personnel transport. NY to Tokyo in 1 hour. And possibly as an orbital personnel taxi vehicle.
Certainly not for bulk material transport to space.
Wings are useful below mach 15, but a wing built to be useful near mach 15 is not going to be useful in landing. Space shuttle wings were built to enable it to land like a plane, hence not very useful on an orbital vehicle.
A vehicle that transports people from one point on earth to another point on earth at very high speeds might well usefully have wings, or a body shaped to act like a wing, but it is going to have to land like a rocket.
If you stick anything on top of a big enough rocket, it can go very fast, but the limit for vehicles built to land like a plane to be useful and practical is probably around mach 4.
@Oog en Hand
Ah, an unresponsive “S-meme” hit n’ run shill post. In this case, it’s a “hide the tech decline” post in the same manner as the flat earth and fake moon landing posts.
HerbR quotes Yarvin:
An S meme is catered to look “edgy” but effectively serves a purpose for the Cathedral as HerbR explains here:
For the purpose of avoiding any accidental misattributions (and the problems those eventually lead to), it’s best I clarify that I didn’t directly quote Yarvin. The E, P, S lingo was simply something I made up on the spot to help explain to a confused individual what shilling actually is, and isn’t.
I’m not looking for extra credit – else I wouldn’t post under a random pseudonym – I just don’t want to be the cause of people believing that Yarvin said something he didn’t actually say.
To my knowledge, Moldbug/Yarvin never directly addressed the issue of shills, although Moldbug certainly alluded to the idea of “inauthentic” counter-narratives on occasion, and Yarvin danced around the subject in his “N-story” post. To really get to the heart of the matter, we have to take Yarvin’s hand-waving and fill in the gaps with real-world observations from Jim and the chans.
It seemed far too plain spoken for Moldbug, let alone namefag Yarvin.
How does one figure out if they are encountering an S-meme. Here’s a strange anecdote I’ve never been able to figure out. Years ago, I spent a lot of time “in the mist” and was the only white person at work, at home, at school, etc. I found two concepts to be very common: any meat not well done was spoiled, not less good or gross, but poisonous AND tilapia was not a real fish because “you never see it with the head on.” Are these the eccentricities of our evolutionarily retarded cousins living in a non-primal world, or are they some kind of S meme distributed amongst the various troops to earmark which ones can be raised up as Judas Goats or not? Could be completely unrelated, but the thing on S-memes jogged the memory…
If you live in a area with poor hygiene and shitty meat handling, then any cut of meat not well done is likely to be bad for your health due to contamination. Hence why the Chinese cook the shit out of their steak.
How about the nativity of 2020 on St Peter’s square. It belongs in some Egyptian vault.
https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1467203690998161410?s=20
Heh. Wonderful.
(Sadly though, individuual resistance is going nowhere without a leader and a counter-elite.)
have we an up-to-date pdf Book of Jim?
i remember collecting Aidan’s when he took down his blog; it’s great.
i’d hate to lose this place.
The backups are available. Of course that is a lot less convenient than a pdf. They are intended so that someone else can recreate the blog, and to use them you need a domain name and some system administration skills.
The added value of a pdf is also that it should be an edited version.
The red pill PUA blogs now have diminished value or have gone off the air. The old PUAs burned out, and purple pilled shills are now on top. Aidan’s blog is good stuff.
Because of censorship, because everything is now electronic and the past can easily be revised, and because any sites that keep knowledge up that the Cathedral does not want around come under various forms of attack, old knowledge is being lost.
Translate your stuff in Cambodian(Khmer) and other languages that are not thoroughly cathedralized.
Has someone done a recursive wget (then tar into a single file)? I recall trying but running into some issue.
The advantage is that it will recreate the full blog without databases and replacing external links with local links.
Jim, how does one argue against someone who claims that the most Christian thing to do is to not fight your enemies, and instead suffer their persecution, and “trust in God”.
I recall you having a good argument against it, but I don’t remember it well.
“I have come not to bring peace, but a sword.”
That is the first quote one would come up with, when in such a discussion. It is powerful but I’m not sure it’s enough in itself, at least not without a good argumentation.
Jesus himself let them “kill” him, and of course he won that way. But it can be interpreted to mean that passive martyrdom is the Christian way.
There’s also early Christians, who didn’t try to mount a revolution against Rome, who persecuted them.
On the other hand medieval Christians clearly knew the sword was the way to protect Christendom.
Jim often says Christians are required to turn the other cheek but don’t have infinite cheeks to turn. After two cheeks, it’s appropriate for Christians to go Old Testament on their enemies. The New Testament doesn’t cancel the Old. Faggot Christianity isn’t very familiar with the Old Testament.
If they say that to your face, slap them.
By their fruits cuts through all bullshit, the fruit of excessive pacifism is your enemies rule over you, enslave you and kill you without a fight. Thats in addition toany other argument. Anyone who argues in favor of a tree of poison fruit is an enemy.
This is true, and it’s another argument one should use. However, the counterargument is that you should trust in God, be a martyr, and he will provide. As happened to early Christians when eventually the Roman Empire turned Christian – the situation is comparable to today in that the state hates Christianity, but one could imagine they are somehow converted and change their mind (not that this is going to happen).
Now, my own counterargument to that, would be to say that not doing anything yourself is tempting God, and you should not tempt God. Also consider the muslim invasions that Christians fought back later on.
However that still doesn’t perfectly square with Roman martyrs.
How is that a counterargument?
only if you’re sure you can come back to life after they kill you.
Yes but no. You’re kind of mangling it, in the same way Christian entryists have mangled Christianity.
The point of remaining faithful to God is not to suffer, but to remain faithful to God. Sometimes that means suffering, but mostly it is supposed to mean winning. God rewards his faithful; if your faith is not rewarding you in a meaningful way, consider you are going about it in the wrong way.
So to answer your original question, of course the Christian thing is to fight your enemies. It was extensively done in the OT, and it was extensively done by Jesus — when was the last time you went to the vatican audience hall, threw over the tables and accused the clergy of being demon worshippers?
Does it? Seems to me just about every Christian organization has been subverted by progressives who now wear it as a skin suit. Actual Christianity is underground or in Russia.
Well, you understand what I mean. The state does hate actual Christians and looks at religion contemptuously if it’s actually applied.
It doesn’t hate Christianity or religion in general, because they were successfully integrated.
Scott Alexander made a good post about how the New Atheism movement ended in failure because the dichotomy of religion and atheism failed as a good soteriology for the left. The fault lines didn’t really work out that way, especially after they imported ethnic minorities that are Christian but vote blue, and after they had to defend muslims.
On the other hand, some atheists realized they had a lot in common with conservative Christians, and eventually joined that side.
It does hate and fear even actually existent demon infested postmodern Christianity, because it knows Christianity is good at coming back from the dead.
As I previously said, finding a strange absence of Christmas decorations that paid even the most minimal pro-forma acknowledgement that Christmas has been rather thoroughly Christianized for sixteen centuries, even depictions of a Christmas tree with a star on top, I checked the internet Christmas supplies in Dubai and Peking, to see wise men and mangers all over the place – because in non Christian countries, they do not fear the Christian character of Christmas.
The atheism movement received its original impetus as a reaction to a young earth creationist shill movement. And when that movement was abruptly switched off, their only opponents were real Christians, who were less irritating, and more difficult to fight. The new atheist movement was itself a shill operation against the atheist movement (why they decided to shill them I have no idea, never having followed the conflict much), so they got caught between the disappearance of a real enemy to fight, and their supposed allies being actual enemies.
Perhaps the takeover was motivated because the atheism movement was itself a priestly movement, and the Cathedral tolerates no priesthoods except its own, as we are seeing in the takeover of the open source movement.
The church of whigism was fine with internet atheists attacking christians, not with with them attacking any of their privileged catspaws (including, but not limited too, mohammedans, women, judaics, swarthy southrons of varying stripes, and so on). ‘Atheism Plus’ was summoned into being to keep them on the reservation.
As Pseudo-Chrysostom said, there was a significant overlap between internet atheist commentators of the atheist movement, and critics of feminism and Islam at the time.
Around the time of GamerGate, the lines were not clearly drawn as they are now. Some of these atheist commentators who were completely against the right-wing and right wing ideas were fully on board with criticizing feminism alongside right wingers, because both criticized it from a liberal frame.
Neither side in the mainstream online commentary space was against the fundamental ideas behind it though. Only criticizing “Third Wave feminism”, “rape culture”, “intersectionality” and similar excesses.
Most of GamerGaters were genuine liberals. Some of them became right wing, some joined the left.
But there was this time when there was a fight against some of the new advancements of woke culture on the internet and it wasn’t partisan in the way it is now. After Trump, it is now pretty much entirely right vs left. People picked a side, including myself, as I was part of it (though not GamerGate itself)
Romans put up with a whole lot of crap from the Jews over religious issues, and eventually went Roman on them.
They strongly suspected that Christians were more of the same, and any tactic other than martyrdom would have likely provoked the infamous Roman response, which was not common, but not rare either. The Romans had already done a well deserved number on Moloch worship and Druidism, extirpating those faiths root and branch. Unwise to tick off a six hundred pound gorilla.
The official state religion was emperor worship, the imperial throne was shaky, and emperors, particularly after the unpleasant experience with the Jews, were apt to paranoically suspect anyone resisting emperor worship as plotting his overthrow and/or rebellion against Rome. The Christians were in no position to meet hard power with hard power, had to meet it with soft power.
Which eventually succeeded.
So it seems like what they did constituted the most reasonable tactic for eventual success, rather than martyrdom and passive acceptance for purely moral reasons.
That’s a sufficient counterargument. When it was reasonable to fight, they eventually did.
So too the Amish always practiced pacifism because fighting the US government would have been a very bad idea. Then the schoolhouse massacre happened and the Amish realized that we’ve grown too weak to either attack or protect them, so they all went out and bought guns. Any roving gangs who think Amish are easy pickings will get an unpleasant surprise.
Based on the state of our world, are Moloch and the Druids getting the last laugh? Or is it a neverending struggle between chaos and Imperium? I want it to be the second one, but it gets awful complicated when Christianity gets used by both sides.
Not seeing Christianity used by both sides. The Pope worships Satan. Not complicated.
The longest lasting examples of order and righteous rule are Christian, and the most pervasive and devastating spread of diabolism and evil has been using the skin suit of protestantism from the early progressive movement to modern times.
“By their fruits [you will know them] cuts through all bullshit”
Yes. It’s a way of terminating abstruse debates about theological minutiae.
“If they say that to your face, slap them.”
This is excellent.
In more depth, you can’t predictably always turn cheek number one, because then bad actors will learn this, and punch you in the face once and then back off. You’ll be attacked (literally or metaphorically) constantly once word gets out that you’re a cheek-turner. You have to sometimes go medieval on their ass even the first time.
It is said to “turn the other cheek” one time. This could be an allegory to allow the other party to collect their senses or literal. But you have a duty to God to survive and preserve his temple (your body). To allow someone to kill you is suicide by stupidity.
Even Jesus had a whip that he used and instructed his disciples to obtain a sword.
Devil’s advocate: allowing your enemies to kill you is kind of the defining act of Christ’s life. Counterpoint? To what extent is the Christian man not called to emulate His self-sacrifice?
The Christian man is a mere man and Christ was not a mere man.
I believe that Jesus Christ is Lord, born in Bethlehem, died in Jerusalem, and is, is from before the beginning of the world. Fully God and fully man. God is three and God is one.
In isolation, that reasoning leads us to the conclusion that all mortal martyrs are fools. Not the MOST unusual take on Christianity I’ve ever heard, but…
Martyrdom, done right, is powerful. Our enemies fear that power, and a credible threat of willingness to embrace martyrdom will, and regularly does, avoid the need to carry through with the threat.
We are seeing them pull back on the clot shot in fear of martyrs.
Use this tactic judiciously. You may get called on it.
If you are actively looking for martyrdom you probably aren’t doing it right…
I think Nietzsche is right about the motives of the martyrs: “Christianity made use of the excessive longing for suicide at the time of its origin as a lever for its power: it left only two forms of suicide, invested them with the highest dignity and the highest hopes, and forbade all others in a dreadful manner. But martyrdom and the slow self-annihilation of the ascetic were permitted.”
To what extent is the Christian man not called to emulate His self-sacrifice?
Those retards in the Philippines, who nail themselves to a cross every Easter, are taking emulation too far. To actually die is far worse.
Feed the hungry with bread, not your flesh.
CR,
Christ was fulfilling prophesy. He died for us and our salvation. Without which we would be nothing.
Your situation is not the same.
I’m not really up on my Christian theology, but isn’t the whole point that Christ died so that we wouldn’t have to? (the wages of sin being death and all, and absolution implying also not dying)
It’s not even an issue of “regular Christians don’t have to sacrifice that much”, it’s the far more serious issue of “you’re trying to be holier than Jesus (or demanding that others try)”.
If DeSantis succeeds in creating his own local army like this, he might be on the road to becoming Caesar. I don’t see it, still, but…
https://i.imgur.com/DoIhzfP.png
More importantly, it bends the Overton Window towards Right Wing Minecraft Deleter Squads.
As a Floridafag i say for other than optics its probably more because he doesn’t trust the Democrats to not deliberately fuckup a hurricane or flood response to make him look bad, as of now its only to be 200 men and its main training is likely to be a disaster response.
As of now it is only 200 men. That could very well be a cadre of men. Get 200 men working together in unpleasant and dangerous conditions to build camaraderie, then he can expand it out. Better to start small with me he can pick out, then expand it when the time comes.
Nothing burger. Many states have these, it’s simply disaster response not dissimilar to volunteer firefighters. The only thing interesting is that the Cathedral screeched about it slightly showing they are scared of actual hard power if it were ever to develop.
I disagree on two points, in terms of burger type:
1) As Wulfgar intimated, 200 men with high trust in atypical scenarios can be used as a lever on the world. Put another way, what could be done with 18 squads of competent well trained men in an urban battle scenario.
2) It could be the first public move in regional powers calling banners and counting heads. It’s status seeking, socially evolved, mortal men up and down the power pyramid. If this kind of thing grabs headlines and gets attention, positive or negative, plenty of other governors might start following the example. If it is common, it is acceptable, and once collected it won’t be easily disbanded. Some states have single term limits for governors. Depending on how the org chart, the payroll, and the mannerbundynamics work, the Governor’s Own might stay with the man and not the position.
It could also be nothing, but I don’t think so. I’d this goes through, the paradigm will have altered significantly, and the Boog rachet will have cranked a little further.
I would love to be as optimistic as you. My point was simply it’s not some new paradigm. Plenty of states already have them. To me it’s simply DeSantis reactivating the state defense force for disaster response because he understands the federal government can no longer be relied upon for it, while also scoring political points for the upcoming election year in the process.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force#List_of_state_defense_forces
I see what you’re saying, and I wasn’t clear on my point. The paradigm isn’t new, rather it’s an old and nearly forgotten one: local holders of the right to violence. I see it as one of scores of little indicators that the Center is crumbling. Imagine how utterly fucking based it would be if some governor managed to legally ensconce themselves as benevolent dictator for life to throngs of enthusiastic supporters under banners and arms. Definitely cool, highly improbable. Picture instead governors turning down federal funds, actively ignoring federal edicts and statutes, and forming paramilitaries. These things are happening, and not in one region and not on one side. Sanctuary Cities was a deplorable, unconstitutional precedent that was allowed to happen by the Cathedral because they were convinced they’d Won, and it has already been used against them. Precedents have power in our clerical oligarchy, and a canny elite could get really far down the path of sovereignty jumping from appropriated precedent to commonality to archaic procedure. So the optimism is based on the trend, not the incident.
If it works and begins to come together, and DeSantis can command the loyalty of 200 men, he can expand that outward pretty damned quick. As KD said below, it is the return to distributed power. Even if it is just in recognition that the federal government cannot be relied upon to do its job, then that comes with the assumption that the federal government is becoming largely ineffective. A government that cannot organize men to handle disaster relief is one that probably cannot handle organizing men for war. The faith in Imperial DC is fading, and the home provinces are getting restive.
I keep pointing this out, but the American empire fell in Kabul. The rest of this is just mopping up operations. Between I.VI and the Taliban victory, you have a government with barely any legitimacy or ability to apply violence. The woke generals could not organize a gangbang in a whorehouse with a map and instructions, and the soldiers are so demoralized, indoctrinated, and infiltrated that even the attempt to organize a gangbang would result in so many endless sexual assault and safety briefs that no fucking would get done if they made it in the door.
The time to offer a replacement elite is over. It is time to become the masculine barbarian elite that replaces the effeminate, decadent elite. This is where it starts.
Bingo bongo, you’re not wrongo. Here’s a good piece by a guy on substack: https://treeofwoe.substack.com/p/ron-desantis-plans-a-new-state-guard
Jim’s assertion that voting, and by extension all connected facets of the elected apparatus, is no longer relevant notwithstanding, the intellectual battle line is going to form around conceptual militias. The traditional militia system was literally and figuratively converged around the turn of the century (1800-1900) by progressive forces. Obviously, they had a very healthy respect for state governance organs and their desire for sovereignty. Fast forward 100 years, and we see this is no longer the case. The Cathedral has moved forward with the tacit assumption that radicalization/atomization campaign of the 20th century was completely effective. They’ve been shown that this is not the case, at least not completely, yet they keep making the tactical error of blind assumption. This is an exploit in the Cathedral. It remains to be seen how long it lasts, as elements of both Voice and Brain are aware of it. Unfortunately, this is also the area where NRx is almost completely ineffectual: we can’t organize IRL for shit. Barring any change in this very regrettable reality, it is up to our midwit and low IQ cuckservative and boomercon “””allies””” to take advantage. May GNON grant them the luck and chance required.
It is quite the enrustling of Jimothies, you know. We weren’t ready for 2016, and regardless of how it ended up only fools and blackpillers would maintain it would have been irrelevant if we’d been prepared with actual policy initiatives, men, and missions ready for the habbening. And we didn’t learn from that and have had marches stolen in 2020 November, and 2021 January (good officers would have seen the honest moment, the rally, being subverted by the dishonest moment, the “””occupation”‘”‘). Here we are in 2021, the natural officer class of the Right, ill equipped and unprepared to Take Power. Looks like we aren’t worthy, bros.
Now is not the moment for taking power. Priests need to be subordinate to warriors.
My plan for taking power is to whisper in the ear of a Beria or a Monck, as Christians whispered in the ear of Constantine.
Sulla took power with a dead or dying state religion. Pinochet listened to people who had sound economic ideology, but no counter to the ideology that is now leading to bad economics in Chile. Monck, Charles the Second, and Sukarno simply re-activated a live state religion. (Though the state religion reactivated by Sukarno is now not in the best of health, suffering a lot of entryism through academia) If I could write in Chinese, I would be publishing a lot of stuff telling the party that the Maoism cannot be restored to life in safe form, their faith is useless to them if dead, and apt to be fatal to them in the unlikely event that their attempted necromancy restores it to life, and they need a faith that embodies Mandate of Heaven, plus Hong Kong economics analogous to Trump’s National Capitalism.
Hey now. This is not an entirely “fair” (lul) characterization. We are an analysis movement.
It’s not over yet. There is some finite time to get it right, which likely requires the complete replacement of the GOP and its use instead of a faux opposition party for corrupt lobbyist interest but as an actual vehicle of regime change. Not particularly holding my breath…
@aBTCb
Analysis is only useful if it can be applied to actual operations. I lack the social status and smarts to contribute on a large scale, but I am trying to do stuff locally. It isn’t trivial. There’s genuine concerns about organization. I’ve wanted to do a blogdotjim camping trip for a long time, and I’ve almost pitched it just to enjoy being called a Fed and lambasted for my naive stupidity. It is very frustrating for me.
Lol nice idea. But I get the reluctance.
Too early to say if we’re worthy. What, we should’ve acted with Trump as leader? He’d have refused our following. Now’s just not the time. God demands we be patient.
While we wait, I am busy preparing for when SHTF. I see few doing similar preparations. Does that mean I’m worthier? Maybe. When shit actually hits the fan, then we’ll start to find out.
“almost pitched it just to enjoy being called a Fed and lambasted for my naive stupidity.”
We would also most likely call you a faggot, a nigger, and a mongrel spawn of incest and fetal alcohol syndrome.
Analysis implies being only descriptive whereas reaction/dark-enlightenment is quite prescriptive.
It is simply an intellectual movement centered around empirical knowledge and social technology, which are inherent to the priestly caste. Since part of that empirical knowledge clearly demonstrates that priests should derive their legitimacy from warriors, and not the other way around, said “movement” is therefore bound to wait, and not “move” at all, until called upon by legitimate authority. Direct activism violates the primary tenet.
Or more simply, it is a religion-in-waiting offered up as an alternative state religion for any ruler powerful enough to make it stick and wise enough to understand its utility. Nothing more, nothing less. Moldbug’s version was identically-framed, just without the religious overtones.
Depending on one’s perspective, either we are already out there “organizing” (by proselytizing, which I assume most of us do on a regular basis, to the best of our abilities), or “organizing” is a distraction and an obvious trap (if you think in terms of Alinsky’s “organizing”).
@TC
Couldn’t help yourself, eh, suburban hamster? Imagine how enlightening it might be for some “spirited dialogue” in a circle of friends with promises on all sides not to file lawsuits.
@Herb
Correct. I know, but it is hard to lone wolf. Fellowship is something that I crave and, more subjectively, is requisite for high trust. The internet makes for very efficient exchange of ideas, but I don’t think it grows actual communities. Maybe it will once life is fully digitized.
I honestly believe that if there had been an organized body of policy analysts, academic and procedural operators, and empowered (funded) lobbyists, there would have been a good chance of converging the Trump campaign apparatus into a reactionary political force. They needed people so badly they took anyone, and it did them in with spies, traitors, and fools. But I also know that these things don’t come easy or cheap. Claremont Institute is interesting, and the Federalist Society definitely accomplished a lot because they were prepared and well placed, though it appears quite detrimental now. I get the idea of “religion in waiting,” but do you honestly feel that we, or any other NRx inline community fits that definition?
Yes we do.
What you propose is wholesale replacement of the GOP with ourguys. It’s an interesting thought experiment in that the steal of 2020 could have have been stopped and in fact stolen back if the GOP state legislatures were theoretically made up of actual reactionaries and not fake right shills.
This is a perfectly rational conclusion that is unfortunately incorrect, because it is based on the incorrect premise that Trump was willing to do what was necessary to enforce a new state religion, which in hindsight was (and still is, if you get those “Save America Foundation” emails) obviously not the case.
He is still soliciting donations with these greasy emails full of stale prole memes, despite the fact that he has plenty of money. He is not, and never was, soliciting personnel, what is what he desperately needed and supposedly couldn’t find. But if Trump had wanted to find us, or more importantly and more accurately, find people like us, he could have done so. He didn’t find us, not because we are insufficiently organized, but because he wasn’t looking. Perhaps that is because he would have had to use violence, or at least a credible threat of violence, in order to get such people into positions of power and influence, and instead naively assumed that his leadership and charisma were so great that he’d be able to win even with incompetent and disloyal staff. We’ll never know.
Anyway, he failed to defend or reciprocate to the few people who actually could have helped him, like Flynn and Thiel. I cannot in my wildest dreams imagine him successfully defending a Jim. It’s not really important at this point whether these outcomes were a failure of planning, a failure of execution or a failure of resolve – despite his pretensions to being a warrior, the man clearly was and remains a merchant, and thinks like a merchant.
If an actual warrior comes to power and finds himself in search of a state religion, he will find us. Or he won’t. But either way, it won’t hinge around whether or not we have meetups. We can be found if we want to be found and a serious leader wants to find us.
Hate to admit, but the only public figure (besides maybe Thiel behind the scenes) I see even remotely advocating for actual reactionary political organization is Fuentes.
He’s purple-pilled in many ways, regurgitates shill Israel crap way too often, and may actually be homosexual himself but I really see no one else willing to lead some sort of actual grassroots reactionary organized movement. Maybe Jim can get in contact with him and get him straightened out on his messaging.
The grass roots is irrelevant. The masses are irrelevant. They always are and always have been.
Suppose we organize to try to take the Republican party away from the Rinos. The Rinos will always have an edge, because backed by state power. However the Democrats are getting contemptuous of even the Rinos, and are less inclined to throw them some crumbs, and less inclined to protect and support them, so one can imagine circumstances where it might be possible – if, for example as is likely, the Democrats win the house and the senate federally and in every state in the 2022 or 2024 elections, despite obvious massive unpopularity
Well, I have seen how people work when they are trying to take over a party, and grassroots is a part of it, but a very minor part. Do you see the neocons etc cetera doing grassroots stuff?
Trump did massive and successful grassroots stuff – but he needed a Trumpian movement that was doing stuff to take over the party, failed to cultivate such a movement, and he came to power with a deeply hostile party.
@Herb
Two different things and not necessarily related. Fellowship is required to strengthen the bonds of spirit and mind, and to toss beatings where loyalty and honor are questioned. This is separate from an actual School of Thought, in the classical sense. Realistically, and somewhat optimistically, it could be said that there’s a nascent School of NRx. Same with Jimian Christianity. This hearkens back to an older discussion, and I admit this may be old fashioned thinking, but until there’s something tangible in the real world, I don’t see us being taken seriously. And that very well may be a good thing. I don’t think so, I think we need Jimian churches, reactionary publishers and think tanks and societies. But I’ve heard the “Waco’d” argument and it has much merit.
KD is right. Meeting in person is necessary for building the brotherhood that a real, effective organization would take. Even if we end up waiting for a Caesar instead of raising an Albert of our own, we are all separated by the impersonality of the comment section. We cannot build the sorts of bonds between men that would make us useful in the comments section. They have to be built in person, over grilling food, shooting guns, fighting with each other, and looking one another in the eye.
Lol i was joking.
Networking over the internet to go irl has a very poor track record for dissidents, you are correct its,potentially more effective but thats why it causes the state security organs to come down on you like a ton of bricks.
Also its very hard for men to bond past their mid 30s except in extreme circumstances.
To go from networking over a public forum, to networking in real life without being Waco’d, need public forums that provide a smooth and convenient on ramp to private invitation only encrypted networks using a algorithm similar to BitMessage to prevent IP tracking, and then from the private forum to IRL flash mobs, where by shear coincidence random people just happen to be in the same place at the same time.
We could do that right now using the existing BitMessage system, though connecting public and private is a bit clunky and insecure. Could easily be made less clunky and insecure.
Public networking over the internet -> private networking over the internet -> public networking in real life, with no explicit connection to the public networking over the internet, and no apparent organizational identity or continuity for the IRL meetings. People just happen to be in the same place at the same time, have conversations, eat and drink, and do stuff.
The situation is getting more and more extreme, everyday. Furthermore, we are in this for the long game. If I can find myself a woman and have kids, I would like to know some other men who think like me. We do not need to be the best of friends and boon companions, but our sons might need that sort of connection. Might as well start working on it while things are relatively calm.
You’re better off doing that locally, not online. Find a woman, move to semi-rural Trump country and put down roots. You will find that the Amerikaners around you aren’t edgelords but dependable good people doing the same.
I know you were TC, and I genuinely chortled, but I’m not joking when I say I’d definitely go a round or two with you and at least 3 other commenters here. Wulfgar is one of them. It isn’t a desire to lash out or hurt you because you hurt me, that’s niggory diggory du shit. Wrestling and boxing are excellent ways to speed up bonding, enforce/restructure/perfect the hierarchy, and gain humility. Trading prosaic barbs is fun, but it doesn’t give parties a chance to see the other man’s eyes, which is super important for men not trying to kill each other. Wulfgar said something really profound too, about our kids being connected even if, as you asserted and I generally agree, it’s hard for 30+ men to bond. With much experience interacting with big brain programmer types, a lot of guys here would probably loathe me IRL. We’d never be best friends, but swearing, sweating, drinking, and laughing together would be quite positive for both the midwit mafia and the the polymath priesthood. Hopefully, an opportunity will arise. I have some vague plans in this regard, and maybe GNON will look on my efforts favorably. At the very least, I think it’s worth considering.
Well, Jim, I have some time on my hands as I search for a job, so if I was to help you build and design such a system, what would I need to know? I have a little bit if a background in cryptography, but nothing serious. Just the most basic of understanding of it. I have also done a little programming in my classes, though nothing too serious. I would like to build up something that allows the natural Amerikaner elite to cooperate, and I have the intelligence and the talent to at least help someone more capable than myself.
I am working on something, that, among other things, addresses the problem. And is still in too broken and incomplete a state (pre-pre alpha) to even invite other people to help me on it, though the time that it is ready for other developers to help approaches. When it is pre alpha, I will make it more public and invite assistance. I hope to have it ready (still broken and massively incomplete, but at least what runs will imply the shape of the final product)
Before we do something that specifically fixes the problem, need to have demand and use for a fix – when we are using existing facilities (blogs for public communication, and bitmessage for private communication), then we are better able to know the shape of the fix, and, because eating our own dog food, better able to find bugs, defects, and to shape it for convenient use.
The beta release of my project will need to have both a server whose security considerations are shaped by the need to potentially run on the cloud, and a client whose security considerations presuppose that it is always run on a device that you have physical control over. Have not even started on the server. The client runs, but does not do enough to be very interesting yet – the needed bits are mostly present and pass unit test, but not enough of the bits to put them together in ways that show the shape of the final client, not yet integrated to do anything interesting. When I have enough bits that I can put them together to do something slightly useful, and not altogether trivial, then I will go public with it.
The client only (pre-alpha) version will generate texts that look like white noise, which can be sent over other media to link identities between different environments – it will be able to function as a root of identity, facilitating the movement between public forums, bit message forums, and in person contact, enabling private and secure messaging over public media. Which is marginally useful, but it will not be all that interesting without a server. With a server, will enable an environment that facilitates mixed public and private forums.
And even with a server, it will be labor of love and a time and money sink until we get crypto currency and then sovereign corporations up and running over it. Then we might get stupendously rich.
If you want to start your own project, that would be great. You might, because writing for a limited scope (my design document is enormous) have it ready to roll, or at least ready to go public, before me.
If you are interested in working on my project, I can give you accessto my remote git repository over bitmessage, but if it was someone else’s project, I would not want to work on it until it was in better shape. Frankly, it is embarrassing. So not publicly publishing the access url yet, plus I intend to use a different access url, and I need to purge the commit data before I go public. But it contains a vast array of routines and structure that is needed for this kind of stuff. That, at least, is working. If it was a building, you would see lots of formwork and foundations laid, but not enough to know what things were going to be built on them. I want the full frame to be visible, at least for the client, before I make it public.
Was not irrelevant to the NSDAP, who built the bulk of their support on the masses of disaffected working class.
Are they? Where are you seeing that? The state is entirely composed of Democrats, who deeply despise them.
Trump did not sufficiently understand what he was dealing with. He thought, rather naively to the darkly enlightened neoreactionary, that the Republican Party was actually trying to win, and that when he won the presidency, they would surely follow his lead to sweeping victory. Obviously, they did not because not at all trying to win.
The NSDAP had a priesthood ready to roll. The Volkish movement existed before Hitler thought about such matters, and arguably goes all the way back to the holiness spiraled Lutheranism of the Münster Rebellion. What happened is that indigenous German left was pissed at being sidelined by the Jewish derived and Puritan derived left. (Jewish derived via Marx, and Puritan derived via the heretics sidelined by Cromwell)
If we had substantial non cucked elements hidden deep within in the Republican party, then yes, then time to rouse the grass roots.
When Hitler winning the election was finally reluctantly and belatedly acknowledged, the intent and expectation was that he would get the treatment Trump got, formal power with no actual power. And everyone was as shocked by that not happening, as they were shocked by Trump being elected. They seriously could not believe that formal power was suddenly translatable into actual power.
It was suddenly translatable into actual power, because Hitler had people, and Trump did not have people. The German power structure was full of indigenous German leftists, who instantly and sincerely converted back to their Germanic leftist roots from their thin Anglo-Jewish leftist veneer.
https://blog.reaction.la/party-politics/republican-party-hacked/
Maybe it is time to start getting our guys to hide deep within the Republican Party.
As far-fetched and fantastical as the Hitler strategy is, it’s not entirely out of the realm of possibilities, particularity as a long term strategy albeit understanding there is a finite time to complete it. Took 13 years for Hitler to rise to total power through democratic means. Likely would be the same now.
Schiklgruber had supporters in the German elite, other than Theil and Erik Prince (the best candidate for monarch) we don’t.
Exisiting elite are only relevant for democratic takeover insofar they can fund reactionary candidates. Thiel is a damn good start.
Maybe it is time to start getting our guys to hide deep within the Republican Party
Might as well embed some in the D party as well. Trojan Donkey. Tunneling through the (R) ranks will require kompromat. But one could possibly mole their way into (D) by having a fake+gay gay-marriage, without needing to be recorded. Maybe even a fake+gay “throuple”, with a fake gay appended to a real trad fam.
Gonna be increasingly less possible to infiltrate White guys into the D party though. R, too, now that I think about it. Fuck. Trump really screwed us by pussing out. But looking back, balls-out was never in his playbook.
Well, Jim, I understood a little bit of that, but not enough that I would think that I would be useful at this stage. What kind of languages and programming tools should I start learning that I can start to work towards your project?
It is written in C++ with heavy use of template metaprogramming (which template metaprograms inspired my frequent rants that purely functional languages suck). It uses the wxWidgets, sqlite, and Libsodium libraries, and several others, but those are the ones it uses most heavily.
That is the client, which is the only thing I have actual code for yet. Big design, small actual codebase.
C++ support for massive concurrency sucks, and therefore the part of the server that does the scheduling probably should be written using Rust/Tokio with C interfaces to the C_++ code.
Another person has started work on server related stuff, and is trying to beat an existing C++ library into submission to take care of the messaging. Which turns out to be harder than he or I thought. I thought it was going to be easy, but he has run into a pile of issues that never occurred to me and which I had not thought about.
Here is a comment lifted from my code on C++ support for multithreading.
// This global thread local object is explicitly constructed
// on the heap in the code on need once the thread starts running
// and destroyed when the thread exits.
// This explicit construction and destruction is a workaround because C++ lacks
// support for concurrent processes
// and is therefore unable to correctly handle non pod thread local objects. It will
// not correctly construct and
// destruct thread_local objects by itself, because the model machine does not have a model
// for threading. It has a pile of matchsticks and a tub of glue with which you can build
// your own model. It supports all the stuff you need for threads, but has no idea how all
// these moving parts fit together.
// So you have to construct and destruct your non pod thread local objects in code.
Maybe it is time to stop worrying about party politics. The NSDAP didn’t succeed because it had a few operatives in the right places, it succeeded because the old state religion was still alive and only needed to be activated. America does not have any live state religion other than progressivism.
I agree with everything you wrote here – just not with the implied point that we need to be building that with each other. Even with all the opsec and obfuscation, it’s obvious that virtually all of us live hundreds of miles away from virtually everyone else, which is hardly a situation that lends itself even to regular meetings, never mind mutual defense and community-building.
To me, this is just the space for sorting out ideas. We do all need to be doing the hands-on stuff, but in our own communities.
I’m not opposed to the idea that Jim is proposing – but I am skeptical that we’d be able to use it very effectively at current scale. Would be a different story if each of us had, say, 8-10 trustworthy friends or family to bring with on a 2-car road trip. Then you only need 2 or 3 people to opt in, and you’ve got yourselves a BBQ, house party, hackathon, football game or wherever the collective interests lie. Individually, though? Not really seeing the utility. That’s why I’m saying we should be focused on our own communities first, worry about how to organize at large scale once we’ve figured out the small scale.
As far as organizing beyond the comments section or just discussing topics, a Twitter space-like thing (basically an audio room) that guarantees opsec could be interesting.
Very late, but Jim, with my so far minimal experience with cloud architecture, I do not trust cloud providers as far as I can throw them. If you are passing encrypted data through your cloud servers that might be one thing, but I would not store anything at all interesting on them.
I think Urbit is on the right track with its fully peer-to-peer model. Should add support for encryption at rest, but that is probably in the works. At this point, anyone with a real concern for security needs to accept that their physical device is the object they have the most control over, and as little as possible should be left to intermediaries that are some combination of vulnerable and hostile.
Obviously social media is going to be mediated on the cloud as soon as it hits scale. Solution that all secret keys should be live in wallets under the end user’s physical control.
Our experience with crypto currency has shown us what we we need for encrypted communications. There is no alternative but end user key management, and end user key management has to be made tolerably easy. Which the new generation of wallets accomplish tolerably well.
Depends where you are. In red areas, I see the mustard seed of old Christianity waiting to be activated.
Reach out for social cohesion on the basis of Red Pilled Old Type Christianity, you will find it, even if you are dealing with people who would never admit, even to themselves, of being Old Type Christian.
Just as atheist progressives who theoretically do not believe in demons act as if demons are real, people theoretically do not believe in old type God also tend to act as if God is real.
People tend to interact as if they believed that demons are real, and in interacting with a male who is performing the social role of an old type Christian, as if he could cast out demons.
In this sense, Old Type Christianity is still live, just as today gold is still money and silver still is not, even though the economic events of the long depression are not remembered and are no longer in living memory. Old Type Christianity is still a social reality, just as gold is still money.
You mean in the local church? Obviously, real authentic Red Pilled Old Type Christianity is likely not being preached in any church, even in the red areas.
Not in Church. If you are attending church, social domination by post Christians or demon worshipers. I refer to individual interactions in the field.
I have left your link up lest anyone is curious about the about the material being deleted
Lizard people is a flat earth level shill meme intended to distract our attention from demon worshipers in the same way that flat earthism is intended to distract our attention from technological decline.
Has as much traction as flat earth does, which is to say, absolutely no traction. Regrettably, that the moon landing was faked, explaining why Shaniqua cannot get us to the moon, has substantial traction.
To summarize:
1) The pope speaks from the mouth of the serpent. Both the inside and the outside of the hall convey the effect. The inside even has fangs. Disturbingly, the interior conveys both the effect of looking at the serpent and the effect of looking out from inside the serpent.
2) Behind the pope’s seat there rises a sculpted “Christ” figure with hell overflowing all around him. The sculptor claims he meant to represent a nuclear explosion so, yes, those are literal flames. It appears to seethe with tortured souls. The figure points forward, as if to urge or direct the flames onward.
3) The figure’s head is both man and serpent. Jim’s pic paints the snake illustration over both parts but they are distinct. The lines of motion from the explosion do not match the motion of the “hair.” Not to repeat rudimentary Christian theology but Christ is both fully man and fully God. This figure is both fully man and fully Satan. This represents antichrist. Oh and he’s emerging from the mouth of the serpent with the pope preceding him.
4) Not one pope since 1971 has made a noticeable effort to demolish this temple to the devil. Reminder that Pope Francis has also stocked at least one Church with a literal idol to a pagan deity. Has any historical pope, before or after the schism, ever done anything like that?
Religiously, this is worse than a pride parade. Worse than any other possible symbolism. This is unadulterated Satanic imagery.
So the popes worship Satan, and have done so for fifty years. What is to be done? The Vatican does not show much inclination to self-correction, and there has not been an external power that could correct it since the fall of the Western Roman Empire, and likely before (in the “Holy Roman Empire”) it was mostly pretty clear that it was the pope, not the emperor, who was on top). Unless Putin invades Italy Justinian-style and announces he’s restoring the Roman Empire for the glory of Christ, I don’t see anyone with both the power and the inclination to force the Vatican to stop worshipping Satan.
An individual Christian can defect to one of the eastern Churches, but I do not expect most Catholics to, nor does it seem right to let the Patriarchate of Rome rot as it is rotting.
A problem that was decisively remedied by the Sack of Rome.
The only thing wrong with the sack of Rome was doing it in 1527 rather than in 1458.
Obviously the Cathedral wants a Satan worshiping papacy, and the Cathedral has the upper hand. If we get a new state religion in America, Roman Catholicism will fall into line, and if that state religion favors national churches in communion with each other but with separate national hierarchies, they will fall into line with slightly more drama.
How will a new state religion in America cause Roman Catholicism to fall into line? Rome is well outside of America and most catholics are outside of (North) America.
I expect that a new state religion will have plenty of urgent things to do in America, much more urgent than meddling in religious matters outside of America.
Rome is well within the borders of the American Empire.
Ever since the sack of Rome, the Papacy has submitted to the greatest power around. If it was a collegial collection of national Churches like Orthodoxy, that Rome is far away would likely mean that the Church in Rome submitted to the state religion of the Italian state, and the Church in America submitted to the American state.
And if the dominant state is hostile to supranational religions?
At present, the dominant state certainly is hostile to supranational religions. My impression is that this is an effect of the present state religion. I hope that the next state religion will not share that feature. We’ll see.
Anyway, even if the next state religion is hostile to any other faith anywhere, I doubt it will have the means to project power to an other continent.
Should have been 1077. Henry IV showed submission to the pope at Canossa. If he had not, his later military attempts to depose the pope for attempting to seize his powers as emperor would have likely met with more success. The Gregorian reforms were a holiness spiral and should have been treated like one.
Gregory VII did not publish Dictatus papae explicitly and openly, because it was heretical, and it would likely have resulted in the Emperor burning him at the stake rather than merely sending him into exile.
From 1077, the Pope locally exercised secular power, deriving from Popes leading armies in the field, and then claimed universal secular power over everyone, and attempted, not always successfully, to exercise secular power over clergy universally. This led to repeated clashes with Kings, often enough bloody clashes. Boniface’s claims were met by physical violence, in which he was seized and treated harshly. Should have killed him. The violence arose from him attempting to tax clergy, and challenging the authority of Kings to tax clergy – which was direct heresy against “render unto Caesar”
More or less.
The biggest problem was that in the 11th century, the priests and bishops in Italy decided that they were far holier than the clergy outside of Italy, the bishops of which were generally the loyal family members of the nobility. In the compromises over the investiture issue, Rome was usually quite willing to give up the tax, making bishops swear fealty to the king in their capacity as worldly subjects (i.e. landowners), but at the same time severing kingly control of the respective state religion.
The effect and intent was to make the church “universal” and the pope “infallible”, when two generations before, Henry III exercised his lawful and traditional power to appoint and dismiss the Bishop of Rome. It increased the memetic sovereignty of the papacy while diminishing its capability to wage war.
Taxes became an issue well after the holiness spiral progressed; they were an issue for Boniface, at the time when he claimed all authority over everybody everywhere. But the root of the problem was when the Bishop of Rome denied the Emperor’s right to appoint and dismiss him, and the right of kings to appoint and dismiss bishops in their own domains.
I am a long time lurker with a question about the shill test. My reading of scripture and the traditional view is that Jesus the Christ (my Lord) died at Golgatha near but outside the city gates of Jerusalem. Are you using “in Jerusalem†as a shorthand for that or are you placing some significance on the claim that he died within the city?
General vicinity of Jerusalem.
What would you suggest.
‘At’ instead of ‘In’ would be simple.
I agree the suggestion of “at Jerusalem†rather than “in Jerusalem†would work. I don’t have any problem saying Jesus died “in Jerusalem,†and it hasn’t seemed to concern anyone else. It’s inside today’s Jerusalem, and I don’t know how Roman city limits worked. However, your odd formulation made me wonder if you were challenging the view that it happened outside the city walls. It sounds like you are not so I’ll go back to lurker status.
I would add resurrection to the formula: “He was born in Belén, died and rose again in Jerusalem.”
My major worry is Socinians and Demon worshipers, who don’t seem to have a problem with the Resurrection. The picture in the post above depicts the resurrection as becoming possessed by the Serpent, and is framed by the mouth of the serpent.
Would not stop the entryists you see sitting in the mouth of the serpent.
It pains me to comment all that again, but rot obviously goes farther than Bergoglio. Yes, someone could still say it isn’t a church, and really it isn’t, it is some “audience hall”, but doesn’t matter all that much. At first I thought that snake effect was achieved by fish-eye lens, but then I took a look at blueprints someone posted, and checked the veracity of those blueprints, and it is very unlikely it’s a fish-eye lens effect.
I’ve posted link to high-res image, I’ll post it again:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Aula_Paolo_VI_%28Aula_Nervi%29_%2814688351450%29.jpg
It is very hard to unsee the snake.
Some of you said “fully snake/satan and fully human” or something, but me thinks it’s even worse. It is human, and his facial expression even seems… serene in suffering, really Christ-like. Serpent exploding from his head implies birth of satan as result of Resurrection, instead of eternal life.
Not to mention really creepy sculpture.
OTOH, yes, practically every vicar I know of (in Croatia) will give you affirmation, and beautiful churches still do get built:
http://www.sv-franjo-capljina.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/udbina.jpg
https://i0.wp.com/m-g.hr/mg/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2015.g-crkva-Gora-.jpg?ssl=1
(Yes, both were built in 21st century!)
Now what?
Never mind the illusory snake; I’m not even a believer, and that sculpture looks to me like lost souls being shredded in some hellish vortex. Creepy and unsettling.
Conversely, the Russian cathedral uplifts the human spirit.
Heavily OT, so apologies in advance.
Does anyone know of a better way to follow the comments here? Is there a way to avoid missing deeply in-thread stuff as it gets added without having to skim the entire thread or knowing exactly where to look for? (ex. still outstanding debate). Conscious of the last comments function, but I find this is less useful once you miss just enough for the last comment to leave the window, which is bound to happen on a site you consult once daily. I find that my “go by thread topic, only delve if interesting” works most of the time for me but sometimes a discussion more interesting than the thread itself will develop after some days and I will miss it under my current approach.
Is there an obvious way other use that I’m unaware of?
What i do personally is ctrl-f time stamps, starting from the last time i browsed the page.
Eg, ctrl-f ’06 at 0′, read through, then ’06 at 1′, then ’06 at 2′, and then on to the next day, and so on.
It would be nice if there was some more bbs style functionality though; for example, each article page being it’s own ‘board’, with comments being numbered in order, which can be linked by simply notarizing the number (eg, ‘>>1’) for ease finding posts – and for non-reply stand-alone comments to be their own ‘threads’, with replies posted inside the chain ‘bumping’ it to the top, in lieu of the present implementation where the order of comments is simply inverted (ie, new on top), which can make for confusing reading for anyone who does not lurk daily.
There is an RSS feed for the comments at: https://blog.reaction.la/comments/feed/
Thanks!
A lot of negative reception for Yarvin’s latest on Twitter. e.g. https://twitter.com/moldbugman/status/1467622187670593538
Also, apparently Palladium Magazine has partnered with the WEF lol. I initially assumed it was a joke but I don’t think it is.
https://twitter.com/palladiummag/status/1466081726279536644
Palladium is ran by former Socialist Matter people after they were doxxed, and they tried to pivot. Jonah Benett (Hadley Bishop) and Wolf Tivvy. Was Wolf the literal cuckold, I can’t remember if it was him or someone else?
Among the worst indeed. It looks like he’s planning his retreat from the “Covid is dead serious and a test of competence” frame.
I’m seeing a lot of retreat on COVID Demon worship going on. Omicron is going to get everyone sick with a mild version of the virus shortly that should give general immunity besides the idiots taking the boosters. I’m seeing a lot of smoke about actual damage from the vaccines popping up as well, but no fire yet.
Most likely. If so, praise to those who endured while a freight train was passing over them. Maybe the light begins to beckon (if nothing else, centre-rightists will pivot).
Plenty of fires, just all official sources are in denial. There has been a massive rise in healthy young people just dropping dead.
I reckon Red meant fire in the mainstream portrayal, not actual situation. Not seeing any of thay fire either, but who knows?
Hopefully “new variant being the end” is not a switch operation meant to control the exasperation felt across the world when they announced it.
That’s correct. Mainstream sources are starting make smoke about how dangerous the vaxx are but they’re not yet going full bore on speaking the truth, but they’re prepping on it.
Japan as usual has the honest health authorities and IS admitting it.
https://pj.jiho.jp/article/245733
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34840235/
The Myocarditis is pretty well know but very under reported. The issue, I’m more interested in and the one I’m seeing people making smoke about is the Thrombosis causing strokes and heart attacks months after taking the vaccine.
We know that some people die of acute vaxxx poisoning, but still not a lot. Possibly more than die of covid in under 40s, but not enough to be important on the social scale.
Anything from the Japanese about multi-vaxxing killing the immune system? That has the potential to change society.
Nothing yet, I suspect getting the vaxx and then getting boosters does degrade the immune system but for them to scientifically confirm that according to typical Japanese anal testing standards would take observing a lot of people over a long time. They will likely report it, but probably not for another few years.
Cardiac tissue inflammation is no joke… if that doesn’t worry you should chain smoke for twenty years at least you’ll probably enjoy that instead of getting a worthless toxic shot.
Damage from cytotoxicity isn’t like a simple lottery, but a continuum; the cases you hear about are chases where the damage exceeds some threshold, but almost everyone getting poisoned by the mark of the beast is experiencing some deleterious effects, whose furthermore long term consequences we have hardly begun to see play out.
With just a month of hindsight, I can see that if “patriots in control” were a thing, they really would be cooking up an Omicron variant. Something that infects everyone, kills few, and leaves everyone immune.
What else could possibly help at this point?
is fake and gay. Please don’t bring that up.
Most viruses mutate into their own vaccines under normal conditions. We’ve been saying that for two years. There’s nothing unexpected here and nothing that requires clever conspiratorial explanations.
Like captured airplane pilots…
@Com
Do you know the south pretty well? My extended family is looking to exit their blue state and move to a Red Southern state. Got any suggestions? Need something with a tech sector.
Biggest thing about the south is niggers. Tons of them everywhere. Florida might be the best but plenty of them there too.
In my experience blacks in the (rural) South tend to be less surly and rude than the ones outside the South, possibly because a disproportionate amount of the rude ones left or were driven out.
The few blacks I know around here are explicitly Christian, extraordinarily warm and friendly, critical of black misbehavior, and happy to engage with whites who are open and genuine with them. They appreciate sincerity, humor, and confidence.
Don’t kid yourself. When push comes to shove, right or wrong, they’ll never take your side against their own kind.
Of course, they’re not retarded like Minnesotans . Just saying they’re more pleasant compared to non-southern blacks.
Yep they are just innocent joggers down there in the South. I’m glad those racist rednecks in Georgia got 5 consecutive life sentences. Modern day lynching I tell ya!
How are relations beteren Somalis and Afro-Americans?
As a general rule, negros despise black Africans. I have a number of theories as to the various whys, but I’ve yet to experience any kind of group positivity between the various tribes.
It’s not that complicated really. The American Negro is a tribe of it’s own with a distinct culture and shared history that is going to be completely separate from the tribe of any black African immigrant.
Of course the black African immigrant can assimilate into the American Negro tribe easier than most, just as Europeans can assimilate into the white Amerikaner tribe easier than most.
Big difference. African-Americans are humans; Somalis are muslims.
Right, I don’t expect them to take my side against their own kind, I just expect them not to be psychopaths like so many in the city.
If you ever have an altercation with one of those psychopaths, expect your kind, decent, Christian Black friends to testify against you.
Thanks for the warning, you squared that up in an interesting way.
NEET wrote: “If you ever have an altercation with one of those psychopaths, expect your kind, decent, Christian Black friends to testify against you.”
On a related note: https://twitter.com/lporiginalg/status/1471534405088792578
“Mistrial after jurors refuse to convict Dayonte Resiles, who murdered a 59-year-old woman after breaking into her home, based on race.
‘I don’t want to send a young Black [sic] male to jail for the rest of their life or have him get the death sentence'”
If they are less rude and more friendly, it’s because they live in a white supermajority area. Any majority black area in the South is going to look and feel like any majority black area in the north.
I think there’s a little more to it. They’ve been living in close proximity to whites in the south for 400 years. That’s ~20 generations (~27 black generations), and until the last 60 years or so there was a lot of evolutionary pressure on (and boiling off of) recalcitrant blacks. That’s enough generations for some noticeable systemic changes. The boiled off ones all went north. The last 60 years or so has caused things “to go in the opposite direction” as the opening lines in Idiocracy state.
Not seeing any evolutionary pressure. Atlanta blacks are no different than Chicago blacks. If they are any less degenerate in areas of the South, it’s because the Republican local governments are still enforcing the law and giving them less gibs as opposed to the deep blue democratic cities. As areas turn bluer and thus criminal behavior by blacks becomes no longer penalized, I would expect the blacks to become more degenerate.
For blacks to avoid domination by criminals, they need a harsher and simpler law than whites, more swiftly enforced. And the black majority wants such a low, hence the extreme penalties for some forms of cocaine and not others – blacks demanded that. If you don’t have a different legal regime for blacks and whites, black communities become unlivable for blacks, with the result that they flee to white areas, making them unlivable for whites.
If blacks in some states are more civilized than in other states, this tells me that “racist” law enforcement is alive and well in some states.
We should, as in the Jim Crow era, artificially create a black middle class and give them the upper hand in black majority areas, and rely on them to enforce their own law that they find suitable for blacks. But you cannot have blacks involved the adjudication of interracial crimes, for reasons that are obvious in every racial trial. Black justice inevitably devolves into who whom
Exactly what I was trying to say.
And the Cathedral is making it a priority to ferret out these “racist” law enforcement areas. Observe that the McMichaels in Georgia were not going to get charged at first but the state came down on them like a ton of bricks once the press got wind of the video. Now the state wants to charge the prosecutor who initially didn’t file charges with a crime.
I’m not confident any “racist” law enforcement area with blacks is going to stay that way for the foreseeable future.
The better strategy is just live an area with low amount of blacks as long as you can feasibly do so.
This. I have had way more experience with negros, coloreds, and blacks than I ever thought I would. I didn’t go out seeking them, but I spent a lot of time embedded in their tribal areas. I didn’t use that term facetiously; they are stunningly tribal. They can play act as moderns quite well with enough social pressure and white pussy potential, but they go into tribal mindset so quickly it is literally sickening. Like, you watch a person become a creature right in front of your eyes. This is why the peaceful protests go the way they do. Though there are definite exceptions to this, every negro is a vicious tribal ready, willing, and able to literally dice you up and eat you. Aidan wrote an amazing piece discussing city negros a while back that is required reading. The meme is as true as it is funny: never relax. This is pretty obvious with blockniggers, but I see so many whites fall for the yassabossa act of rural negros. I don’t fucking buy it. Come the Boog, we’ll find out, but my gut says it will be Sepoy Rebellion all over again. One critical thing to remember is that quadroon and lighter aren’t black. They are allowed at play-blacting in politics, media, and entertainment, but they will end up in the stew pot just like us. Quadroons know this, that’s why, if there’s any option at all, they absolutely refuse to live amongst negros.
Keeping opsec in mind, can you give some examples?
There are a handful of cities that were on the rise during and immediately after WW2, Detroit being the most famous example. I lived in one of them. These cities all had some commonalities: big populations of (white) immigrants, proximity to rivers, massive in place factory space with room to expand, monied aristocrats willing to invest… and an expanding minority of well to do that bought into progressive ideology hook, line, and sinker. As the Frankfurt School poison began to seep into the zeitgeist, a concerted effort to replicate the Harlem Renaissance in every city possible transported southern negros north and west. Whole sections of downtown areas were carved up and handed over. And for a time, this was good. But we aren’t all created equal. Push lead to shove, and white identity went out with a whisper. After the Great Plagiarist got what he had coming to him, these urban areas self-immolated. Whole sections of cities burned and, soon after, leadership of community governance was handed over piecemeal or completely to negro overlordship. As Africa was decolonized, American cities were colonized, and the connection between these two things is fascinating. History lesson over.
I’ve seen a basement were children were tossed into and left to fight over scraps while “parents” ran a shooting gallery and brothel. Children mauled by pitbulls, feces crammed into walls with piles of trash hiding cadavers. This is the negro operating in the inner city with no oversight. The spawn grow up with this being pretty typical, not every domicile, but commonplace in every neighborhood, “that house” always being somewhere central to the urban micro-geography. Alleys are the arterial network of the ghetto, and it is where a lot of shit goes down. It’s where niglets become niggnoggs. I witnessed a negress giving a blowjob while her spawn, one in a beat up stroller and softly crying, stood by waiting. They were more concerned about me being there than what was going on. I watched a kid bleed out over some pointless bullshit while an ambo sat there waiting for police cover. Alleys are PTS inspiring if you live in the hood. Sometimes, the street people have no shit necrosis patches on their bodies, extremities of course, and the reek is truly life changing. And they just keep on trucking. I watched a group of them pass a needle around, just reloading and shooting, then they straight up rifled through their homeboy’s pockets and stumbled away when he OD’d. He was revived btw, and I saw that same group again. I’ve never been personally robbed, but a car I had got smashed open and 3 noggers were going through my laundry. By the time I got there, two had runnoft and the one I grabbed, with every intention of beating, was no shit 60 or 70 years old. I almost smashed a geriatric in the head. He immediately offered to tell me who stole my stuff and where I could by it back for a few bucks, and my negro neighbors stood around watching, one of them holding a cellphone up to film in case I got raciss. Mind you, these are people I’d lived around for years, people I’d literally done first aid on, helped buy groceries, looked out for. I know this is all the tribal setting stuff. If you’re looking for stories of extreme violence, I can tell you how it starts, but you don’t last long if you stick around when niggers start to ramp up. They act like chimps, in that they hype up to the attack, giving ample warning to make tracks. (Seriously, read Aidan’s piece on this, he absolutely nails it) Other times, they stalk prey in alleys and derelict sections, as well as the periphery of college campuses and gentrified neighborhoods. The young ones will rape anything, and I do mean rape. As in 17 year old niggers pouncing on women and force fucking them while they try to crawl away. I’m sure some of the young ones go around asking for it, but I’m also sure that the older ones who get ambushed are not. Many such cases. Walking with a cellphone out is a really good way to get attention. The ease of portability and transferability makes them ghetto currency. The smart ones will prey on liberal whites, asking to use the phone to call grammama, then just saunter off while the liberal faggot waits patiently for the better angels of their nature to show up. If you let a group of them get close, they will surround you and fuck you up. If a nigger is alone and starts stalking you, either bolt or try to kill him, and I mean grab a rock and charge him. If it’s a group, just don’t respond and keep moving. If you are hard enough, and you speak niggnogg, you can sometimes bully-banter your way out, but it is harrowing in the extreme. The really scary ones go from zero to ultra violent almost instantly, but in stark contradiction to nigger worshipping entertainment, very few blacks are legit gangsters. In fact, in my experience, the real bangers are pretty cool guys. They know they can kill you, they know you know, and there’s no posturing. It’s the young ones and the fake ones that are the most dangerous to most whites. Please do not interpret this as “I did some time in the military so I can hang out in west B’more” because no-go zones are no joke. But if you come correct, the gangster types are like a well fed predator: lethargic and genial. I think the closest I came to getting killed was when I refused to give cash to a middle school nigger in front of his friends and the landwhale, tattooed white cunt teacher that was “supervising” the troop at the bodega. They were from the charter school near my house, and they knew I didn’t play cracker games. I will never forget the way that beluga was shouting “Jamal, no!” like he was her pitbull and this was a common occurrence.
Well that was a fun stroll down memory lane. I live in the country for a reason, but work takes me back to the ghetto and I think back to the open minded, equality shilling faggot I used to be. I think a lot of us get our racial cues vicariously, but for me, I learned to Never Relax from the blacks themselves. It is a disgusting culture with almost nothing redeemable. I don’t hate them, at least I don’t think I do. But I can’t respect any creature that treats their young the way they do. It definitely makes them hard, but the cost is too much. They are hominids that aspire to little more than immediate gratification, and if the bonds of law and order, however tenuous and threadbare they are, part, the capacity for violence and destruction is massive.
“And an expanding minority of well to do that bought into progressive ideology hook, line, and sinker.””
These were whites (and yes jews). This is always the real problem.
And even as far as the ghettos themselves, As bad as niggers are this little Haiti like state is a result of white shitlib with nigger client governance (as in Haiti). Outright real nigger governance by ghetto lord Dwayne Alexandro Mountain Dew Herbert Commacho would use brutality to restore some bare semblance of order.
Man that’s quite the story.
Reminds me of that picture Heartiste posted of an african chomping on a human leg. Just seems ridiculous from the outside.
Reading your experiences, I realize how stupid I was for ever thinking the Wire was a good depiction of the ghetto. In those kinds of series, the ghettos are shit, but the heroic people in the ghetto always try to make the most of it. Whereas what I read from you, and what seems much more logical to me, is that the ghettos are shit because its people are shit.
“Aidan wrote an amazing piece discussing city negros a while back that is required reading”
Could someone post a link to this?
see Jim’s blogroll. I believe this one’s under Blaq Violence and Aidan’s Guide to da Streetz
@Alf
The Wire is negro worship at its finest. It’s a great show and completely fake. You hit it on the head, but it’s even worse. I know I will always be a racist, officially and unofficially, but it never really mattered to me because when I lived there, I gave every single person and demi-person the opportunity to be their best self. There are good people in the hood, they just almost always end up dead or disfigured. I’m really torn on the while thing because I get labelled racist by whites who have absolutely no capacity to live with, much less be aware of, the vaunted blaq esperienz. I don’t look back fondly at all, no nostalgia, but occasionally I will encounter a pack of whites, usually well off and progressive, and I will suddenly feel like Malcolm X did nothing wrong. I attribute this to PTS and some level of Stockholm Syndrome.
And yeah, that’s the piece. Aiden is one of the things that helped me crawl back from the bad place I was. His writing was a part of that. I don’t always agree with him, but I’m never going to try to cross pens over it, that’s for sure.
https://teageegeepea.tripod.com/maumau.html
Aidan’s opinion regarding black psychology in “The Spiritual Physiognomy of African Man” is pretty interesting. In a white person this is somewhat similar to schizophrenia. It points to a mind that is not yet fully (human) formed, “half devil and half child” as Kipling wrote.
I’ll note that my “guide to the streets” post isn’t just based on my personal experiences but some good talks with Kunning. I penned it because there was an accord between our experiences. He used to live in one of the worst of the worst hoods, the kind that gives you a preview of the apocalypse, where whites are so rare you get looked at like you have two heads just for being there.
@Pseudo-C
Two things worthy of comment from that piece. The first thing that stands out to me is that the author, when describing other races and their capacity for intimidation, has -never met a scary white man-. To him, how could the white man’s dominance be anything but “systematic oppression”? His only experience with whites is college students and pasty limp bureaucrats. Goes to show how debased our race has become. Real violent whites, the kind who set you on edge just being nearby, like having a wolf in the room, have gotten pretty rare. An encounter between two true predators like that makes it very clear why gentlemanly manners used to exist, back to the Dark Ages and Roman times.
Also, the author’s stated need to recharge masculinity is very true. It is necessary to commit some irl sacrilege against the homo order once in a while to let your balls hang heavy again and counter the emasculation, even though it is hard to get away with real bullying and violence. Nowadays this mostly involves berating maskies in public, but catcalling women does it too. Tearing down vax ads or mask signs works as well.
“-never met a scary white man-”
I once worked with a guy who was involved with, and arrested for, the Saxpy trade secrets to the Russians scandal. See here: https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-xpm-1987-10-25-0150390238-story.html
He described one of the principals, Charles McVey, as a guy who would shoot you in the forehead over dinner if you double crossed him.
That Orlando Sentinel link is a nightmare of popups. Here’s an archive link:
https://archive.md/rsY8r
“nightmare of popups”
Thanks. I employ popup blockers so I didn’t notice.
@Aidan
Indeed; one of the things that stuck out to me the most when reading between the lines though, was that it was not just that the suckers filling out suits like potted plants in bureaucratic sinecures were mostly harmless, it was that they were living their roles in the narrative – the guidelines of the ideology, the strictures of faith.
When an ornery QWERTYBBQPOC shows up in the branch local office of the department of department offices (not to be confused with the department of the office of office departments, who enjoy a similar budget of tax dollars) and starts causing a ruckus, the hapless functionary doesn’t beat him with a cane to restore order and keep the peace, because deep down in his gut, the feeling he knows is that *he can not do that*.
Word has come down from on high, though from whom exactly it is not clear, and by diffuse means an impression ultimately settles within our cog in the bureaucracy: ‘i am supposed to be serving these people’. That’s the whole reason his office was created in the first place, after all. Abstractly remoted policy makers, acting on abstractly remoted notions, have given him a purpose, and more broadly a frame justifying that purpose.
And so a funny thing happens. Even if he, personally, may have felt doubts, or misgivings, or uncertainties, or objections to the whole idea of what they were trying to do, it’s ends, it’s subjects, the very presuppositions justifying the matters taken as fact, he keenly senses himself to be in a situation where there are only a few options open to him as possibilities. So in comes the Urbin Youf Leeg for a mau-mauing. What can he say to them? He can’t just say no – and he can’t whip them for the impertinence either. What aught is there? The only thing that is left for him to say is ‘I will see what i can do’. And the only way that man’s ego will allow him to survive such an experience *is if he comes to believe it himself too*. When the only permissible actions are like as if one is acting towards a social superior, in the subject’s mind, they are *transformed into* social superiors.
As Mr. Wolfe himself might say, one steps back at this moment to marvel at the fractal enormity of this billion-footed beast. It’s manifold ululations, brushing up with the rough edges of reality – or crashing against them, as the case may be. In just such a manner, signals coming down become amplified times over going back up, the feedback loop of the official religion.
>” Who else is left to understand the secret bliss of the coffee break at 10:30 a.m., the walk with one’s fellows through the majesty of the gold-and-marble lobby and out across the grass and the great white walkways of City Hall Plaza, past the Ionic columns and Italian Renaissance facade of the Public Library on the opposite side and down McAllister Street a few steps to the cafeteria, where you say hello to Jerry as he flips the white enamel handle on the urn and pours you a smoking china mug of coffee and you sit down at a Formica table and let coffee and cigarette smoke seep through you amid the Spanish burble of the bus boys, knowing that it is all set and cushioned, solid and yet lined with velvet, all waiting for you, as long as you want it, somewhere below your consciousness, the Bourbon Louis baroque hulk and the golden dome of City Hall, waiting for you on the walk back, through the Plaza and up the steps and into the great central court, and you stop and talk with your good buddy by the door to the Registrar’s or by the bust of Mayor Angelo Rossi, both of you in your shirtsleeves bit with your ties held down smoothly by a small-bar tie clip, rocking back on the heels of your Hush Puppies, talking with an insider’s chuckles of how that crazy messenger, the one with the glass eye, got caught trying to run football-pool cards of the Xerox machine because he couldn’t see the Viper standing there on his blind side for five minutes with his arms folded, just watching him … while your eyes play over the lobby and all the hopeless wondering mendicants who wander in off the street looking this way and that for some sign of where the Assessor’s office is, or the Board of Supervisors’, or the Tax Collector’s, probably taking their first plunge into the endless intricate mysteries of The Power, which they no more understand than they could understand the comradely majesty of this place, this temple, this nave and crossing of the euphoria of The Power–and suddenly here are these black ragamuffins! neither timorous nor bewildered! On the contrary–sportive, scornful, berserk, filling the air, the very sanctum, with far-flung creamy wavy gravy, with their noise, their insolence, their pagan vulgarity and other shitfire and abusse! And no one can lay a hand on them! No one can call in the Tac Squad to disperse sixty black children having a cotton-candy and M&M riot for themselves … The infidels are immune … “
>the hapless functionary doesn’t beat him with a cane to restore order and keep the peace, because deep down in his gut, the feeling he knows is that *he can not do that*.
He’s right about that feeling. What do you suppose would happen to the faceless bureaucrat if did beat the mau-mauers with a cane? Or more realistically, if he called security to escort them out and they didn’t feel like being escorted out? He wouldn’t be so faceless anymore, for one thing. He’d be a national disgrace, and all the power of the press and the government would come down on him.
>When the only permissible actions are like as if one is acting towards a social superior, in the subject’s mind, they are *transformed into* social superiors.
What is a social superior? It’s someone whom people treat as superior. There is no difference between acting as if someone is one’s social superior and that someone being one’s social superior.
Thank you, but, you just restated things i just said, except more tritely, missing the point of the dynamics involved.
The process here is not just contingently bowing to power when necessary while retaining a certain mindset otherwise, it is *conversion*; which has profound implications on the broader trends of behavior, of subjects, but more especially of ‘the system’ as a whole.
Very profound take, St. John. Your links are always thoroughly engaging for me. Something about NEET’s portrayal didn’t sit right, not in a bad way, but your comment on *conversion* brought it home. In current year, of course caning the mongrels isn’t an option. But it absolutely was in the 1960s. But that was the era of conversion. Those were the Genesis days for the current zeitgeist that’s so overwhelming now.
>The process here is not just contingently bowing to power when necessary while retaining a certain mindset otherwise, it is *conversion*; which has profound implications on the broader trends of behavior, of subjects, but more especially of ‘the system’ as a whole.
What I’m trying to say is that the mau-mauers simply are higher status than the bureaucrat, and it doesn’t matter so much whether he converts or not. They are his superiors, and if he doesn’t treat them accordingly, society will punish him. Of course he will convert; he will come to believe in his heart that they are his superiors, because this is a social fact demonstrated by his daily experience. This reinforces the mau-mauer’s position, because nothing succeeds like success, but it’s not what started the ball rolling.
We may commonly enough simplify for ease of analysis, but to speak of more felicity of analysis, ‘status’ is not like some abstract scalar, like newtonian physics. Different people, different status systems.
Of course, some people’s status systems are more importune than others; but understanding how they interact, that is what pays. (Figuratively, but often also literally.)
The theocrats of whiggery were coordinated, while it’s subjects and enemies atomized particulars. Thus, if they declaimed such-and-such to be a privileged class, none there would be to gain-say them – for what could one man do? And hence, in practical terms, such-and-such would in fact be a privileged class.
But there is a subtlety to this dynamic. An imbanishable sense by everyone involved, lurking under the skin – and no more keenly felt than by the marginals themselves – that their status is almost completely artificial. A machination of an alien power, incommensurate with themselves, who might not even really believe it, but for that fact that it is expedient for their social aggrandizement, that without which they would be nothing. And it is the mania that springs from this lurking insecurity that keeps the wheels on the bioleninism bus turning fast, and ever faster.
And such again is the kafkaesque see-saw of the whole performance; for if the pretense is ever actually turned into reality – the marginals actually finding xirselves in the drivers seat – the whole business comes tumbling down.
(Tumbling down, tumbling down, tumbling do~wn!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc6KUlXP–M
NEET: “What is a social superior? It’s someone whom people treat as superior. There is no difference between acting as if someone is one’s social superior and that someone being one’s social superior.”
Chrysotom: “The process here is not just contingently bowing to power when necessary while retaining a certain mindset otherwise, it is *conversion*; which has profound implications on the broader trends of behavior, of subjects, but more especially of ‘the system’ as a whole.”
These are both right. If you *act* like an underling, you are an underling — mental state notwithstanding But also, if you *act* like an underling, your mental state will converge to match your actions and you will gradually become a willing underling, or at best an unconscious one.
Then you are a more pathetic worm than Shaniqua at the DMV, who does not feign respect for the people she despises. These mau-mauing leftists must face constant signals of disrespect from their betters, everywhere they go and however small those signals might be. Erode their confidence and strengthen your own — not the other way around.
It’s not that complicated; sambos were better behaved in a time where it was customarily expected they can misbehave, if allowed too. You can see the same pattern in many places with many marginal clades at many times in history.
( https://radishmag.wordpress.com/2013/01/25/slavery-reconsidered/ )
But of course it begs the question of why one would not have that great assabiyah – perhaps the most refined culture to have emerged in the last 500 years – turned to more rewarding preoccupations instead.
In the absence of serious law enforcement, Chicago can’t even keep its premier tourist sites clear of gangbangers…https://www.outkick.com/chicagos-chaos-expands-to-millennium-park-as-mayor-has-no-answers-for-how-to-stop-madness/
Chicago becoming Detroit at record speed…
Nigs are innately not so much trouble around non leftist whites. White leftists are as always the real problem that needs to be eliminated…
Seems like that when the law is enforced against them. Stop enforcing the law against them, and you’ll find they are “innately” quite a bit of trouble indeed.
Actually scratch that. Tennessee is the nicest southern state in my opinion. I’m not sure about tech but I was astonished by a recent trip to Nashville how nice it was relative to the typical American city. Also much better demographically then just about every other Southern state and thoroughly red.
They’ve been talking about Tenn. They’re not a big fan of Texas due to the climate(the state is basically a big desert), though Texas appears to have a better chance than most when things get ugly.
Almost no part of Texas is a desert proper except a few small areas in the far west of it and some along the border. East Texas has huge Forrests and has significantly higher rainfall than most of United States, the highly populated Gulf Coast and North Texas areas also have an above average amount of rain, and Central Texas has a good amount of rain as well. Most of the rest of it is Forrest/plains mix, plains, some hills, or semi dry or dry Steppe in the west.
Most of it is very hot in the Summer though.
Texas is not at all just a big desert. Who told you that? Hill Country has beautiful rolling green hills and forests and rivers and lakes. Eastern Texas is kind of like the Midwest, just a lot warmer. And then beaches and stuff down on the Gulf. Even West Texas is more dry prairie than desert. I’d take a second look. It’s one place I’m looking at for if/when I need to flee Euro clotshot imprisonment.
That and Alabama/Mississippi. Alabama has the lowest property taxes in the US. Texas has very high property taxes. Texas is also getting very expensive with the Bay Area types moving to Austin. Nobody with money wants to go to Alabama or Mississippi, which is why you can get huge swaths of land for very good prices. Just ask around or tour around about good places. There are indeed whole regions which are almost entirely black, and then also some honest-to-goodness Poor White areas which will be skeptical of Yankees and where you may need some more time to establish your reputation and earn trust (and maybe keep your kids off drugs).
Texas has a major spic problem. By moving to Texas you are accepting you will eventually be living in a white-hispanic plurality so get used to seeing Spanish spoken and speaking it yourself routinely. Some of the more white Texas hispanics are based though which may or may not be such a bad thing.
Why would Texas have any better chance than any other state? When the fall comes it’s simply going to come to demographics. If you look around you and find Amerikaner gun owning whites, you’re in good shape. If not, expect to be ethnically cleansed out of the area. Arbitrary government drawn borders will be meaningless.
Visiting Nashville, I was shocked to see live country Western music everywhere and white people thoroughly engaged in it. No degenerate black rap music but an actual healthy white culture in an urban area. It was quite a sight to see. If I could choose a perfect place to live, Williamson County, Tennessee (outside of Nashiville) would be on the short list. It’s one of the few actual right-wing white elite suburb areas left.
Also University Park / Highland Park suburbs of Dallas. Very elite and for reasonably large areas with average incomes nearing $200,000 very Republican (Trump winning by 30 to 35 points).
Good to know.
Yeah it’s rare to see elite areas like that with such Trump winning margins. This leads me to believe there is a nascent right-wing elite, mostly in the South, that does exist to some level.
Of course there is. We are part of it. The natural elite that has been suppressed for so long is going to express itself when secure, such as in Texas. The best of the best get excluded, and prevented from participating in the governing elite. The abject failure of that governing elite to function properly is opening up paths for the natural elite to reassert itself. I believe that we will see more and more of this as time goes on. As the governing elite fails to cooperate and more importantly, begins to fail to prevent others from cooperating, others will rise.
Moldbug/Yarvin’s theory is that as long we are getting stronger and they are getting weaker, on a long enough time scale, victory is all but guaranteed. When the time comes to regime-change them, they may not even be able put up any type of resistance at all. The writing will be on the wall.
In that sense, his passivity and non-engagement is the correct strategy. Let the enemy expend energy, expending no energy against him.
“Don’t interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.”
I certainly think that we should avoid direct confrontation for the present, but we have to work to get stronger. Cut down fat and lean out, lift more weight, shoot more, talk more, organize more. We have to lean into those things that make us stronger. The elite is effeminate and degenerate, and so we must become the barbarians that will replace them. I would say that we should consider disengagement more than non-engagement. Let them make mistakes until we are in a position to punish those mistakes, then go for the throat and leave them dead on the floor.
I’ve been thinking a lot about what is to be done. I think HerbR made a good point about we here organizing: we’re scattered. It would be fun to go camping with y’all niggerz, but in truth we aren’t meant to be collected in one place. We have to build our own mannerbunds where we are. One thing that seems very large but possibly very useful is constructing parallel structures of Being. Parallel social groups, grocery stores, restaurants, constabulary, literally every facet of community. The Coronahoax actually offers us an opportunity to do this as the divide between purebloods and boosters grows more distinct. If the vaxx crusade continues, black markets are going to explode due to demand. There may be lots of opportunities there for instantiating parallelism. It can’t be an alternative based on the elimination of the in state social order, that’s too much of an obvious threat. Might be worth considering.
Texas has significantly less NIGGERS per capita than Tennessee and also has the biggest tech sector of any state. Nashville area is fairly nice from what I understand though.
Apologies for the all caps of NIGGERS but my phone autocorrected to that from when i typed it with normal capitalization and I was amused by that so I kept it in.
Most of the blacks in Tennessee are around Memphis (complete utter shithole) if I’m not mistaken. Middle and eastern Tennessee seemed completely white when I was there.
I do not have much direct travelling knowledge of the South. I’m from New England and the only good thing I can say about New England is people from New Hampshire and Maine tend to be nice. Best tech sector area to my knowledge in the South is Texas. I’m not as confident about Texas holding and not becoming a blue shithole as I am Florida though.
In Florida even if demographics are unfavorable the right wing forces seem much more politically competent and haven’t really lost a battle in decades. They seem to have some kind of humint operation which is good at converting people including young women and minorities who would be Democrats in other areas into Republicans (and not cuckservative but far right types). At least thats my observation of Central Florida… I cannot speak for South Florida.
Most of the whites are more right wing because they are thoroughly Amerikaner in Florida. This is why Florida whites are often mocked by the Brahmin elite (Florida man etc). Outside of South Florida maybe, very little Brahmins down there as of now.
No Central Florida is an unusual place where you have far right spics, young women, far right people from blue states (even some of the jews) its not just that the local rednecks are right wing (though they are) but people you wouldn’t expect tend to be right wing.
“In Florida even if demographics are unfavorable the right wing forces seem much more politically competent and haven’t really lost a battle in decades”
The past year they’ve done well, but that’s absolutely not true for decades. Florida voted for the Democratic mulatto Nigger Obama not once, but TWICE in both 2008 and 2012. The last three Governor races have had Republicans hanging on by a thread.
Florida also had a Democrat Senator Bill Nelson who represented Florida from 2001-2019.
Obama had to beat McCain (as insane and would have ordered a nuclear attack on Russia) and Romney would have sucked just as much so right wingers stayed home.
Florida never lets Democrats become governor, Gillum got very close due to fraud but the Broward fraud is now over.
Same can be said for just about every other Southern state. The Southern white culture is generally more based and less Puritan than any other white region in America. The Confederates were not entirely subjugated by Harvard, like Europe was during denazification.
It’s generally rare that you’ll find a white Southern shitlib like you would in other parts of the country. It happens but they are generally recent transplants from the north to Atlanta for example.
The difference for Florida is their governor is defecting on what normally is a RINO position.
Like i said Florida is weird, native white rednecks are a minority but for some reason the local right wing forces are good at converting young women minorities etc.
Florida is 53% white.
And a great deal of the whites are from New York New Jersey and New England.
Likely depends where in Florida. South Florida, yes, lots of transplants. Northwest Florida, only Southern whites with southern accents. Florida is unique in that sense in that it’s many states in 1.
Women just follow the dominant culture/power. They are a good way to test which way the wind is blowing (especially the hot ones). Just about every shockingly based right-wing white broad I met was from the South. Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, etc. Florida is no different in that respect.
I maintain that this is a fantasy.
I’ve been to Florida – many parts of it, have friends and family there (generally normiecons), and I tend to visit every few years, so I hear it from them and see it for myself.
Florida has a bunch of Cubans who are just generally more right-wing than the other Spanish-speaking peoples. Maybe it’s because they lived through Communism, or maybe it’s because the ones that ended up in Florida are the ones who fled from it. I don’t know if it’s situational or genuinely racial, but in any case, it’s just because it’s who they are, not because anyone’s “converting” them.
And as for all these supposedly based young women and other minorities, I’ve just never seen it, not once. White women who don’t go to whore school are less leftist than white women who do, but that’s true everywhere.
It’s really strange the way you’re able to maintain such a rigid view in the abstract, and claim to hate even the greengrocers, yet manage to be totally myopic and naive when it comes to your own backyard, imagining that Florida has some magic power that makes feral women and minorities behave.
I think you just have problems reading people’s intentions in person, where they tend to act more subtle and reserved no matter what they believe in, whereas online and especially on social media they’re all drama queens who don’t shut up. But they’re the same people, just behaving differently in different circumstances.
DeSantis seems to be a pretty good governor, but in no other ways is Florida more “right-wing” than Texas or Appalachia.
I believe what i see… if they secretly prefer Biden or the democrats they sure as fuck won’t admit it in public. Im not arguing women should be equal emancipated or vote or that diversity is our strength im just reporting the odd political demographics of Florida.
True greengrocers are rare because the coercive forces of the regime on thoughtcrimes is more smoke than fire and the fire is mainly directed at high ranking merchants, the presumption of any democrats should be guilty until proven innocent. I dont understand why so many here are so eager to let them off they are enemies.. They are vermin not people and life would be better if they were all gone. The permanent indoor mask stat makes my point more than any pretty argument ever could.
True Havel’s Greengrocers are common as dirt, are, and will always be, the vast majority of those who keep our society going, and I have a more vulerable identity that is quite bland, though in that identity I quietly evade being compelled to participate in the more foul rites and affirmations, which a Havel’s greengrocer routinely participates in.
When we are in power, the vast majority will not only adhere to the new official faith, but will not remember that they ever adhered to the previous official faith, nor notice that the official faith just very publicly changed radically.
True believers are dangerous, for they are apt to notice the regime’s unfortunate compromises. On the other hand cynics are unreliable, because they are apt to go along with entryist conspiracies, or at least tolerate them. A Havel’s Greengrocer is neither a true believer nor a cynic, which makes him very useful.
I can’t speak for others, but you’re schtick rubs me the wrong way because it reeks of basement dweller isolationism. I mean, it is so painfully obvious that the majority of people just go along to get along. That’s basic, non-cucked anthropology. Herb made an excellent point about how social media warps perspective of common opinion. The best example for me was that Area 51 chicanery. I think the proportion of online enthusiasm to actual attendance probably mirrors our society really well. Understand, it fucking boils my cabbage terribly to hear about how supposed right wingers just roll over to the pozz, and even worse how the progressive frame just steam rolls our culture. But I constantly have to remind myself that a fractional minority has a massively disproportionate influence over the Narrative. We’ve exhumed and flagellated this equine so often, but I guess we’ll have to keep it up for a while yet: after a regime change, no matter how incongruous the new memes are with the old, the vast majority will be on the winning side with no recollection of it being any other way.
Also, your rhetoric makes enemies of the uninvolved. This is bad tactics. We have plenty of real enemies that need the rope, and demanding that we add to that list because you imbibe MSM hatorade constantly is your issue. The greengrocers are the biggest segment of society.
Storming area 51 was just an obvious joke.
I agree on normie forms loudly proclaiming no mercy is bad politics THAT is a good objection, but our enemies cannot generally even acknowledge the existence of this place its thoughtcrimes are an eldritch lovecraftian horror to them so here it can be discussed.
If we are talking regime-change via aristocide, I think liquidating the professors and the journalists does the trick.
The Cathedral ceases to function without only these 2 classes unless I’m missing anything?
Regime apparatchiks 《 people who go along even when they don’t have to legaly speaking《 people who do the bare minimum (Yarvin’s ideal) 《 people who vociferously take exception. Leaving the leading elite aside at either end, Descending order of investment into the system, ascending likelyhood of looking for trouble. All except the second slot are people willingly involved in politics writ large. The vast majority are under that second slot.
A regime change switches the order of these, pivoting around the greengrocers. So it has been, so may it be again.
TC, it’s always a joke until it isn’t. Occupy was a joke until a bunch of amplifiers hit a critical mass (it was fucking stupid and I am not saying it was well thought out, just an example). A51 larp was silly, bit people did show up. That’s precisely the point I was making. Do you really think chardonnay antifa tweetmoms would let inner city negros be a permanent part of their lives? Based on Twitter and Facebook, millions of white Americans are champing at the bit to pay out reparations and perform all manner of equality sacrifices for the poor dindus. IRL, it ain’t gonna happen. There’s a disconnect between social media and real life because there’s tenuous connection between the two. This may change, and we may end up in a Hobbesian nightmare scenario. But short of that, I’m comfortable asserting that ~90% of the US population is some shade of greengrocer. Could be less, but not by much.
Democrats and other leftists are around 30% of the population, judging by the permanent mask stat only about 20% of them are greengrocers.
Havel’s Greengrocers are damn near one hundred percent of the population, in the sense that everyone quietly goes along to get along. It turns nasty when our overlords demand more active participation and confirmation. Havel’s Greengrocer is the man that goes through motions of active participation and confirmation, and does not think too much about the extent of his participation.
I need to go into a building that whose entry demands rituals of worship of the holy, awesome, mighty, and terrifying covid demon. I refrain from correctly completing the ritual of worship, but do enough of the motions that someone who does not want to look too closely will not see that I failed to participate in confirming the awesome and terrifying might of the holy and powerful Covid Demon. On the rare occasions when I get called out, I do a bit more of going through the motions until they get tired of looking too closely. Which they very quickly do as they sense that this might turn unpleasant, and realize that looking less carefully could avoid trouble. There is no sharp line between Havel’s Greengrocer and me. I just walk a little closer to the line that risks unpleasantness, while Havel’s Greengrocer stays as far from it as possible.
The people who lean into unpleasantness and go looking for trouble, those we need to deal with – but many of them are in it because it works and gives them status – if it loses them status, that will suffice, albeit quite a lot of them need to suffer humiliating loss of status, but don’t need to be killed.
The people who are just looking for a quiet life – when we deliver a quiet life, they will be useful supporters of the regime. The people who suffer humiliating loss of status, those we will need to keep an eye on, and some of them will need to be killed or permanently moved to Alaska.
Democrats and leftists who believe in masks forever aren’t greengrocers and they are doing the math slightly under 25% of the population.
Anyone you deprive of status is going to be a bitter enemy, thats Machiavelli 101. Treat men well or destroy them. Don’t do anything in the middle.
Machiavelli was wrong. We are obligated to show mercy. Which frequently has a bad outcome. When it has a bad outcome, then you can do what is necessary to ensure no further bad outcomes. But sometimes it has good outcome. That Kyle shot the thief who was trying to kill him in the gun arm rather than the heart had a good outcome for Kyle. Under pressure, the thief reluctantly spoke the truth that the prosecutor sought to obfuscate.
We saw that Kyle could put a bullet on target very quickly under pressure and in the middle of events happening very quickly. He could have easily put a bullet in the center of mass.
Some of the very smart and able people that Charles the Second purged went into new careers as entrepreneurs, and create much technological advance. And others founded Harvard. I wish that Charles the Second had prevented Harvard, which he could have done and should have done, should not have allowed New England to remain a nest of his enemies for them to organize in, but he certainly should not have prevented all those valuable entrepreneurs.
He should however have put a governor loyal to him and hostile to puritanism, backed by soldiers loyal to him and hostile to puritanism, into New England, and made sure Puritanism was as unpleasantly low status in New England as in England, and official Anglicanism pleasantly and comfortably high status. The status of Puritans in New England should have been like Christians in Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Depends on what kind of enemy.
In the late 20th century high quality zaibatsu operated largely under the principle of rewarding good work with social status, and punishing bad work with humiliation – which was often compared with many companies in the democratic occident at the time leaning more exclusively on bonuses or promotion to different jobs (peter principle), and largely trying to pretend status didn’t exist at all.
The levers of shame and adulation are potent, and perhaps the most elegant, forms of social discipline, and have applicability in a wide range of contexts; so perhaps to be more precise, it depends on what sort of things they are being humiliated *for*.
You’ve advocated at least turning a blind eye to horrible treatment of the innocent children of unowned women who naturally as unowned women do make horrible decisions…
Why should we show any mercy to the assholes who are responsible for globohomo clownworld especially since it WILL have a bad outcome and they 100% deserve what i advocate for them and no Machiavelli was not wrong about this.
I don’t want to hurt innocent people but these are not innocent people.
Because showing no mercy will frighten Havel’s Greengrocer, and might make him notice that the official religion has turned a one eighty, which he would prefer not to notice, and we would prefer to allow him to not notice
Mercy shows an open door to those who would prefer to support power – which is damned near everyone. Keeping the door open, most of the people coming in through the door will be good people and valuable supporters. Some of them will be enemies, for which we will need the inquisition.
Which as I said before, was originally set up to find witches. On discovering that witches seemed very rare, and their powers largely or entirely delusional, but a whole lot of witchfinders were enemy entryists, changed its focus to finding entryists.
As for turning a blind eye to the strangely high natural death rate among the demonspawn of unowned women: For the same reason as we want to hang bad people, we want their numerous spawn killed. The apple does not fall far from the tree. In the long run, you get a civilized people by killing off people who act like chimps in the jungle, or at least preventing them from reproducing.
I want a regime in which men who work competently and successfully and play by the rules have authority over their women and their children, and women under their authority prosper and reproduce, and men who don’t, don’t, and the women folk of such men either fall under the ownership of men who do, or reproduce with the usual poor success rate of unowned women.
You want a permanent victory over leftism, but leftism is social entropy, and there can never be permanent victory against entropy, only unending struggle. There can, however, be permanent racial improvement.
If things go according to plan, we will have regimes that result in a new race:
Descent of Man, Chapter 07
To accomplish this outcome, turning a blind eye to the strangely high death rate among demonspawn will be helpful.
I think people will rather notice that housing and gas are much cheaper.
I object to the term aristocide being applied to regime personnel. These people are not aristocratic. They are not the cream of the crop; they are the scum under my ballsack after a week-long field exercise with no showers.
You also do not need to liquidate the professors and journalists. Some, yes. The old, bitter, barren feminist teaching Women’s Studies? Sure. The not-that-bright engineering professor or the excess philosophy professors? No, they can be moved to jobs that better suit their talents. Likewise, Stetler of CNN and Maddow of PMSNPC can be sent to the camps for The Cominator to dispose of them, but the people behind the scenes can be repurposed to transmit our propaganda if they pass the entryist tests. It seems to me that the main targets should be the college administrators. Just as the diversity and human resources departments are hostile state commisars, the college administrators are the leaders of the commisariat. Cut out the problem at the root.
There are programs and methods of analysis that were developed for use against terror cells that can be turned against the organizers of the left. Target the command and control, the mouth speaking through a thousand megaphones, and silence it forever. There is no sense in killing millions when we can specifically target the most important thousands, and then do to them what they would have done to us.
I do not think a permanent victory over leftism is possible, but I believe a long one is. Long enough to get to space… I want a long victory and I want future leftism to be memeless covetousness when it does arise, as it was in the ancient world. The radical populares in Rome did not envision an egalitarian social utopia that they sold to a bunch of morons, they envisioned themselves taking other peoples stuff without much intellectual justification. It was never a religion. But for a long victory it requires that we not shirk from the grim work if we get the chance. Franco was doing the grim work but backed off (and was cucked by catholicism), Pinochet implemented your lets only purge the top troublemakers plan… this failed. What Suharto did who killed a million leftists seemed to work though (1% of the total population but in some urban areas up to 5%). You need to wipe out any trace of the equality religion and this means no priests who worship the equality demon.
Plenty of lost boys on the far right, I think viewing them all as demon spawn is unfair. In the ghettos what you say is mostly true outside the worst ghettos its just another awful development of feminism. If you want to be Christian and merciful children who got a very shit deal are better candidates than Fauci’s demon worshippers. Rittenhouse was one step above a bastard. Under our social order there will be very few bastards anyway (rather than the huge numbers of them there are now).
Eugenics should be accomplished by giving geniuses harems wives to the productive and sterilization to the unproductive. It should stop short of killing unproductive noncriminals and non leftists though.
RE Wulfgar the general principle with academia is people in hard sciences and engineering should be treated like greengrocers most of the time (even though tech education will become far more apprenticeship based), while people in liberal arts and social sciences should be treated as guilty until proven innocent. Hard sciences are useful while “social” sciences and liberal arts are just enemy cathedral memes and have negative value. Nearly all journalists not at rightists publications need to go but I’m fine with sparing normiecon journalists if they don’t exist to backstab. Even then the cuckservative types would get a choice… actively participate in the great helicopter ride or get a helicopter ride. Nobody at CNN or MSNBC gets spared except for janitorial and purely technical staff.
Medicine after 2020 is the trickiest field and will require the most intricate case by case judgements though all the “public health” types unless they can prove opposition to lockdowns and clot shot mandates should be very publically burned en masse. Epidemiology and public health should be viewed as akin to the way 16th century Germans viewed witchcraft.
And yes these people are not aristocrats, overwhelmingly midwits and where they do have high IQs its purely high verbal IQ.
It failed because he did not have a live state religion, and his enemies had a live religion. He had libertarian economics, which worked economically, but failed to work ideologically. Needed national capitalism and the red pill on women.
Xi is facing the same problem. Maoism is dead, and in the unlikely event that Xi’s efforts at necromancy cause the zombie to walk again, the zombie is likely to devour him.
Xi needs a party ideology of the mandate of heaven and National Capitalism based on Hong Kong capitalism. He is also facing population collapse from female emancipation.
Sukarno’s purge succeeded, and was only possible, because he had a live state religion, which live state religion is currently being subverted through Academia.
Putin has a live state religion, but he does not want it to be too much in direct conflict with Cathedral holiness, and as a result it suffers from a dangerous level of enemy entryism and faggot entryism by the Lavender Mafia. Putin needs an ideology that he was appointed by God, but still has the ideology that he was appointed by the people, which claim is increasingly dubious.
Yes, but we can suppress the priesthood without exterminating Havel’s greengrocer. Deplatforming, cancelling, and demonetizing works well enough.
As I am found of saying on the topic of free speech: Speech that is “controversial” is always speech that is aimed at people coordinating and cooperating to take away other people’s status, money, or power, or speech that is aimed at coordination and cooperation to prevent it from being taken away. And if speech that is aimed at taking away someone’s status, money, or power is not “controversial”, speech aimed at coordination and cooperation to hold onto it soon will be. Reading stuff from 1906, I see that even then Academia was terrified into silence on certain topics.
Which is pretty much what I’d expect a social outcast who only dates whores to say. ðŸ˜
Harems are taken, not given. The only criteria under which a harem could be given is for loyalty. And even then, risky business. It’s a typical thing a fag with no understanding of relations would say. ‘Women are naught but breeding factories!’ Marry one and you’ll find they tend to be a lot more..
Mercy for leftists in non priestly jobs is feasible (true technical experts you want to keep around and merchants should have a much stronger presumption of being a greengrocer, working class people aren’t politically very relevant) but sparing any leftists in certain priestly jobs (those that fill any remotely political role) is going to end up being a terrible terrible mistake.
And per Machiavelli if their jobs have to go then they have to go, if not your going to be dealing with an underground subversive movement forever. If you can even prevent them from subverting your new elite in a little over a generation they will turn to a campaign of assassination and terrorism. People (especially warrior and priest types) deprived of high status are going to be bitter fanatical enemies.
Charles the Second’s procedure of having them re-apply for their old jobs, and affirm conformity in the job interview seemed to work pretty well. Clearly there were rather more entryists than desirable, but as long as affirmation was demanded and enforced, it did not become problem.
It only became a problem when latitudinarianism went too far, and we got William Wilberforce’s “Saints”, under the doctrine of of “occasional conformity” If William Wilberforce and his “saints” had been purged from government and quasi government jobs, or, better, investigated by the inquisition, convicted of apostasy, and sent to the Jamaica to cut sugar cane, things would have been fine.
Although the “Saints” claimed to be Christian and Anglican for the purpose of getting government and quasi government jobs, it was obvious that then they were not in fact Anglicans, except under the alarmingly elastic doctrine of “occasional conformity”, and is now obvious that they were Socinians, and not Christians – therefore, being in government and quasi government jobs as Anglican Christians, while in fact not being Anglican, and not even being Christian, but rather a cohesive heretical group practicing entryism against Anglican Christians, were apostates.
You want the state religion to have a fair amount of cynicism and pragmatism, but too much cynicism, you will be vulnerable to entryists.
Latitudinarianism worked well for a long time, but tolerating the “saints” was a lot more latitudinarianism than was reasonable or safe.
Jim we do not truly have a live state religion either.
In the years before the rise of extreme fanatical leftism (which I would make zero concessions towards) I was not a social outcast. Nor was I even disliked in high school. Women may be more than breeding factories but the intention of our restoration policy is to make them 1st and foremost breeding factories for good men regardless of whatever objections they may have. And I’m LESS extreme than Jim on this in that while I think beatings should be allowed I don’t think sending them to the ER should generally be allowed and killing prettymuch never should. My patriarchy would have some limitations against angry drunks, maniacs and sadists.
Jim might be a genius (he is at least close), Pseudo-Chrysostom may be a genius or close, I’m of above average IQ but no genius and do not claim to be one and would not be expecting a harem, at least on grounds of IQ.
Making genius high status and able to accomplish things you’ll eagerly get women to volunteer for harems. For the few higher IQ women who find being owned stifling you could say that they get special emancipation after 5 kids.
Every women’s shelter is run by feminists looking for a poster girl to demonize biological familes. They seem to have a serious shortage of poster girls.
Grossly unreasonable treatment of good wives seems to be stupendously and extraordinarily rare.
Re eugenic improvement, little to be gained by treating people as if dogs and allocating mates. What vigour the House of Osman had was squandered that way.
Much, much to be gained by limiting damage at the lower levels of functionality. Even then, you still allow for one kid for all but the most depraved trespassers. The magic of sexual reproductions is such as to be ale to wring value out of the most fallen lines, but it must be given time to work, whilst still limiting damage.
Human traits are so manifold and complex in their encoding, that anything but a slow, gentle push across generation is bound to produce a freak population at worst, or a population of servile slaves at best.
Only rulers who have such a horizon and can commit to it can play this game. None of those I can see for the foreseeable future.
The reason you are unable to meet reality halfway with your sociological analysis is that you are a sperg.
I don’t use the term as a slur. Many of us, probably all of us, have at least some spergish tendencies, and in any case, you’ve accepted the label in the past. We need to deal with the implications of it.
Spergs usually have two unusual traits. The first is an elevation of the truth (or what they perceive as the truth) over social mores. This can often be a valuable commodity, especially in the event of a hostile elite ratcheting up social pressure to accept total insanity, such as those being pushed today on Covid and Trannyism. Maybe that is why “the spectrum” still exists, as an evolutionary trait – it must have some utility.
But the second trait, the dark side, is a deficiency of empathy, and it is painfully obvious in you. I speak not of sympathy, as anyone can claim to feel sorry for others and most mean it. But empathy, as in the ability to read other people’s emotions and motivations, and imagine (with some degree of realism) how one would act in another’s place. You don’t have this, or if you do, it is highly attenuated.
Since you are more concerned with your perception of reality with social status, and you cannot really imagine what it is like to be a normal guy who cares more about their status in the tribe than what happens to be technically correct, you are unable to perceive any difference between the greengrocer and the enemy priest. Oh, there are observable differences in the way they act, sure, but they are all just differences of degree, differences of how far they’re willing to go.
Every time we have this conversation, I see the same repeating pattern, in which people such as Jim and Wulfgar try to explain to you the thought process and intrinsic motivation of the peasant worker – the cattle, if you will – and you do not even hear what they’re saying, you act as though they’ve said something totally different and fixate on what some of the peasants are doing instead of what is driving them to do it, and draw imaginary lines in the sand over what level of doing can be forgiven.
Jim proposes a simple test where we can determine if the evil-doings are actually a result of evil-thinking, and you don’t hear it at all, because in your mental model of the world, thinking and doing are the same thing. There is no reason to conceal one’s true beliefs or true intentions, and no real people who do it. You might be dimly aware on a cerebral level that there are in fact people who do this, but since you can’t perceive it happening, you assume it must be a tiny and probably irrelevant majority. But – as Jim has repeatedly pointed out – it is actually the majority, it is happening virtually always and everywhere and you just aren’t seeing it.
And I believe it’s this same empathic defect that leads you to believe that Florida has magic mind-control powers over women and brownskins. In that state, there is about a 50/50 chance that any random person you speak to is of the opposite party affiliation, so people generally learn to moderate their views in public – at least until they know whom they are dealing with – and tell others what they want to hear. They do this intuitively, without even really thinking about it, as most people do, most of the time, wherever they are. They go along to get along, that’s all.
When you hang out with right-wing guys, their women will profess to have right-wing beliefs. When you chat up single women in a redneck bar, they’ll assume you’re a Trump voter and affect being a Trump voter. It’s not that they’re secretly radfems or actually voted for Biden, more that they’re not really interested in politics at all, they’re just there to meet guys and the shit-testing doesn’t start until after they’ve homed in on a target.
You have to try to understand what other people are thinking, not just what they’re doing. It’s not about whether you’re “harsher” or “less harsh” than Jim on this issue or that, it’s about whether or not your mental model of the world makes any sense, and acting (especially with extreme measures) on an irrational and incomplete model is liable to lead to unexpected, unpredictable and frequently catastrophic results.
The Cominator says
On the contrary, the vast majority quietly submit to very indirect coercion: The same man will act one way with an evil regime, evil state religion, and different way with a virtuous regime, virtuous state religion, and not notice that his conduct has changed.
And we will need those men.
Cominator is telling the truth. In the Orlando club district after all the clubs emptied out at 2AM, zoomer girls and many blacks joined the “Trump” chants. Black girls out partying in Miami were telling me the election was stolen (though they may have been an exception, I was only speaking to them because they knew some other based guys I met down there). Not to mention that there were no masks and the venues were completely packed. This was in Winter of 2021.
Jim you somehow posted a comment under my name.
Oops, sorry, I keep doing that.
I intended to quote you, and wound up editing your comment in error, thus erasing the original comment, and replying under your name
I have corrected the name on your/my comment, but am unable to restore the original comment, that I unintentionally overwrote.
Also im pretty sure TC wrote a reply here that was deleted.
Yeah that.
Are not the same as college-age girls. As long as the parents aren’t completely hopeless, girls don’t go full shitlib until their late teens and early twenties. Hypergamy starts much earlier of course, but not feminism, unless the parents specifically teach it at home.
You’re all describing scenes that could and do happen in any red state, or even in the rural parts of blue states. This is not Florida magic, it’s you jumping to conclusions based on a tiny and generally non-voting self-selected minority. And Trump, generally seen as the alpha male (deservedly or not), always enjoyed a popularity boost with the non-college-educated female bloc.
Not that voting matters anyway, but I wasn’t the one who brought that up.
Feminism doesn’t start till college or failing that mid to late twenties (NOT teens) but Florida IS weird in that you have groups that elsewhere who are pro dem that fucking hate them.
Im not saying its magic the local GOP organization must just be more relatively competent in outreach propaganda for some reason. Or Florida may just have a relative lack of midwits (it tends to be very smart or dumb people) who tend to overwhelmingly be the real carriers of the leftist virus…
But somehow as confirmed by someone else you have lots of demographically unusual rightist in Florida.
My point was that in other red states, they keep quiet about these things, lest they express low-status beliefs to those who do not agree. In Florida they don’t care; they know that they hold the high-status belief.
It’s not unique to Florida. It’s the entire South. There’s videos of entire student sections at U of South Carolina, U of Alabama, Mississippi St, etc chanting “Fuck Joe Bidenâ€.
As I’ve discussed earlier, white Southern culture is more healthy and right wing than other areas in the US, likely traces to its Anglican roots (as opposed to Puritan).
Having said that, The problem with Southern states, however, is most have white populations are barely over 50% that is shrinking. They all are basically teetering on the demographic edge with the exception of Tennessee and maybe 1 or 2 others.
As confirmed by someone else based on the flimsiest of evidence, you have statistical certainties in a purple state that the two of you are specifically searching for, fixating on and magnifying with confirmation bias to seem much more important than it really is.
Demographically and politically, Florida is hanging on by a thread, has been for a long time, and the blacks and women in Florida behave and vote exactly like the blacks and women in any other state – certainly like those in any Southern or Midwest state.
It’s just another manifestation of the cucked-white obsession with the Talented Tenf, the problem with which has already been discussed extensively above by Kunning and NEET. It is your way of thinking that leads to outcomes like Minnesota. “Sure, go ahead and send us those 200,000 refugees, we’ll just assimilate them with our magic dirt and mind-control powers!” Those powers stop working with the first gang or no-go zone – as soon as there’s enough of them in one place to organize, you’re toast.
It’s all just a numbers game. There is no magic dirt. There is no “outreach”, an old cuckservative idea that has been tried and failed too many times to count. Negroes and women in Florida are the same as negroes and women everywhere else. Cubans are a little different from other Hispanics and that is literally the only thing saving Florida right now. Progressives thought that Cubans would behave (and vote) exactly like other Hispanics and were caught off-guard when they didn’t. That basically sums up the last 25 years of Florida’s political history.
From 2016-2020, the regime really wanted to fix this problem using Puerto Rico, either by making them a state or sending a whole lot more of their people to Florida. It probably doesn’t matter now because voting doesn’t matter anymore. Then again, if DeSantis makes it too difficult to rig the Florida vote then they might still try this tactic to win the old-fashioned way. And people with your mindset will be totally unworried because “outreach” will turn those Puerto Ricans into Republicans.
Good luck with that.
You are extrapolating far too much from what I said. I do not believe in magic dirt, and didn’t even consider how people voted. I simply stated that the negros and women feel like joining in with the crowd. Speaking out against progressivism is high status in urban Florida (in contrast specifically to other cities, rural areas are a different thing altogether), and is the expected opinion that one should have and express.
Obviously if you get into a private conversation with a white man who isn’t a complete soyboy, he’s going to tell you how dumb trannies and covid are, and so on, regardless of where he’s from. But unless he knows the other people in the room already agree with him, he will not voice this publicly. I did not see this hesitance in Florida cities, because of the presumption they had that what they were going to say was already the socially-approved thing. Other city-dwellers, even in the south, do have this hesitance.
It could also just be because Floridians in general do not give a fuck, as I got that kind of feeling from speaking to them and watching them, that they cared less about what they were “supposed” to do or say.
“It’s not unique to Florida. It’s the entire South.”
Not sure this is the case, many Southern states have normal minority voting patterns (ie overwhelmingly Democrat when they do vote) and to the extent young women voted Republican they are all native girls (no I’m not saying voting is going to matter much anymore) but they don’t do a good job of converting transplants. Georgia Republicans have been especially bad at converting non traditional groups and transplants Atlanta thus became a corrupt nigger shitlib abomination that turned into the countries biggest industrial fraud machine.
Florida even statistically has not followed this pattern, it had one smaller bad fraud area (Broward county) which got purged.
Sounds like California 30 years ago. Back then no Democrat could win a statewide election. Now no Republican can. Demographic change.
Demographics are destiny.
And ballot box control in the key counties…
Most people for the most part don’t pay attention to the specifics of any presidential candidate, they just vote on blue tribe vs red tribe, with maybe 10-20% at best actually paying attention to the positions or even noticing much about the candidate if anything at all. The fact that it took Trump to barely win Florida is concerning, especially given that 50%+ of Florida voters were instinctually willing to vote for and allow a black to win twice.
Also concerning that they had Democratic Senators in the US Senate from 2001-2019, and barely by the skin of their teeth prevented Bill Nelson from being elected again in 2018 and serving till 2024.
The fact that they’ve had three Governor elections in a row in which the democratic candidate nearly won is extremely concerning, meaning that Florida genuinely has almost half its voting population that would prefer a Democratic to a Republican be its governor, or it’s sufficiently cucked in the other way that it allows massive voting fraud to be committed every year.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/12/07/poll-82-percent-democrats-willing-wear-masks-all-times-omicron-fears/
This is why I’m not too interested in finding greengrocers. These people are begging for a helicopter ride.
If the regime tomorrow said masks were evil and only racist nazis wear them, I wonder how many of that 82% would instantly take them off and forget that they had ever worn them in the first place.
I just don’t care. In the age of mass media and social networking these bug people are dangerous.
If susceptibility to media gasslighting incenses you to such a degree, you really are contemplating a radical restrusture of the HSS species. You just don’t know what awaits on the other side of that door, maybe the lack of any capacity to organise in units greater tha the tribe or even bund.
Nah, just get hold of the mic and the fools will follow.
No, they are not dangerous. They are pathetic and harmless. Sheep can kill in a stampede if they get spooked, but we still eat lamb and wear wool. They are easily controlled, and they always have been. In the past they got their updates from priests, from broadsheets, from newspapers, and from television. Now they get them from social media. In the future they will get them some other way, and it still will not make them dangerous.
Some malefactor in the future will be able to make them stampede, best to solve that problem…
And I reject the idea that they are essential for civilization, there are whole regions of the country with VERY few of these people. Why haven’t they fallen into Mad Max Anarchy if thats the case.
Didn’t quite mean that this type may be essential for civilisation, but that genes for susceptibility to gasslighting and those that allow for cooperation may cluster to the degree that limiting one within one generation will limit the other too. But yeah, practically the same point.
Though there may be large areas with few such types, what is the tendency of the generations of freethinkers (to use a term) and go-alongers: do parents of one type spawn kids of the other, and back again? If so, genetic clustering.
There are plenty of people who are NPCs listening to a different script, so you do not notice them. Dems are the real racists, for example, is an NPC script for the right. You going to kill all of those people, too?
Rhetorical question, because even if you answered yes, the real answer is that no one is going to let you. Holiness spiraling in the purge list is one of the worst spirals ever. You will not be permitted to be a Robespierre of the Restoration. The target is the enemy elite, not the population that stupidly followed them. Like the slaves in the South during Reconstruction: if the followers do not work, they will not eat, and will be allowed to die.
No people who say dems are the real racist are not NPCs because there is some truth to it, Qtards are the right wing npcs and no i wouldn’t kill them there are so few of them.
No Democrats are not the real racists because “racist” is a fake and gay word invented by the left that has no meaning in reality, thus we in reaction reject that entire frame.
The people who recite it are the Fox News viewing NPCs of the right who still think the Constitution and voting matters and we just need to vote harder.
Its a fake and gay word but democrats are the real bigots in that they hold prejudices which aren’t true and which they deny even having while the prejudices we hold are true.
You are coming up with reasons why the NPCs that are aligned with your side are not NPCs. There is plenty of truth to the opinion that women and non-Anglos were oppressed in America, because they were and that was necessary to protect civilization. Just because there is a little bit of truth does not mean that the rest of the idea is not just NPC fodder. You do not really want to kill NPCs, you just want to kill everyone on the left. It will not happen.
>Its a fake and gay word but democrats are the real bigots in that they hold prejudices which aren’t true and which they deny even having while the prejudices we hold are true.
A bigot is a narrow minded person who’s unwilling to consider other people’s opinions or perspectives. You’re using the left’s twisting of the word instead of it’s original meaning.
Hear hear!
I don’t think The C means any of this (not to doubt his sincerety, but suspect he’s after poking people), but those who would entertain this seriously would be after some way – any way – to make a hoped for fufure vicory permanent.
There is no such thing as a victory secured forever, the price if liberty yada yada…
Permanent no but it will last MUCH longer.
“The target is the enemy elite, not the population that stupidly followed them.”
That is, conspiracy theory: a small, very small numbers of bad guys.
Volunteering to be a low level minion of an evil conspiracy still makes you evil.
So yes there ARE a very very few hidden central people who are trying to keep things coordinated but that doesn’t mean other people involved aren’t evil.
In past times the Cathedral was far more hidden and only really showed their hand (and with a lighter touch) as a united front to remove Nixon and maybe a few other things but in the Trump era (especially in 2020) the evil conspiratorial nature of its been obvious. And its been obvious no good man can do their work…
Um yeah… does helicopter()’ing 82% of democrats really make sense…?
No. We probably do not need to helicopter 2% of Democrats. Just a decapitation strike against the elite, an in-depth, carefully targeted purge of the leadership, then the Inquisition. If we have to kill more than a million, then we either seriously fucked up or things are way worse than we believe.
They are way worse than any of you believe…
Suhartos purge was around 3.5% of the population if its less than 10 million you are going to have a srrious problem in a single generation.
Opps that isn’t correct it was like 1% total and 5% in some areas…
The number of people who control “the narrative” is vanishingly small. A few thousand at most; a few hundred who really matter. You might consider them the Inner Party, to use an Orwell turn of phrase.
Absolutely, without a doubt, these are the people who must be guillotined. Eliminate them visibly, replace them with God-fearing, America-loving leaders. Anyone left in the Outer Party will fall in line, and the NPCs will follow along without hesitation.
Wildly optimistic.
Homosexuals: you can disregard the ones that keep quiet about it and don’t try to rearrange society to suit themselves. That’s a minority. The rest will keep using their excess disposable income to corrupt everything they can touch until they are specifically and permanently stopped from doing so.
Trannies: Same. You have some that have been brainwashed into it and might be salvageable; plenty of others that are definitely mentally ill and unfixable.
Single, childless, politically active women past their late 30s; also obese women of all ages, and way too many schoolteachers: try leaving them alone and they will screech until they force you to do something about them. What they WANT done is to be ravished and impregnated, but that’s biologically out of the question for most, so they are a permanent problem until dealt with permanently.
Antifa: yes they’re pawns. Yes Soros is paying for them. They’re perfectly capable of filling in with some half-assed organization in the absence of Soros. I know this because I know some of them and and I’m privy to some of their semi-private discussions. They’re not aware of how much Soros does for them (or just take it for granted) and therefore they regularly are putting together little associations and networks and conspiracies on their own because they’re so outraged by the fact that Republicans are still breathing. Take out Soros-style leadership, you’ll be dealing with che infestations in a variety of places for years to come.
This is all assuming you have a free hand. Getting to the point where you have a free hand requires a lot more force than that. You might, possibly, be able to swing a change of allegiance for a plurality of the soyboys – become the strong horse, get them to cheer you on in hopes of gaining status the same way they’re loyal to the current system in hopes of status – but again it takes a lot of force just to get to that point.
Suppose for the sake of argument you had ten thousand reliable armed men and killed a couple thousand enemy elite. All the management and woke staff at the NYT, CNN, MSNBC, Harvard, UCLA, Soros foundation – then various key political leaders and staffers in California, NYC, Chicago, a few other cities – round up key management from the tech oligopolies and make examples of them too – you’re taking a pretty big chunk out of your 2000-kills target right there. And you still have 200 million other adults from which trouble can arise because they don’t realize what they can and can’t accomplish. There’s going to be tons of people screaming about the appalling overthrow of the forms of government – with reason, that’s exactly what you’re doing – and willing and able to organize enough to block highways and burn things down in the name of stopping you.
The only way to pull that off is with the Presidency AND verified loyalty of key military units, and even then it’d be cutting it real close. Which means, based on what happened with Trump, you need to go into the Presidency planning on military coup from the start, and spend three of the four years laser-focused on prepping for it. Nobody’s going to do that until it’s too late for it to do any good.
This situation is not fixable without a generalized collapse of the current system, allowing new centers of power and order to self-organize in the absence of coordinated repression.
That always used to be a huge problem, even when they theoretically hung people for homosexuality, because they really did not actually do so except when buggers pushed the gay in people’s faces.
But there is a biblical solution to that – recruit Bishops and Deacons (priests) from married men with stable marriages and well behaved children. If your priesthood is straight, they will not get far trying re-arrange society to suit themselves.
Never was a problem until women were allowed into the male sphere, and granted social superweapons to destroy men’s lives. Women are intrinsically uninterested in politics, except that it now grants them superweapons which they deploy in shit testing. Unlike gays, they have zero real interest in rearranging society to suit themselves. If stuck in the female sphere, they have little ability to re-arrange society, little interest in moving out of the female sphere except for the purpose of being abducted into the female sphere of a more vigorous tribe, and if a few of them do wander out of the female sphere and stay out, they will make trouble, but it will be localized small scale trouble.
Remember when the Democrats found a black woman to make a speech to answer Trump’s state of the union speech. Her speech was primarily on why she should be considered hot despite old, fat, black, and childless.
Women, all women, lack agency. All women are like that.
To act, people need leadership. two hundred million cattle are irrelevant. The only reason why sodomites are effective at causing problems is that they intrinsically form a small cohesive conspiracy within a larger group. If that group is the leadership, then you have a problem.
For someone who despises people who take “””news””” at face value, you put a lot of stock in push polls.
I know polling on say approval ratings or who people are voting for aren’t that reliable but I have no reason to be all that suspicious of a poll that Breitbart reports showing worse sheeplike behavior in Democrats then even I believed.
Their whole shtick is telling people what they want to hear, only more. Unsurprisingly, they are good at it.
Apparently, the regime’s Praetorian Guard is not quite the coveted job as one would think…
https://www.axios.com/200-capitol-police-jan-6-f0920d16-92f1-41bb-b8b7-76eff08acc37.html
They’re probably purging the force of any non leftist elements. I still wonder if the cops they sucideded saw too much or where in on the Reichstag fire plot but deemed too dangerous to keep around. It sounds like the only Capital cops they fully trust is the niggers.
Yeah that’s probably right. The suicided cops I can’t quite figure out either.
They’ve been on a hiring spree for ~2 years. The pay is shit, the hours are shit, and they are easily the least respected of the 5 or so official police forces in the district. They are not the praetorian guard by any view, but they have been recruiting heavily for IT stuff. If anyone wants to pull on an interesting thread, look into the recent “recruitment drive” Amazon just did for their headquarters security across the river. At least a score of Arlington PD skipped out on retirement after many years with the force, and I hear that they are not just DCJS certified armed security, but fully licensed PIs, which confers very wide latitude in terms of evidence collection and surveillance capabilities.
That is indeed interesting…
OT
Checked out the Russian chans. Over the last 2-3 days another linguistic evolution happened before my gaze. Now QR codes are called “cuck codes” and “cuckold codes”.
“Did you hear you have show your cuckold code before entering Zelenogorsk?” and so on.
BTW the mighty Omicron is becoming undetectable by PCR tests
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/07/scientists-find-stealth-version-of-omicron-not-identifiable-with-pcr-test-covid-variant
Intradesting.
I’ve been meaning to ask, has The Day arrived for you and yours yet? I don’t remember the chronology. I hope all is well.
I am starting to find this madness hilarious. It is a shame that they are going to vaccinate the kids and the economy is cracking.
Have you ever considered any real freedoms?
Freedom from the opinions of others, even the opinions of yourself?
Freedom has a face. And you must make a friend of freedom otherwise it is an enemy to be feared. Freedom and moral responsibility are truly enemies. For you cannot have the one without the other.
They say we fight for freedom. But, they lie.
It is impossible to describe true freedom to one who has never known it.
You must have men who are moral and yet have the strength to do what is necessary.
Freedom from the opinions of others and from the opinions of oneself is not freedom, but slavery to Satan.
The social ideal of the elite society and state religion that we wish to emulate is the late seventeenth century early eighteenth century English gentleman. The gentleman was harmless (gentle) to those behave well, dangerous to those that behave badly. The gentleman speaks the truth, because brave, unafraid, and unafraid of the consensus of peers. He is not subject to the madness of crowds, does not hold his opinions because other people hold them, or because socially acceptable, or high status, but because true. This demonstrates his courage, and his reliability. His propensity to speak the truth and his indifference to consensus makes him socially dangerous to those who go along with untruth, as he is physically dangerous to those that engage in physical wrongful behavior.
He conforms to the official positions of the official faith, but all of these are either verifiably true, or unfalsifiable, and the total number of such positions is not terribly large. For the official faith to make this ideal possible and compatible with it, so that the official faith can be officially staffed with people who conform both to the faith and the social ideal, the official faith needs to stay well clear of anything that might be falsified, and keep the number of beliefs that official adherents of the official faith are required to conform to comfortably small.
At present, publicly exemplifying this old ideal is suicidally dangerous, but one should adhere to it when using an identity against which reprisals are difficult, and in private interaction.
For a sovereign to create a virtuous elite, in order that his state is cohesive and functional, he needs to be the fount of all honors, mortal and divine, and needs to make this ideal high status and relatively safe to practice in one’s official elite identity.
The “gentleman ideal”, which elsewhere you call “Red Pilled Old Type Christianity” is not specifically Christian. It simply coexisted with Christianity. In fact there is a certain amount of tension between the moral orientation of the New Testament and the early Christians and the “gentleman ideal”. A gentleman is not a saint, and vice versa. If Paul had come back to see the seventeenth and eighteenth century aristocracy he would have hated them with all his soul.
There is no need for there to be unfalsifiable official positions. You say there is because you perceive that old regimes officially endorsed unfalsifiable positions on theology etc, but the vast majority of Christians at the time did not consider those positions unfalsifiable—they considered them verifiably true, even when they disagreed about which ones were correct.
It is just as easy, if not easier, to holiness spiral on an unfalsifiable idea as a falsifiable one.
Also it is not true that, just because an idea is unfalsifiable, it cannot influence the behavior of those who hold it.
whoops, I meant that they considered them verifiable. A believer in the official faith would have considered the official doctrines verifiably true.
We are surely going to need the position that “Works of Supererogation cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety”, which proposition loses some of its power without the proposition that there is no salvation except through Jesus Christ.
How do you verify a proposition such as “Works of Supererogation cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety”, let alone the proposition that there is no salvation except through Jesus Christ?
A society to function requires shared belief in unverifiable but unfalsifiable truths.
Suppose we require adhesion to the unverifiable proposition “Works of Supererogation cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety”, which is socially necessary, but do not require adhesion to the proposition that there is no salvation except through Jesus Christ?
Well, that would work to the extent that people complied, but it would leave the door open to enemies peddling their own Baal, who supposedly demands teaching supererogatory works.
> How do you verify a proposition such as “Works of Supererogation cannot be taught without arrogancy and impietyâ€, let alone the proposition that there is no salvation except through Jesus Christ?
Easy.
The point of “Works of supererogation cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety” is an observed fact. It is verified in the same way “SJWs always lie” is verified, and the moral implication is valid in the same way “you shall not suffer a witch to live” is valid.
Every Christian apologetic ever, going all the way back to when “apologetic” didn’t mean “making excuses for something patently untrue” tries to persuade the reader that “no salvation except through Jesus” is a thing that the reader can independently come to weigh the evidence for, and eventually agree with. Concrete example of a Christian apologist: Vox Day. “This is just revealed truth”, “this is unfalsifiable” is motte-and-bailey.
Christianity orthodoxy has always been that it can be verified. This blatant lie, when taken at face value, leads people to falsification, and ensuing crisis of faith. Which is where we are now. No-one who today thinks about Christianity seriously, seriously believes in Christ.
For me, this is a practical problem. I need a religion that can create assabiya. Christianity is a noble truth / big lie. The big bounty in the afterlife shapes this life’s priorities and therefore behaviour. That’s the whole point. Claiming “but you cannot prove I made it up” is weak, and no-one can believe in a religion that is this ashamed of itself.
The historicity of Jesus is affirmed by Tacitus who clearly had no love for Christians.
Belief in the divinity resurrection and miracles is the hard part.
Regarding the historicity of Christianity, was Paul an entryist who took over?
The Jewish Christians recorded Jesus prophesying this outcome and commanding it to be done following his crucifixion. Paul implemented it. Peter and James Brother of Christ did not implement it.
All textual sources that we have of European history, and especially early Christian history, have passed through the gauntlet of Christian monastic copyists. There is simply not enough data to perform any critical analysis, so the field resigns itself to accepting texts at face value, often clinging to authoritative interpretation based on sentiment.
This only underlines my point that Christians have always felt it necessary to prove, to anyone possessed of a human soul, that Christ is the sole path to personal salvation (or rather prove that if one should be so inclined, one ought to be able to verify it for oneself, and many in fact have). No other religion would dream of putting so much stock in the thinnest of evidence. Indeed, nemo judex in causa sua — no-one may judge his own case — would lead us to discount all such evidence in any other context.
This is an excuse and rationalization that twenty first century academics deploy for rewriting history every few years. From time to time very old texts show up, most famously the dead sea scrolls, and we invariably find that the version that came to us from Byzantium has very close agreement, and usually closer agreement than any other copy. Those medieval copyists had immense respect for ancient texts.
Moderns rewrite history – it is what happens during the end stages of a civilization in its decadence. The ancients did not.
Moderns say that what they are doing is what everyone always did. No it is not. Civilizations, cultures, and peoples that do that disappear from history fairly fast.
Prince 1st of all you need to make it clear if you are speaking of the divinity of christ or both the divinity and historicity of Christ.
Tacitus attestation of a historical figure corresponding to Christ has to have a very very strong presumption of authenticity because Tacitus clearly considered the Christians to be an evil sinister foreign mystery cult.
https://reasonabletheology.org/jesus-outside-the-bible-1-tacitus/
“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.”
19th century Biblical criticism is still good. David Strauss and all that.
Flavius Josephus also wrote about Jesus and his execution by the Romans…
It simply stupid to doubt that Jesus the man lived and died pretty much as recorded, with the usual qualifier that the bible is religious poetry not history and geography – for example there is no high mountain from which you can see all the kingdoms of the earth.
But as for whether he died so that all who follow him might live, that cannot be empirically verified or falsified in this life.
Jim, my point still stands that old Europe did not base its state religions on intentionally and avowedly unfalsifiable beliefs. Until the 18th and 19th centuries, pretty much every European considered the Bible to be divinely inspired and literally true. They considered it history and geography. And they considered the metaphysical propositions of Christianity to be provable and proven, because of the prophecies and the miracles etc.
If you don’t believe me, read what James Anthony Froude says: https://archive.org/details/albertatest_01398/page/24/mode/2up. And that was the early 19th century, right on the threshold of the death of God.
So it is not clear why it is preferable for official doctrines to be unfalsifiable. My question is, what advantages does an unfalsifiable belief have over a verifiably true belief? Why should we want the new religion to have any of the former if we can help it?
Old type Christianity regarded itself as the truth in every sense of the world, not “religious poetry”. Or perhaps it would be more correct to say that old type Christians didn’t see the Bible as religious poetry, they saw the world as religious poetry. But once you regard the Bible as partly fictional your entire viewpoint is just too different to regard as essentially identical or even commensurable to that of the old type Christians.
It seems to me that the new religion (really the new philosophy) will not be Christianity tout court—that is simply never going to happen, because, now that the thread of tradition is lost, we perceive that there is no Christianity tout court—Christianity needs to be explained, and it is the explanation that we need. The new philosophy will have roots in Christianity the same way Christianity had roots in Judaism, but it will not be Christianity. Paul’s Christianity explained Judaism, and in just the same way, the new religion will explain Christianity.
Nuts.
No one has ever considered the bible to be history and geography, but rather religious poetry loosely based on actual history and geography.
You are relying on the internet atheist account of Christianity.
The only people who ever made a big deal about taking it seriously as history and geography were and are people frantically covering the fact that they are totally disregarding its religious and moral content, that they are only taking it seriously as history and geography.
Saint Augustine talked about this at length. Did anyone ever think that Jesus was taken literally and physically to a mountain from which he could see all the mountains of the earth? Did anyone ever worry about Satan in the garden of Eden being depicted both as a serpent, and as a humanoid angel wearing robes, gold, and jewels? My example of the mountain is paraphrased from Saint Augustine, who also had lots of similar stuff about the first chapters of the book of Genesis, which are a pastiche of several creation accounts that incompatible and inconsistent with each other as literal events, but spiritually consistent with each other. The people who wrote it obviously did not take it all that literally, nor intend it to be taken all that literally.
No one ever worried about the fact that Jesus was arrested on the night of passover, underwent several days travel and trials, and was then crucified on the day of passover.
The dead sea scrolls now reveal a plausible explanation of this odd dating – the Essenes, and therefore presumably Jesus and the apostles, held passover on the old calendar, while the pharisees held it on the new calendar, the difference providing roughly the right amount of time. Did Christians everywhere breath a sigh of relief?
Nope. No Christians anywhere.
Did any Christians care?
Very few of them.
Did Christians even notice?
Very few of them.
For two millennia, no one cared.
Well, yes and no.
It is quite obvious the bible is a poetic, storified version of historical events. But that does not take away that core parts of the story only work if taken serious.
For instance, don’t need to believe Moses literally split the red sea. Do need to believe he led his people out of Egypt.
The problem with Jesus is, do we need to believe he literally returned from the dead? You say there is ambiguity. But when I read the bible, especially Acts, does not seem like the early Christians believed it was ambiguous at all. Seems they quite obviously took it as a core part of the story.
This is somewhat important because the product you’re selling is social technology, not religion. Religion has a much better chance at going viral — it is easy fashion. Social technology, less. It is a bit more complex, requires quite some thought.
You once quipped, fashion is more powerful than guns. But I am starting to think that the only way Christianity will make a return to fashion is by proving itself through guns first.
We can be pretty sure he did lead his people out of Egypt, for there was a whole lot of that stuff happening at that time. Mass movement of armed and dangerous refugees was part of the Bronze Age collapse. Arguably it was the Bronze Age collapse.
The Bronze Age civilizations all had a large hostile immigrant populations, who remained attached to their old culture and old Gods, who had extensive links with outsider barbarian populations, who invaded the Bronze age civilizations. The invaders, and their local co-ethnics, considered the cities fortresses from which came hostile tax collectors and demon worshiping priests of a different race and culture, backed by armies of a different race and culture, hence their propensity for burning cities down and massacring the population without much, or any looting or abduction of women. This may have contributed to Pharoah’s discomfort with the Hebrews, and Hebrew erasure of the cities of Canaan.
The sons of Dan were the great shipbuilders of the sea peoples – a massive Dannite shipyard has been found in the Eastern Mediterranean, and while the rest of the Children of Israel do not leave much trace in the historical records and legends of the collapse, the sons of Dan are all over the place, as merchants, pirates, seamen, and invader transports. Which may have contributed to Pharaoh’s discomfort.
The Bronze age collapse resulted in a general loss of literacy, since literacy was primarily a small group of palace scribes and priests that the invaders detested, but Egypt, the Hebrews, and the Assyrians retained literacy. Egypt retained literacy because they fought off the invaders, Assyria because they had a long way to retreat from them, and the Hebrews kept it for reasons unclear. I would guess that Moses and Aaron had Egyptian priest/magician backgrounds and upbringing, and thought that literacy was pretty good if it was applied to record the word of God, rather than taxes, tithes, and production quotas.
@jim, @The Cominator
It is not the well-copied texts, but texts that were found in a single copy in some obscure monastery’s damp basement, having strangely been unaffected by centuries of mould and mildew, then when their time came “stolen” from the papal library only to be “ransomed” for a great reward. Like, say, the Tacitus works (minus the damp basement).
The whole “””Jesus didn’t even exist lol””” is a Marxist-Leninist trope. The Bolsheviks faced a problem of a religious population, and they concocted a slew of propaganda, this being one of the forced memes. And it worked quite well. You may say that it backfired spectacularly in damaging the atheist cause in the West, but but it served its limited goal, and provided generations of Soviet intellectuals with that especially smug feeling that comes from being a fedora-wearing dupe. Proving that Jesus existed, however does nothing more than show that Jews are lying scum, which is not exactly a groundbreaking revelation.
@jim
Jim, the problem is not modernity, the problem is Jews, both in the sense of people who are genetically predisposed to treachery, and those who hate Christ. Modern plagiarists have nothing on renaissance plagiarists. Every time a (((merchant))) came up with a palimpsest for one of his wealthy customers, you can bet your hide that the document is about as genuine as a religious relic bought at a fair. Every time a work was copied partially, there is a question of what was the objection to copying those other parts. Then there are things like Mark 16:9-20, which frankly I don’t know what to make of.
@The Cominator
That passage is well known. It is almost too convenient. It’s the first part of the “they hated us and tried to kill us, we killed them instead, let’s celebrate”, and it is suppose to justify/diminish the later horrible atrocities Christians perpetrated against the Pagan Romans. Nevertheless, even granting the authenticity of the document itself, it has to be read with the belief in Christ already in mind, it doesn’t really prove anything to a sceptic.
What official Christian position is, is that back then the Lord gave Christianity a heavy push start to get it going, and since then he has been weaning us off it to deal with harsh world on our own.
Really? Not seeing it. What would his objection to them have been? The Paul I read in the New Testament seems plenty red pilled, just as the Jesus I read in the New Testament seems to have a pretty good handle on what the Dark Enlightenment now calls game theory.
“Freedom from the opinions of others and from the opinions of oneself is not freedom, but slavery to Satan.” –Jim
Conversely, freedom from Satan is slavery to the opinions of others and from the opinions of oneself? Freedom from the opinions of others would include the opinions of Satan.
If left free, will a man choose evil over good. Will he choose selfishness over generosity? Do the opinions of others drive us towards good or evil. Where does a solder derive moral authority to kill? Not from himself.
It’s judgement that drives us. True freedom is without judgement. Without fear.
Satan does not have opinions, only tactics. Neither does the left. Leftism has no essence. Its ideology always spins around to delegitimize whatever applecart is looking shaky in the current year, in the hope of knocking over the applecart and grabbing some apples.
Freedom from one’s own opinion is vice, vices being those sins, such as gluttony, which primarily harm oneself.
Freedom from other people’s opinions – that is more complicated. In the game theoretic language of the Dark Enlightenment, everyone wants other people to cooperate with him, which requires that he gives other people reason to believe he will not defect on them, and no one wants to cooperate with those likely to defect, so each must evaluate the likelihood that the other will defect on him. Which assessment requires that everyone play by the same rules, and everyone knows what the rules are.
Further, each wants it to be believed that he will harm those who harm him, and may well harm those that defect on him. Which requires rules for what is and is not harm, which rules are gamed by the left, which use the media to push a fake consensus, as for example on adultery and on “mostly peaceful protest” – both of which deserve a lethal response.
The congenitally insecure desire power as a means of sublimating this insecurity, the visceral antipathy to the idea that anything – most especially any*one* – could have bearing over them.
But thus such is their ironic hell; for it is the very observation of certain stricture – the divine law of creation – that brings greater power in the first place.
Cominator said:
We have a bunch of methods to measure genius, none of them work.
Genius, like respect, is not something that gets commonly agreed upon. In Dutch you’d say it is ‘afgedwongen’ which sort of translates to ‘enforced’ or ‘demanded’. ‘Earned’ even.
When people have to agree on who is genius, suddenly, and quite unsurprisingly, everyone turns out to be a genius.
To my mind, Jim is a pretty obvious genius. He has earned it in my eyes. To the general public, he is not a genius, until either his social technology or Jimcoin conquers the world. Then he has earned it.
There is always the need for smart people but forget genius what is need in the next age of barbarism and darkness is what is always needed in any age, men able and willing to act.
Originally, a “genius” was one especially favored by an ancestor spirit in the oldest Aryan sense of worship, from the Latin “gens”, birth, bloodline, creation (which is one of the most important and powerful words around) In other words, one who embodies the qualities which makes one’s familial bloodline noble in the first place, the atavistic reincarnation of the heroic ancestor, etc. Genius is as genius does.
Regarding the need for the gentlemanly ideal, from the baron of Provence, circa 1200:
“I love the melee of shields, vermillion and blue
The varied colors of flag and pennant;
To see on the plain tents and pavilions spread,
And breaking of lances, stout shields riven,
Splitting of gleaming helms,
And the ferocious exchange of sword-strokes.
My heart is filled with gladness when I see
Strongholds besieged, stockades overrun.
Many stout vassals hewn down
And horses of the dead roaming at random.
When battle is joined let all men of lineage
Think only of breaking heads and arms
Far better to die than be vanquished and live.
I tell you, I feel no greater joy
Than when I hear the cry ‘En Avant! En Avant!’
The neighing of riderless coursers
And groans of ‘M’aider! M’aider!’
And when I see both great and small
Struck down into ditches and on the grass!
And when I see the dead, transfixed with spears!
Ah, lords! Mortgage your domains, castles, cities, all
But never give up war!”
The gentlemanly ideal requires and is built upon a race with an intense love of war and bloodshed. There is more of this stuff if you dig for it, from every era and place in Europe. Warriors writing about their love for violence has been the most intensely memory-holed category of literature period, even more so than the RPWQ.
Gentlemanly courtesy and its social rules are required to allow our fundamentally and gloriously bloodthirsty race to cooperate. The handshake exists to prevent each party from reaching for a weapon. Modern people might call Christianity cucked; I say it was necessary to moderate the impulses of a race that often went to war simply for the fun of it. Before Christianity, the white man lived a life of petty warfare and pastoralism. That is a way for a manly man to live, but it does not make a people great on the stage of the world.
We do not just need gentlemanly manners to be restored, but the capacity for violence that they rest on.
I personally have plenty of capacity for violence. We just need a society that allows it when appropriate. I don’t think the shortage is intrinsic – watch any kids movie. Boys love it. Look at the entire superhero genre. It just gets socialized out of them.
The seeming shortage of capacity for violence arises from the same cause as the shortage of manly behavior among men. Allow the winners to take the women of the losers, we will immediately see rather too much capacity for violence.
Some time ago, I said some political things that they other man did not like. He showed me an improvised weapon in a threatening manner, but the blade was too small to effect lethal or lasting injury unless you operpowered your opponent. I figured that in a fight, I would get cut up badly but superficially, but I would likely overpower him, take it off him, and then have ample legal excuse to go bananas with it. The more I got cut up, the better the excuse. Looked at me, saw what I was thinking. He called a friend to come over, and if the friend had come over, I would have fled, but the friend saw what might be coming, and did not want to. I was really looking forward to going bananas with the other man’s weapon but unfortunately the man realized might happen if he attacked me.
Until the nineteenth century, the general principle was that if one party committed an unlawful act, and in the ensuing disagreement some people died or suffered death or serious injury, the party that committed the illegal act was at fault – it was open season if the troublemaker got combative or difficult. We need to restore open season, and if open season came back, I would be happily killing wrongdoers who failed to immediately surrender on being caught wrongdoing.
I agree- socialized out of them like masculinity is socialized out of them. But I’m honestly not sure whether the shortage is intrinsic or not, or if the largely broken young men of my generation and younger are fixable. My view from the inside is pretty bleak.
Edited while I was writing my reply- I don’t doubt that bringing back open season on troublemakers would solve the problem, eventually. I advocated the same thing in my post on the police. My worry is what will happen if violence becomes suddenly and unexpectedly necessary.
What is the problem? If rightful violence is treated with honor and respect, is depicted on the media as treated with honor and respect, and it becomes suddenly and unexpectedly necessary, we will have an adequate supply of young men willing to do violence.
I am not talking about post-restoration. I am talking about our current society slipping into a state where the capacity for violence becomes very necessary. Some young men will rise to the occasion, I’m sure, but I’m not hopeful on the number.
The original point I was trying to make, though, was aimed at observers who might mistake gentlemanliness as pacifism or some other kind of cuckoldry. It’s an addendum to the gentlemanly ideal you advocated below, not a challenge or disagreement with it.
If violence becomes suddenly necessary, we are going to get a lot of young men like Kyle Rittenhouse showing up to do their duty. Have faith, and it will be rewarded.
Kyle Rittenhouse shows us that the young generation is not a lost hope quite yet.
There’s one question that the younger generation has to answer about Rittenhouse.
Do the women of his generation find him obscenely attractive? If he and his friends go to ASU, as is his plan, and therein get laid like tile, there is hope for Gen Z.
Given that when I expounded on violence the women I knew at ASU were quite interested, I would bet that he gets laid like tile unless he is terminally blue-pilled. I have never killed a man, only come to the cusp. He walked over that line, and had a shootout on the other side if it. He has way more street cred than I do, and I could have picked up a few girls while I was there. If he cannot pull ass, it is not because young liberal girls are not enchanted by violence.
In the states about [goes on google…] one in three men have a gun? I presume if you have a gun, you have at least the slightest intention of shooting it at bad guys.
Although speaking from my own experience in Europe, also quite bleak. Men behave like children and/or women.
I think the thing about violence is that it is in men’s nature because we, rightfully, want to win. In between the fall of the American empire, the emasculation of its men and our rediscovery of violence and its merits, I’m sure there’s some path to winning.
One potential saving grace for Europe after the fall of the American Empire, which is not the case in the US itself, is that there would be absolutely nothing stopping the Russians from blitzkrieging across Europe and taking it all.
Except the Russians 100% do not want it.
They may not but if war with America goes hot they will smartly realize that the tanks won’t need to stop until they reach the Atlantic.
Russia doesn’t want Eurostan, but they do want to rebuild their frontier and make the Germans pay for it.
Mosques will stop them…
When I speak of violence, the young men and women listen raptly. The instinct is still there. I am in my thirties, so I might be a couple of tears older than you guys, but not by much, and my experience is with Gen Z college kids. If it comes to a fight, I am going to have to knock some rough edges off, but the men will fight and the women will fuck my fighters. I have faith in them.
“socialized out of them”
I also worry about the biological effects of endocrine disruptors.
Recalling the mainstream history books I read when younger, the take was always that preceding WWI, ‘the old nobility falsely romanticized war’. Considering the grueling trench warfare of those times, seems like there is at least some validity in that.
But when you read Roman or English or French or Dutch history, the amount of constantly simmering warfare in and around the empires is amazing. And what have we now? Soldiers who need HR’s permission for every bullet they fire. It’s degrading.
So, yeah. We went from Roman triumphs to pride parades.
Suppress the pride parades, and restore the Roman Triumphs, you will see no shortage of capacity for violence.
The problem is that we are systematically degrading warriors, and everyone can see the systematic degradation. Honor them, and enforce their ownership of their women and children, and you will see ample supply.
Amen
The mainstream narrative is not just that war was falsely romanticized, it is that evil aristocrats with no skin in the game sent peasants off to die by the thousands for love of gold. (Peasants were not even conscripted until the 30 yrs war)
They tell us that the nobility romanticized war, but they do not let us read it out of the old nobility’s own pens.
Better to say that they truthfully romanticized war. They were on the front lines, and loved the blood and guts. There were even some who enjoyed WWI, despite the fact that trench warfare is majorly contrary to the way men are psychologically designed to wage war.
“A Rifleman Went to War” by McBride is an excellent book by a competition shooter who volunteered for WW1 and loved it. He says it was not politically correct to say you loved it, so most men pious poo-pooed their experience in the trenches.
Bah even the most jingoistic postwar vets like Hitler himself who were there said it was more like hell then war.
It might have been better if you were a sniper because being a sniper you weren’t likely to be a snipee, or a minesweeper, or be ordered to walk in tight ranks towards the enemy trenches, or conduct daylight probing raids etc etc.
World War I was the civil service throwing the old aristocracy, who still contributed most of the officers of every respective nation’s army, into the meat grinder. It served their purpose that the war was senseless and brutal. Look at the proportion of noble families that were ended during WWI; it hollowed out an entire class.
Maybe Military service should be a pre-condition for a sinecure with the Bureaucracy (They are all sincecures anyway)
This is a lite version of Heinlein’s “maybe only veterans should vote”, to which I say, if you make power-seeking psychopaths jump through hoop X to get a sniff of power, they will, putrifying X in the process, instead of being cleansed or frightened by it.
It worked for academia, the ultimate collection of detached spergs in its intent, imagine what it would do to the military.
That’s okay. Let them risk their lives some more for power. Let them risk it at the military. Let them risk it shooting at and getting shot by the enemy
Maybe they will. Maybe they will redirect the whole military into supporting inner city youfs which is where the real war is anyway, dont’cha know? You cannot let this ilk gain critical mass anywhere, so best not to invite the in.
I’m not saying making military service a prerequisite will keep them out. It will just make it harder for them. Why is that not better than what we have now? I’m not asking for a perfect solution. I’m asking for something feasible that is much better than what we have now. You don’t agree?
I understand where you are coming from and agree that perfect is the enemy of good.
But I think this would be worse (or at least become worse in time) than what we have now. It may limit the entry of the worst specimens for a bit BUT it will create a huge incentive for our enemies to infliltafte the military and either debase it or use it against us. At least the military now is hobbled by the higher ups but the grunts are reliable. Not so if you make it a gateway to power, the rot will set in from the bottom. Ask the romans.
If you are thinking of atempting some ideal of the martial society, keep in mind that such societies rely on hereditary martial aristocracy, i.e. one in whichentry is not free. This is a key design criteria to make it proof against entyism, as Jim has argued in the past re priesthood.
So no, wouldn’t be super keen on this.
Nah, making the military high status and commissioning by a superior officer a prereq (though perhaps not an exclusive one) for official power is good.
Which is to say, feudalism by other means.
It wouldn’t be feudalism, as feudalism with no hereditary component was tried by Louis (three of them) and found wanting.
Moldbug is right; if you make X the gateway to power, X is going to be corrupted by psychopaths, all the time, everyime.
I don’t have a solution.
That wasn’t just moldbug’s idea; it has long been observed by thoughtful men throughout history that for any given criteria, there will be gaming of that criteria.
The solution is to hold judgement as primary over mere procedure, which itself is a product of judgement. The solution is also that not all criteria are created equal; at the limit, ‘continued existence’ is, itself, a criteria.
The technology that made aristocratic warriors tactically irrelevant was the longbow, appearing at Crecy. But because domestically, the aristocracy were the top dogs, and as long as they were the top dogs, they got to enjoy their favourite sport.
The problem with rows of medieval knights is they were undisciplined and would often disobey orders (and tended to flatly refuse any commands from anyone they considered a social inferior), longbows were good but by they did not by themselves make heavy cavalry obsolete. Yes armor changed over the next few centuries but armor was always changing.
The golden age of heavy cavalry was Cromwell’s time during the English civil war where Cromwell won every battle primarily because he had extremely well disciplined heavy cavalry.
They didn’t invest in highly disciplined peasantry until the Prussians had had enough, and started doing it. There was a class aversion towards drilling peasants, conscripting them in large numbers, and giving them adequate technology. If Cromwell faced prussian-style-drilled peasants, the outcome would have been different.
You can see the progress through the siege of Vienna, where the aversion to actually effective tactics and enjoyment of doing war for sport almost led to the destruction of the European regime, to the French Revolution when it unravelled, to the long peace of the 19c when the warrior ethos finally died.
Did not die of natural causes. Was murdered. Hence Florence Nightingale, putting logistics in military uniforms, and memory holing of the thin red line.
Since it did not die of natural causes and took one hell of lot of killing, can be reborn.
By the time of the French Revolution, the warrior aristocracy was degenerate, was done fighting. The official explanation is that the 19c peacefulness was a reaction to the horrors of the Napoleonic wars, but nah, the scions of the aristocracy were just not that into it anymore.
Yes, the priests took over by their underhanded means. They always do.
Some people say that WW1 & WW2 killed off the aristocracy in the meatgrinder, but it seems to me that it was the other way round, it was only after the old aristocracy’s death that the priests could effect a meatgrinder.
Deballed by the Sun King.
English Aristocracy were warriors through to the Crimean war, despite a state and society that was trying very hard to prevent it, a state and society that was horrified, dismayed, and frightened by warrior ethos on conspicuous and spectacular display in the Crimean war, a state and society that after 1856 took extraordinarily drastic measures to end it, which measures continue to escalate to the present day.
The warrior ethic did not quietly up and die through degeneracy, it was very forcefully murdered.
Once you abandon loyalty to the current regime and cast away the progressive faith for Christianity, it is very easy to pick up arms and go to war. Balls are starting to grow back as the state fails to maintain order. Kyle Rittenhouse and his friends are just one example of young men arming up and going out in packs to keep the peace, or to blunt the violence against their community. I know others who did the same thing, but there were no shootings, so it goes unmentioned.
The warrior ethos survives in the blood of those today, just waiting for an outlet. The elite is led by cowards, but they are self-selecting for cowards and expel or shun any who are actually, truly the natural elite. Using the current ruling class as an example is a terrible idea, because they exist only by defanging the wolves of our greater nature. As they lose their ability to pull those teeth and cut off the balls of any who resist, a lot more people are running their tongues over their teeth and wondering what warm blood tastes like. When it comes to it, I will have men that will fight and kill. I know this because I have met them, talked to them, walked with them. You all need to have faith in them.
The Chinese Military Aristocracy was defeated and killed off by attrition by the mass production and use of Crossbows in the Qin Dynasty. And with the rise of massive National Armies recruited from Peasantry under the Philosophy of Legalism:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5et3y9/did_medieval_chinese_society_have_a_feudal/
Gradually and in combination with the rise of the Scholar-Bureaucrats.
And over the centuries of Warfare on the Chinese continent and its different dynasty
Led to the decline of Military Aristocracy and led to the Mandarin Class as Aristocracy.
Military Aristocracy died out seemingly naturally.
The Chinese aristocracy was wiped out, no natural death, and was in due course replaced by foreign aristocracies.
Manchu aristocrats still had a strong hand in China in 1900, two millenia after Chinese wiped out the Chinese aristocracy.
The Chinese mandarinate had power for two millenia, but it kept that power by being useful to foreign Kings, installed in power through foreign conquest, largely by foreigners whose armies were officered by aristocrats, who led from in front.
Sometimes military technology is favorable to aristocratic armies, because one fully equipped warrior with expensive equipment and training that began shortly after birth can casually cut down a horde of hastily conscripted reluctant peasants. Sometimes it is unfavorable, because the bigger battalion always wins. But even when it is unfavorable, aristocratic regimes are more capable militarily.
@i
I am not too great on Chinese history, but it sure looks to me that the Qin mandarin bureaucracy carried out an intentional, hostile purge of the feudal warrior elite, a purge analogous to that which happened in the west between the Crimean war through WWI. The great developments of our history played themselves out in China two millennia earlier.
With the result that China became subject to a succession of barbarian kings, to whom a callow class of managerialists lent their talents and knowledge. With the result that technology stagnated for two millennia, and the Han race was debased and disappeared. The modern Chinaman calling himself Han is about as laughable as an arab-slav-nigerian in third world Europe circa 2621 calling himself an Anglo.
The modern-day Japanese probably is most racially similar to the people who created Chinese civilization.
Conscription began i believe with Sweden, conscripts were never man per man as effective as non conscripts either most of the Prussian army of Frederick were not conscripts though in the later part of the Seven Years he employed crimpers.
Cavalry was still useful through the Napoleonic wars but its greatest period (in Western Europe) as far as its dominance over infantry (in field battles) was the time of the English Civil War.
Of course soldiers are nowhere near good as warriors, pound-for-pound. But they are vastly better per unit of cost, you can always have more soldiers than warriors even if cost were not an issue, and you can treat soldiers like shit both during and after the campaign, whereas warriors will give you trouble. Worse is better.
What is a crimper?
Need warriors leading from in front and high status
Masses of conscripts can be mobilized faster but a good non conscript army will beat them, Wellington’s brits precisely drilled to fire high volumes in line consistently beat larger Napoleonic forces.
Frederick the Greats field armies mostly not conscripts because also precisely drilled.
WW1 became a conscript meat grinder due to all around incompetence among the officer corps in almost every nation. Haig was not a priest he was just incredibly moronic and for some reason it was tolerated.
The Red Army was largely conscript often at gun point. Defeated the warriors of the White Army.
The white army was far from an elite force and Wilson was covertly backing the reds while saying otherwise.
My impression is that WW1 was not all-round incompetence. There were some incompetent generals, but the competent ones still ran into a meatgrinder because of the technological situation. Machineguns worked, artillery had become very destructive, but tanks weren’t quite there yet.
1) It’s very difficult and costly to launch an infantry attack on barbed wire, machineguns and trenches without heavy artillery bombardment first.
2) Once you have heavily bombarded your way into enemy lines and taken a trench or two, your supply and communications line to your new front is an artillery-cratered piece of shit.
3) If you made a local advance you’re now in a salient that can be surrounded and pinched off, if you made a wide advance your supply and communications line is now a LARGE piece of shit.
4) Meanwhile your enemy, who has been driven back or retreated out of the bombardment range, is meeting up with reserves and his supply lines in the back are railways.
5) The enemy launches a heavy artillery bombardment followed by a counterattack to retake the trench you just took, where your soldiers are disorganized, undersupplied, and poorly dug in…
Repeat for years.
WW1 tactics were stupid even without tanks and even if there is nowhere to flank.
The biggest question is Why EVER attack during the daylight, in a world war one situation attacks should be under cover of night with leading small elite infiltration squads.
But only the Germans ever got this idea and even them not until late. At the Somme the British troops were literally ordered to walk abreast towards the enemy trenches.
WW1 socialist/liberal governments where putting idiots in charge in order to get aristocracy and religious men killed. Read Verdun: The Lost History of the Most Important Battle of World War I, 1914-1918
byJohn Mosier for hints at what was going on with the political situation with the selection of Generals in the French army. French officers regularly ordered their men not to walk into a meat grinder and were regularly court marshaled if their socialist Generals found out. I’m sure the UK was doing something similar.
Both the French and UK government used WW1 as an excuse to create large scale government run armaments factories in order to prove that socialisms work. Which is why both nations ended buying almost everything from American weapons manufactures just a few years into the war as their actual war production cratered thanks to socialism.
Germany’s the only country that used proper tactics in response to the changes going in warfare because they wanted tow in. The allied political class didn’t give a fuck until very late in the war. My guess is they felt victory was assured as long as the UK blockade continued so why not get rid of their political foes? Only towards the end when French morale completely collapsed did they finally put people in charge who could actually win.
We had a similar situation during WW2 where the US government put incompetent generals like Ike, Mark Clark and Bradly in charge of major operations because they were politically reliable.
“We had a similar situation during WW2 where the US government put incompetent generals like Ike, Mark Clark and Bradly in charge of major operations because they were politically reliable.”
Ike wasn’t that bad…
Bradley and Clark yeah.
Ike was garbage. How many times did Monty fuckup and Ike kept giving him priority for his stupid unworkable plans? When the Germans were almost caught on the Falaise Pocket he ordered Paton not to close it because Paton would have ended up in the British zone. He let enough Germans escape to allow them to reform their armies for further defense.
Ike refused to allow the Marines land at D-day because he believed the Marines has stolen the US Army’s glory during a battle in WW1. As a result non the of army troops could properly direct battleship fire into the bunker targets. Eventually American destroyers disobeyed orders and moved into visual range to start knocking them out. There was a group of Marines sitting offshore ready to land in order to coordinate that fire but Ike refused to use them.
His strategic plan was the broad front push through France into Germany in a war where concentrating an attack on multiple very small points and the expanding through in a torrent via mobile units was the winning strategy since Germany proved the Concept in France in 1940 and the Russians copied it in 1943. All that Broad Front did was give the Germans time to retreat, regroup, and resupply until the allies ran smack into the Rhine River and went no where for months.
That being said Ike’s theatre still went well overall…
He was bad but not THAT bad (and if he wanted to fuckup D-Day he could have, it would have been VERY easy to fuckup). Now when Omar Bradley or Clark got put in charge of anything the fuckups were epic and catastrophic (WTF was the Hurtgen Forest).
Also to defend Ike and even Monty the Monty strategy in Market Garden WAS a quick narrow push strategy. The Rhine wasn’t crossed mainly because of supply problems. A quick narrow push in Patton’s area in the Southern area of Germany would have been logistically impossible.
Market Garden wasn’t a bad idea, but having the British lead it was, they had a long history of being unable to exploit breakthroughs in WW2. Should have brought Patton up North and had multiple points of attack, not just a single one. Ike was more of a manger than a General and the sign of a good Manger is knowing what your subordinates can do well and what they cannot do. Monty wasn’t suited for war of moment while Patton was.
I’m less than convinced. When you have a break through, you allocate your the logistics to that break through. Worked for Germany in France and Russia, and worked for the Russians 1943 onward. Pushing deep into your foes rear has the added benefit that they tend to pull forces away from the other parts of the line in order to stop the breakthrough. This creates a situation where you can pocket the entire army just by advancing into those now weakened areas of the Front.
Regarding WWI, foreign military observers in both the Boer war and the Russo-Japanese war meant that the powers involved understood perfectly well what war would look like with machine guns involved. They knew that it was not possible to take a position defended by the Maxim gun with infantry. That they were ordered to anyway, at battles like the Somme, indicates willful maliciousness rather than incompetence.
The old warrior elite was not a cohesive political actor, but could have become one, because firmly entrenched in the army and commanding the loyalty of armed men. Still a potential threat.
@Ex
Small unit tactics in mass battle situations are relatively straightforward: infiltration and bridgeheads.
Your troops filter forwards single-file at night, they dig in, and come morning, the enemy finds pockets of fortified mortar batteries and machine gun nests behind their lines. Which you compound every day. Tanks are not strictly necessary for this, which again points to maliciousness.
” Another characteristic principle is the forming of bridgeheads everywhere and at any time, to serve as bases for later advances. Bridgeheads are a grave danger indeed. It is quite wrong not to worry about bridgeheads, and to postpone their elimination. Bridgeheads, however small and harmless they may appear, are bound to grow into formidable danger-points in a very brief time and soon become insuperable strong-points. A bridgehead, occupied by a company in the evening, is sure to be occupied by at least a regiment the following morning and during the night will become a formidable fortress, well-equipped with heavy weapons and everything necessary to make it almost impregnable. No artillery fire, however violent and well concentrated, will wipe out a bridgehead which has grown overnight. Nothing less than a well-planned attack will avail. This Russian principle of “bridgeheads everywhere†constitutes a most serious danger and cannot be overrated.
There is again only one sure remedy which must become a principle: If a bridgehead is forming, or an advanced position is being established, attack, attack at once, attack strongly. Hesitation will always be fatal. A delay of an hour may mean frustration, a delay of a few hours does mean frustration, a delay of a day may mean a major catastrophe. Even if there is no more than one infantry platoon and one single tank available, attack! Attack when they are still above ground, when they can still be seen and tackled, when they have had no time as yet to organize their defense, when there are no heavy weapons available. A few hours later will be too late. Delay means disaster: resolute energetic and immediate action means success. ”
– Maj. Gen. F.W. von Mellenthin
The gun made them even more irrelevant in that sense.
But it was never irrelevant to have an officer class that was part of the ruling elite and actually showed up on the battlefield leading their men from in front and dying with them.
Read my response, it wasn’t until very fast firing guns that cavalry became obsolete and they certainly weren’t made obsolete by the longbow.
A longbow can fire faster than a front-loaded gun (see: Lars Andersen), has longer range and more precision than a smoothbore (which has no precision, really), and black powder is a bitch to keep dry, and hard to source locally. They could also use sling-shot bullets and stones, like the ancient Greeks and Romans did, again superior to smoothbore muskets, and the village boys would gladly have taken up that pastime, but the lords understandably were not so keen.
For a fighting force that used bows effectively against guns, look at the Indian wars. Not until the six-shot and the repeating rifle were bowed weapons obsolete.
Armour against bows doesn’t really exist. The French at Agincourt wore armour so heavy that they could not keep up with the lighter-armoured English, but that armour still did not protect them against the armour-piercing spiked arrows.
My contention is that the arms and the training of the European armies was shaped by internal politics and the aristocratic love of war Aidan brought up, rather than by external military demands, or technological limits.
This is not true. The English longbowman was himself a born and trained warrior, who needed to practice daily from the age of six in order to accurately fire bows with draw weights of 150lbs. We see Henry VII actively trying to promote bowmanship in England, offering subsidies for longbows when yew became scarce and the price of bow staves rose.
Such bows had enough force to penetrate armor within 20 feet or so, but the efficacy of both warbow and arquebus against plate mail diminishes rapidly at longer ranges. Plate mail was developed in response to ranged weapons becoming better, and it worked. If there is an armored knight within 20 feet of you, as a bowman or a gunner, it is not looking so good for you. Ponder the amount of time it takes a horse to cover the armor-defeating range of these weapons.
My impression from studying and practicing western martial arts and military history is that everything was done or used because it worked; an absurd amount of care went into optimizing military technology and capacity in those days. When the Swiss proved that disciplined infantry with pikes could defeat a cavalry charge, every European power adopted them, and then when the Landsknechts showed that mixed infantry, putting swordsmen, arquebusiers, and halberdiers among your pikemen, defeated the Swiss pike square, they started doing that.
Cavalry was occasionally misused by some commanders, who were indeed dreaming of the days when the mounted knight was the “killer app” of the battlefield (~1050-1300), but this was the exception rather than the rule.
Bows were obsolete by the Indian wars. Most combat between Indians and American settlers involved both sides using guns despite guns firing much slower than a bow. Bows were still more effective was during an ambush in the forest because bows don’t result in a cloud of gun smoke giving your position away. But for the most part an Injun with a bow was an Injun too poor to buy a real weapon.
An officer in the modern army is a priest. He carries a sidearm. He is a manager, at best, a commissar at worst. Often, he is just another soldier with no deep understanding of war, working his way towards a college degree and lifetime PTSD. A medieval knight was a tank, the apex predator that single-handedly plowed through of scores of enemy peasants.
Some officers are still there, or at least until recently were there, before the poz really set in, because they like it, carrying on with the tradition of tactically useless yet passionate sportsmen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrauBQf7FpI
The short answer to that is no. Longbows made an impact in battles when they had impenetrable positions from which to fire. Outside of a handful of battles, the longbow actually rarely appears. The more ranged weapons became prevalent, the more IMPORTANT cavalry became. It was the massed square of pikemen and halberdiers that put pressure on the mounted knight, but remember that plate mail and the firearm historically coexisted. European warfare in the late medieval period settled into a “rock paper scissors” metagame in which firearms destroyed lightly armored and densely packed pike squares, pikemen defeated cavalry, and cavalry destroyed units of marksmen.
It was not until the invention of the maxim gun that cavalry became obsolete, and was only obsolete until the tank was invented. General Patton was a cavalry officer, and made the transition from horses to tanks with absurd ease. War never changes.
What changed the status dynamic between king and vassal was the cannon, in that when a group of soldiers fought their way into a castle, now they had a castle and thus the king had to be nice to them. (The original knights were slave soldiers known as ministeriales under direct command of kings, who were used by kings as border defense during the Viking era, and then ennobled, because they no longer had to listen to the king after being given castles). When a group of soldiers blows down the castle with a cannon, now they do not have a castle, so the king can give them a medal and a paycheck.
Longbows take intense training over years and years to use effectively, creating its own aristocracy.
It is certainly true that (almost) all men have some capacity for violence that can be unleashed in times of need. But I doubt whether whites will ever again feel like your baron of Provence did. The same thing happened in antiquity: the manly Mediterranean races, first the Greeks and then the Romans, gradually turned into a bunch of tired soft subtle civilized skeptics, with effects that we all know. They still warred, but as a duty, not as a passion. If today’s whites take any pleasure in struggle, it is probably more like the Epicurean Lucretius did:
Suave, mari magno turbantibus aequora ventis
e terra magnum alterius spectare laborem;
non quia vexari quemquamst iucunda voluptas,
sed quibus ipse malis careas quia cernere suavest.
suave etiam belli certamina magna tueri
per campos instructa tua sine parte pericli.
(A joy it is, when the strong winds of storm
Stir up the waters of a mighty sea,
To watch from the shore the troubles of another.
No pleasure this in any man’s distress,
But joy to see the ills from which you are spared,
And joy to see great armies locked in conflict
Across the plains, yourself free from the danger.)
You talk like a fag, and your shit’s all fucked up. There are thousands of young men, myself included, that would have rode down fleeing BLM thugs in technicals in the streets of every major city if it were not for the armed repression of the Amerikaner martial spirit. You might be a faggot butt pussy, but we are not.
I had Antifa marching through my town beating the shit out of random people. If the state security forces wouldn’t have come down like a ton of bricks it would have been open season on those soyboy faggots. They had to give them a fucking police escort to avoid it.
That is why if this ever goes hot we need to do like BLM did and burn down a couple of police stations, preferably with the police inside. “Hey, if you want to avoid becoming a thin blue smear, stay the fuck out of this.” Back the blue? Nah. They stabbed us in the back, they should get it returned in spades. Once you remove the police from the equation, the regime will have to split its loyalists into a thousand different hotspots, and we have seen they cannot manage that anymore.
Wulfgar writes: “Back the blue? Nah.”
It’s true, Antifa do need the police to defend them. It’s great if you live in a place where police are on your side, but don’t count on it — they will obey any order upon which their paycheck depends, and those orders are coming from God Knows Who.
If it “ever goes hot” you might consider retreating to your own property (business, home) and defending it with a rifle fired from the dark against any aggressor, blue or red. Maybe sniper is better tactic than full-on chimp-out, unless it gets *really* hot, in which case it’s just all-out war and forget everything I just said.
The growing use of private security in blue hell hole cities (Minneapolis, Portland) is something to keep an eye on. If they become popular enough, we can simply win by paying out all the cops to switch sides.
White men need to fight in groups, not solo. That’s our great strength. The most important thing men should be doing right now is forming mutual self defense groups and training together. No offensive targets, no political ideology, pure legal self defense and men willing to defend each other and their community who can be called up on a moment’s notice when needed.
Doesn’t even need to be actual self defense training yet. That’s only beginning to happen in South Africa, which is ahead of us. Male bonding and getting to know the able bodied men of your neighborhood is going to be a tremendous help.
For example I occasionally drink with a few of my male neighbors (in a Trump voting small town) and watch a game after the wives, girlfriends, and kids go to bed. We discuss hunting, fishing, and a multitude of topics. These are good guys and we are going to be cooperate/cooperate if shit ever hits the fan.
” With some obvious exceptions (Montaigne, Saint-Simon, Bloy), we can safely affirm that France tends to produce its literature in conformity with the history of that literature. If we compare manuals of French literature (Lanson’s, for example, or Thibaudet’s) with their English equivalents (Saintsbury’s or Sampson’s), we discover, not without surprise, that the latter consist of conceivable human beings, and the former, of schools, manifestos, generations, avant-gardes, rear guards, lefts and rights, cenacles, and allusions to the tortuous fate of Captain Dreyfus. The strangest part is that reality corresponds to those frantic abstractions: before writing a line, the Frenchman wants to understand, define, classify himself. The Englishman writes in good faith, the Frenchman in favor of a, against b, conforming to c, toward d…. He wonders (let us say): What kind of sonnet would be composed by a young atheist with a Catholic background, born and bred in Nivernais but of Breton stock, and affiliated with the communist Party since 1944? Or, more technically: How should one apply the vocabulary and methods of Zola’s Les RougonÂMacquart to the elaboration of an epic poem on the fishermen of Morbihan, combining Fenelon’s ardor with Rabelais’ garrulous profusion and, of course, without ignoring a psychoanalytical interpretation of the figure of Merlin? This system of premeditation, the mark of French literature, fills its pages with compositions of a classical rigor, but also with fortunate, or unfortunate, extravagances. In fact, when a French man of letters professes a doctrine, he always applies it to the end, with a kind of ferocious integrity. Racine and Mallarme are the same writer (I hope this metaphor is acceptable), executing with the same decorum two dissimilar tasks …. To mock excessive foreÂthought is not difficult; it is important to remember, however, that it has proÂduced French literature, perhaps the finest in the world.
Of all the obligations that an author can impose upon himself, the most common and doubtless the most harmful is that of being modern. “Il faut etre absolument moderne” [One must be absolutely modern], Rimbaud decided, a temporal limitation corresponding to the triviality of such braggadocio as being hermetically Danish or inextricably Argentine. Schopenhauer (Welt als Wille und Vorstellung II, 15) concludes that the greatest imperfection of the human intellect is its successive, linear character, its tie to the present; to venerate that imperfection is an unfortunate whim. Guillaume Apollinaire embraced, justified, and preached it to his contemporaries. What is more, he devoted himself to that imperfection. He did so – remember the poem “La Jolie Rousse” – with an admirable and clear conscience of the sad dangers of his adventure.
Those dangers were real; today, like yesterday, the general value of Apollinaire’s work is more documentary than aesthetic. We visit it to recover the flavor of the “modern” poetry of the first decades of our century. Not a single line allows us to forget the date on which it was written – an error not incurred, for example, in the contemporary works of Valery, Rilke, Yeats, Joyce…. (Perhaps, for the future, the only achievement of “modern” literature will be the unfathomable Ulysses, which in some way justifies, includes, and goes beyond the other texts.)
To place Apollinaire’s name next to Rilke’s might seem anachronistic, so close is the latter to us, so distant (already) is the former. However, Das Buch der Bilder [The Book of Pictures], which includes the inexhaustible “Herbst-tag” [Autumn Day], is from 1902; Calligrammes, from 1918. Apollinaire, adorning his compositions with trolleys, airplanes, and other vehicles, did not identify with his times, which are our times.
For the writers of 1918, the war was what Tiberius Claudius Nero was for a professor of rhetoric: “mud kneaded with blood.” They all perceived it thus, Unruh as well as Barbusse, Wilfred Owen as well as Sassoon, the solitary Klemm as well as the frequented Remarque. (Paradoxically, one of the first poets to emphasize the monotony, tedium, desperation, and physical humiliations of contemporary war was Rudyard Kipling, in his BarrackÂRoom Ballads of 1903.) For Artillery Lieutenant Guillaume Apollinaire, war was, above all, a beautiful spectacle. His poems and his letters express this. Guillermo de Torre, the most devoted and lucid of his critics, observes: “In the long nights of the trenches, the soldier-poet could contemplate the sky starred with mortar fire, and imagine new constellations.” Thus Apollinaire fancied himself attending a dazzling spectacle in “La Nuit d’avril 1915”:
Le ciel est etoile par les a bus des Boches
La fo ret merveilleuse au je vis donne un bal
[The sky is starry with Bache shells/The marvelous forest where I live is giving a ball]
A letter dated July 2 confirms this: “War is decidedly a beautiful thing and, despite all the risks I run, the exhaustion, the total lack of water, of everything, I am not unhappy to be here …. The place is very desolate, neither water, nor trees, nor villages are here, only the super-metallic, archÂthundering war.”
The meaning of a sentence, like that of an isolated word, depends on the context, which sometimes can be the entire life of its author. Thus the phrase “war is a beautiful thing” allows for many interpretations. Uttered by a South American dictator, it could express his hope of throwing incendiary bombs on the capital of a neighboring country. Coming from a journalist, it could signify his firm intention to adulate that dictator in order to obtain a good position in his administration. A sedentary man of letters could be suggesting his nostalgia for a life of adventure. For Guillaume Apollinaire, on the battleÂfields of France, it signifies, I believe, a frame of mind that ignores horror effortlessly, an acceptance of destiny, a kind of fundamental innocence. It is not unlike that Norwegian who conquered six feet of English earth and, what is more, nicknamed the battle Viking Feast; not unlike the immortal and unÂknown author of the Chanson de Roland, singing to the brilliance of a sword:
E Durendal, cum ies clere et blanche
Cuntre soleil si reluis et refeambes
[And Durendal, how you are bright and white/Against the sun you glitter and shine]
Apollinaire’s line, “The marvelous forest where I live is giving a ball,” is not a rigorous description of the artillery exchanges of 1915, but it is an accurate portrait of Apollinaire. Although he lived his days among the baladins of Cubism and Futurism, he was not a modern man. He was somewhat less complex and more happy, more ancient, and stronger. (He was so unmodern that modernity seemed picturesque, and perhaps even moving, to him.) He was the “winged and sacred thing” of Platonic dialogue; he was a man of elemenÂtal and, therefore, eternal feelings; he was, when the fundaments of earth and sky shook, the poet of ancient courage and ancient honor. His legacy is these pages that move us like the nearness of the sea: “La Chanson du mal-aime,” “Desir,” ” Merveilles de la guerre,” “Tristesse d’une etoile;’ ” La Jolie Rousse.” ”
[1946]
Jorge Luis Borges
[SJL]
Sort of interesting article describes that there is potentially non-pozzed three stars in the US Army still, one being a Flynn. Maybe the military is not a total lost hope just yet…
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/12/09/guard-leaders-push-back-army-january-6-report-523995
“This underlying Teutonic religion, which we must call Protestantism for lack of a better name, is anterior to Christianity and can survive it. To identify it with the Gospel may have seemed possible so long as, in opposition to pagan Christianity, the Teutonic spirit could appeal to the Gospel for support. The Gospel has indeed nothing pagan about it, but it has also nothing Teutonic; and the momentary alliance of two such disparate forces must naturally cease with the removal of the common enemy which alone united them. The Gospel is unworldly, disenchanted, ascetic; it treats ecclesiastical establishments with tolerant contempt, conforming to them with indifference; it regards prosperity as a danger, earthly ties as a burden, Sabbaths as a superstition; it revels in miracles; it is democratic and antinomian; it loves contemplation, poverty, and solitude; it meets sinners with sympathy and heartfelt forgiveness, but Pharisees and Puritans with biting scorn. In a word, it is a product of the Orient, where all things are old and equal and a profound indifference to the business of earth breeds a silent dignity and high sadness in the spirit. Protestantism is the exact opposite of all this. It is convinced of the importance of success and prosperity; it abominates what is disreputable; contemplation seems to it idleness, solitude selfishness, and poverty a sort of dishonourable punishment. It is constrained and punctilious in righteousness; it regards a married and industrious life as typically godly, and there is a sacredness to it, as of a vacant Sabbath, in the unoccupied higher spaces which such an existence leaves for the soul. It is sentimental, its ritual is meagre and unctuous, it expects no miracles, it thinks optimism akin to piety, and regards profitable enterprise and practical ambition as a sort of moral vocation. Its Evangelicalism lacks the notes, so prominent in the gospel, of disillusion, humility, and speculative detachment. Its benevolence is optimistic and aims at raising men to a conventional well-being; it thus misses the inner appeal of Christian charity which, being merely remedial in physical matters, begins by renunciation and looks to spiritual freedom and peace.
“Protestantism was therefore attached from the first to the Old Testament, in which Hebrew fervour appears in its worldly and pre-rational form. It is not democratic in the same sense as post-rational religions, which see in the soul an exile from some other sphere wearing for the moment, perhaps, a beggar’s disguise: it is democratic only in the sense of having a popular origin and bending easily to popular forces. Swayed as it is by public opinion, it is necessarily conventional in its conception of duty and earnestly materialistic; for the meaning of the word vanity never crosses the vulgar heart. In fine, it is the religion of a race young, wistful, and adventurous, feeling its latent potentialities, vaguely assured of an earthly vocation, and possessing, like the barbarian and the healthy child, pure but unchastened energies. Thus in the Protestant religion the faith natural to barbarism appears clothed, by force of historical accident, in the language of an adapted Christianity.”
—George Santayana, The Life of Reason (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/15000)
Replace “Protestantism” with “jimianity”.
By the way, this is the guy who said, “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”.
You can tell which gospel was favored in people’s hearts by how they named their children. American Protestantism had a lot of Old Testament names because the lessons of the bronze age were near and dear to the hearts of those who had a savage continent to settle and conquer. Not seeing that in Lutheranism or Anglicanism.
Santayana is a leftist who is muddying the waters. His description of the “natural Teutonic religion” is in fact a description of the ethos of the merchant caste, an ethos which is ritually hated by marxists. He is using fancy language to say “>muh protestant work ethic”, which has very little to do with “the faith natural to barbarism”. He conflates the two in a way which is very difficult to disentangle, because he does not understand either.
The faith natural to barbarism is natural in that it accommodates a culture and a society where you can get away with a lot of personal violence, and your status largely depends on the personal violence you can get away with. Pushtanwalla, the culture of Afghanistan, is this, plus a rule that you need large scale social consensus that the people you killed needed killing, or else you are likely to find that when you get killed, there is a social consensus that you needed killing. Talibanic Islam is Pushtanwalla with a large dollop of Islam on top.
Christianity is not necessarily in conflict with the culture and society of barbarism, as exemplified by the pioneers as they pushed further westwards, but in such a society adds the requirement of the other cheek and extra mile, which the settlers, or at least those of them such as Daniel Boone, that have come down to us heroes, as leaders of men, and as people to be emulated, generally did observe. The conditions under which you are allowed, and sometimes required, to wipe out the Indians and take their land are restrictive, but the Indians kept walking into those conditions.
In twelfth and thirteenth century Europe there was a revival of secure property rights, at first for the nobility but rapidly filtering down to all gentlemen, and “muh protestant work ethic” so detested by the left is the faith natural to such a society. Secure property rights are natural to societies ruled by Kings through well behaved elites. Of course well behaved elites tend to be cohesive, a cohesive well behaved elite leads to a Republic, Kinglessness leads to a badly hehaved incohesive elite, a badly behaved incohesive elite leads to democracy, which leads to kleptocracy, which leads to Caesar, and here we are in a kleptocracy. Caesar will appear soon enough. I was hoping that Trump would be Caesar, despite being a merchant and deal maker, but in the end his merchant nature bit him, trying to make deals with those with whom no deal is possible.
At the moment we have neither the personal violence that leads to the faith natural to barbarism, nor the secure property rights that lead to “muh protestant property ethic”. The holy faith of leftism has envy as the highest nobility, and spite as sacrament. Which is the faith natural to democracy, since the leadership is always buying votes with what belongs to other people.
What we really urgently need, and that I am deploying with good effect, is a faith that supports “”My woman, my kids”.
One more thing to note is that the monastics were not really communist, nor were the ‘communes’ of medieval Europe. The revival of secure property rights in the 12th century allowed monasteries to function as corporations, and villages would incorporate as something very similar to sovereign corporations, immediate under the king rather than a nobleman, but in no way resembling communism. The sale of shares in private enterprise goes back to the 13th century, but these indicators of early capitalism were butchered by Marx into a justification of socialism.
Secure property rights are a refinement of the barbaric ethos- my cattle, my land, my woman, my kids. It was likely patriarchy that preceded property rights in goods rather than vice versa.
I have always thought it was vice versa, because patriarchy mostly arose among pastoral cultures where the main source of wealth lends itself naturally to a notion of individual property. Pure farming cultures tend to be matriarchal and communist and think that no one can own the earth, and if anyone owns its produce, the person who planted and harvested does—the “labor theory of value” in the Stone Age. No one owned land until pastoralists met and conquered farmers.
Lenin would be proud of you.
Farming cultures are natural patriarchies — the man oversees the land, maintains the farm, generally has a lot of freedom to do as he pleases. It is pretty literally Jim’s ‘every man a king under his roof’.
If you’re talking early farming cultures Feanor is generally right…
Remember the meme of the earth mother goddess going subscribe to my altarfans incels.
From what I’ve seen of modern farming cultures I find it hard to believe.
@alf
Every civilized farming culture since the start of the Bronze Age bears the mark of the pastoralists who invaded and conquered everything around that time, as Aidan says below. For an unadulterated Neolithic-style farming culture, look at West Africa. (American negroes of course retain most of the social patterns of their ancestors as well, and they seem to tend towards communism and matriarchy almost by nature—it was not imposed on them by progs, rather they are holy in the prog religion because of this tendency.)
> (American negroes of course retain most of the social patterns of their ancestors as well, and they seem to tend towards communism and matriarchy almost by nature—it was not imposed on them by progs, rather they are holy in the prog religion because of this tendency.)
I’m not seeing that. In America blacks become dominated by women at the same time whites did, IE it was imposed from above. The closer one is to being a hunter gather the more socialist a group is and blacks are undeniably not very far from their hunter gather roots.
With farming it isn’t possible to be socialist because the ideal and the worthless will gather from your fields and hunt your livestock. Farming fails every time private property rights are removed.
The waters of history are a bit muddy on that because of the tendency of pastoralists to conquer farmers and impose their social technology on them.
A farmer is king under his own roof as long as he can defend his farm. To prevent the hungry and idle from simply coercing the productive to feed them, need property to be sacred, so that men can cooperate to mutually defend each other’s farms.
All of the social technology we know about regarding sacred property originates in pastoralists. “communist matriarchy” might be a bit of an exaggeration, but it looks a lot to me that men did not start building cities until pastoralists conquered farmers and began enforcing property rights among them. I personally suspect that agriculture was known about for millennia before it began to be widely practiced, but farming-only cultures were unstable and swiftly collapsed into socialism before pastoralists captured farmers and enforced their social technology on them.
Many early farming societies lack large buildings characteristic of an elite or hierarchy, but this simply suggests to me that the rulers were pastoralists who roamed the surrounding area.
Santayana was not a leftist. The passages I quotes were indeed a little unfairly derogatory, but if you read on you will see that he does do full justice to it, he does not condemn it.
Santayana is a leftist, and does condemn protestantism for its focus on the virtue of living one’s ordinary life of work well.
The core leftist objection to Christianity is that it has near its heart of the civilized values of the Bronze Age that Israel inherited from its pastoralist forefathers and that Moses preserved through Bronze Age decadence, that rightly obtained capital, used wisely and well, is virtuous, and coveting other people’s material success is sinful.
And when Santayana complains that Protestantism set Christianity back a thousand years, he means it was getting away from that horrible primitive ignorance, and in its quest to return to first millenium Christian roots, it was restoring that ancient social technology.
The great virtue of Protestantism is that it did set Christianity back a thousand years, and Moses set the worship of God back several centuries.
Where does he say that? Santayana just points out that Judean Christianity and later Northern Christianity are different and incompatible in spirit, but I do not see him saying that unworldly Christianity is necessarily better than practical Christianity, or even that civilization is better than semi-barbarism. He says elsewhere for instance: “If an ascetic ideal could for a moment seem acceptable, it was because the decadence and sophistication of the world had produced a great despair in all noble minds; and they thought it better that an eye or a hand which had offended should perish, and that they should enter blind and maimed into the kingdom of heaven, than that, whole and seeing, they should remain for ever in hell-fire.”
The most important part to me of what I quoted in the OP is this: “the momentary alliance of two such disparate forces must naturally cease with the removal of the common enemy which alone united them.” This is an apprehension I have had for some time. In the case referred to, the common enemy was the Catholic Church, and in our case the common enemy is progressivism. It is a historical fact that can easily be discerned in 18th and 19th century English history, that Protestantism (and its intellectualization, science) gradually and steadily shed the dogmas it had inherited from the Church and the Gospel. This is not necessarily bad in itself, but England thereby left itself without a language to articulate its own values, because, though that articulation was bound up to the forms of historical Christianity, it was not identical to them and could not easily be recovered from them—we know how this ended. And isn’t this proved by the fact that you have to “explain” old-type Christianity every day? You can read the Bible and not see it, and if you read the New Testament and do see it, you are making a mistake. Santayana’s thesis is that Protestantism was a half-way house, that the syncretism which it tries to effect between itself and Gospel mythology is unstable. The point of religion is to use symbols and stories to ease the transmission of complex experiences, and it is necessary that a faith that wants to survive a long time make its symbols and stories as unambiguous as possible. The form should reflect the content. The form should be compatible, and only compatible, with the intended faith. And the important thing is that this objection has already proven valid, because Protestantism died, in matter of fact Protestantism morphed into its own murderer. The Puritans who came to America had a hard-on for Bronze Age social technology too, and we see what happened there.
Christ was reviving the spirit of the law, when legalism had taken the Judaism of his times further and further from the spirit and intent. Christianity is a revival of the spirit of the law, and Protestantism was in substantial part a well deserved rebellion against Roman Catholicism that had drifted further and further from the spirit of the law, the most notorious and infamous example being indulgences, which Chaucer rips into, and the disinclination of monks and nuns to engage in the focus on ritual and spiritual contemplation that is supposedly the reason for the existence of their monasteries and nunneries, which disinclination got them ripped a new asshole during the dissolution of the monasteries.
Santayana focuses on that moment in Christianity’s decadence that is most compatible with left wing decadence, and tells us that is the real thing.
I cannot quote Santayana, but I dimly recall he rips into Protestantism a lot, from a supposedly Christian frame, but actually left wing atheist postchristian frame.
Also he is just full of shit. True that Christianity adapted itself to different times and different peoples, but the basic idea of Christianity is that you apply the spirit of the law to the present situation and present people, rather than the letter, which was for a bunch of nomadic bronze age pastoralists settling newly conquered lands, and Santayana is devalorizing Christianity because it has repeatedly made such adaptations. And if I get my way, will adapt to our times and our circumstances.
But the incompatibility of spirit is simply bogus. They all, to the extent that they were not decadent and corrupt, were applying one spirit of the law to different times and peoples. The Protestant focus on living this life well was a result both of the rise of the bourgeoisie, and gross decadence of monasteries and nunneries.
And Christianity now needs to deal with the internet, which is it doing rather well, and a grossly cucked and decadent priesthood full of faggots and postchristian entryists, which it is dealing with very poorly.
No they did not. The settlers developed, of necessity, a hard on for Bronze age moral imperatives. The Puritans were holiness spiraling the protestant return to old Christianity, but inevitably the holiness spiral degenerated into a new Christianity, which in due course became a new postchristianity.
Santayana is giving us the postchristian, postmodern, spin on Christianity.
Christ was indeed an opponent of the Judaism at the time, and the political stupidity of the Pharisees no doubt influenced his attitude towards them. But I think an honest and unbiased reading of the New Testament will not reveal a Christ sticking up for hale practicality. Christ hated legalism because, in his eyes, it separated God from man. He hated everything natural, concrete, fixed, temporal, because they separated God from man. He believed that man would receive his blessedness directly, not through rituals and priests, but neither through success and women. And it was the blessedness which he sought.
It is only with the understanding that Christianity was “unworldly, disenchanted, ascetic” that we can understand why Christ says: “Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?” Or why Paul says, “God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are.” These are not out-of-context quotes, the whole New Testament is like this. Even when Christ takes it on himself to preach morality, his real standard for condemning any course of action, it seems to me, is that it separates man from blessedness (“the Kingdom of God”). He does not teach forgiveness and mercy because they are useful, but because, for a certain kind of person, the denial of the offensive and defensive instincts leads to happiness and inner peace, and Christ saw this happiness and inner peace as the only important thing in the world.
The entire mythological system cannot possibly make any sense from the North-European point of view: why would the preacher of hardheaded practical common sense have been poor, despised, celibate, subjected to the great penal indignity of crucifixion next to two thieves? In later Christianity this is a “mystery” that simply must be accepted, or it has some stupid theological meaning, but in primitive Christianity it is the greatest symbol of the inner meaning of the faith. One of your other posts on this page seems to indicate that you are aware that the Essenes were related to Jesus and the apostles, and the Essenes were so ascetic and world-denying that after a game of telephone the elder Pliny tells us that they are “a nation living alone, and beyond all others throughout the world wonderful: without any women, casting off the whole of Venus: without money […] and such as are weary of life are by the waves of fortune driven thither to their manner of living.”
That Roman Catholicism was at least somewhat corrupt cannot be denied. But I am doubtful that it was the existence of corruption in itself that was decisive in the birth of Protestantism: that was the rationalization, true, the spark, maybe, but under it was the profound hatred of the Northern European towards the ideals which Rome stood for. A Southern European may hate corruption, he may even try to reform corruption as much as he can, but he will not rebel against the Church, or try to destroy it or separate from it, because the Catholic Church is basically in tune with his racial nature. If we read stuff by monks and founders of monastic orders (like the letter of Rancé) we see them lament monks’ “disinclination to engage in contemplation”, but they do not conclude that they should therefore quit and take up farming. As often happens, the Reformers attacked the weakness to kill the strength. They hated the degeneracy of the monasteries, but they hated just as much, if not more, the asceticism of the monasteries.
It’s not “the real thing”, just a different thing. The point is: under one name there have been many faiths.
Santayana is focusing on the beginning, the first century. Christianity had elements of decadence then, because it was an age of decadence.
You recall wrong. Santayana was an avowed atheist who retained great affection for the Catholicism of his youth. His objections to Protestantism are largely what you would expect a South European Catholic to have (it’s vulgar, it’s noisy, etc). He had little interest in politics but was basically a conservative.
No, it actually did separate God from man, because it abandoned the spirit and intent of the law. Whited Sepulchers full of bones and rotteness.
Nuts.
You have not been reading the New Testament. You have been reading the prog atheist rendition of the New Testament.
Nuts.
That is the basis of monasticism, and monasticism was never for everyone, or even for very many.
Progs want Christians to aspire to monasticism, because economically communist. Immediately after Christ’s death, Christians had a go at monastic communimsm for the whole Christian community, and immediately ran into the usual problems, and at the time of Acts of the apostles, seem to have largely forgotten about it. If Christ intended all Christians to live like that, which is an arguable spin on his words, the disciples very quickly came to the conclusion that he did not.
Nuts.
The entire mythological system is prefigured by Wotan being hung from a tree for nine days and stabbed with a spear while hanging from the tree, hence the propensity of Northern Europeans to this day to refer to the cross as the tree. It has more Northern European echoes than it has Egyptian echoes. Wotan miraculously failed to die, and Christ one upped him by coming back from the dead.
Rest of prog bible deleted, because it is just too tedious to fisk it line by line.
Santayana is ripping lines out of the whole context of the New and Old Testaments, and giving them their prog reading. Hey you dumb ignorant Christians. If you knew what Christianity actually was, and wanted to be truly Christian, you would be communist like me.
Tityrus replied to this comment, accusing me of being one of the horrible intolerant Christians that George Santayana imagines, and giving a long, learned and well argued argument, which argument was lifted wholesale from George Santayana, that the various totally incompatible Christianities that George Santayana invented were real religions.
I replied “bullshit”, and attempted to fisk his reply, but the reply was long, the fisking got longer, and I deleted both his lengthy comment and my lengthy reply. I am not going to give our enemies a platform, when they have all of Academia as their platform, and I was just spending too much space and time replying.
We need to listen to our enemies and respond to them, and I should have let his comment through, with a reply. But I have other things to do, and really, George Santayana just goes on forever.
The short of it is that George Santayana’s thesis is that there is no thread of continuity running through Old and New Testaments to the current day. He attempts to cut Christianity off from its roots, and to this end marshals an endless multitude of irrelevant and trivial details, magnifies them to immensity, and ignores everything that actually matters.
And putting each of these many trivia back in their proper place and proper context got long really fast.
I am a proudly intolerant Christian, and I vote that we hand Titty-rus the Faggot over to The Cominator to be burned at the stake as a heretic.
Jim, it is unfortunate that you deleted my post.
I really must protest. The thesis is not original to George Santayana, and I was having these thoughts well before I read the Life of Reason. I had started and left off many comments trying to explain my position, often quitting because I apprehended that you would not be receptive (which is how it turned out). I was reading, saw this passage and saw that it fit perfectly and would save me the trouble of typing my own comment, and so I posted it. And really I would have to type many more thousands of words to fully explain everything I think you get wrong (tempting prospect I know).
I am not an enemy. I think you are making a mistake about the Christianity stuff, that is why I’m trying to correct it.
To cut Christianity off by its roots, you have to believe that historical Christianity is like a plant, that is rooted firmly and fundamentally in the Gospel. But the thesis is: forms are stable, it is the spirit changes. Under “faith”, the instinct play their game. And we see this every day, because everywhere in the West, progressive morality has taken over organized Christianity. Where indeed did you find your faith? It was not too many years ago, as one can see right on this blog, that you were ironic towards Christianity and did not try to base your assertions in the Bible, and yet your faith was the same as it is now. This suggests that what you read into every historical expression of Christianity is nothing but the natural religious sense of Northern Europe.
I say this is an imperfect marriage. We should strive to perfect the language with which we express important truths. The great thing about our historical moment is that the fall and decrepitude of all old-style authority gives us a somewhat freer scope than the old-type people had. Protestants had to rebel against what was then considered Christianity while pretending to reform it. We are not forced to pretend to do anything. As I said in another comment, I do not think we should throw away old-type Christianity (neither did Santayana). But to see clearly what old-type Christianity is cannot possibly be harmful for us—unless we are already committed to an untenable program of restoration.
The spirit of Christianity is unchanging.
Obviously the New Testament is rooted firmly in the Old, and Christianity rooted firmly in the New
And this obviously and undeniable truth is what Santayana is attempting to deny, or rather to claim is irrelevant or meaningless.
The forms are unstable, and adapt to social and technological change. The spirit goes all the way back to the beginning, Christ’s spirit of the law.
Santayana’s thesis is so obviously stupid and absurd that he cannot come right out and say it, so dances around it with a cloud of ridiculous, trivial, and irrelevant obfuscatory details. It is just magicians patter, watch what the off hand is doing.
You, and Santayana, are just being silly. The decadence of the monasteries, and stuff like selling indulgences, had been crying out for reform for century after century. The protestants truthfully claimed continuity with an older, less decadent Christianity. They claimed that they were returning to the original thread from which the Roman Catholic Church had deviated.
And today, when we look into the mouth of the serpent, we see that it has.
The Protestants were wrong to abandon apostolic succession, but conveniently the Roman Catholic Church has furtively abandoned apostolic succession. Only the latin mass Roman Catholics are still actually practicing it.
Smells a lot like entryism…..
In a sense it’s a shame you fall back on Santana for authority, as I know nothing about him and a cursory wiki search tells me he is a run of the mill Harvard cuckservative.
But to address your point, insofar Jim has not already exhaustively addressed it: there is a reason Christianity has extensive defenses against outside additions, or as you say, ‘perfecting the language’. 999 times out of a 1000, such an addition is a bad thing, not good. Santana’s and your interpretation of Christianity seem to pretty clearly fall in that 999 category.
It is absolutely not obvious and undeniable. At this point we are getting close to the state of mind in which the Church long ago decreed that the epistles of Paul are direct communications of the Holy Ghost—that is, the complete denial of the applicability of history and criticism to scripture. If Christianity is not liable to the changes that every doctrine and institution is subject to, then it is really a very remarkable thing.
Neither I nor Santayana have offered any obfuscatory details. It is not absurd, it is obviously true, which I think is prompting you to respond like this.
Should I clarify? I am not a Christian. Most additions are bad, but I do not propose to add to Christianity. I say in another comment that we need a new religion. People like to liken our times to the late stage of the Roman empire. Is Jim not a kind of emperor Julian figure, trying to revive a dead religion, in a kind of purified allegorical philosophical form, because “that’s what worked for our ancestors”?
Very possibly, but if Christianity was quite dead, you guys would not fear it so much. Every Christmas I see our elite shitting themselves.
As we’d say in my language, the best sailors are on land. If you truly think this, you are free to start your own religion.
In mortal distress, there is little difference between a poison and a placebo. Which is to say, we should try to avoid ineffective remedies.
To reiterate my thought—the regime fears your faith (really our faith, but you don’t believe me), but that faith is underserved by the forms that it now inhabits.
Our faith? You do not strike me as a Christian. Why not prove it by taking the demon worshipper test? Have you answered it yet?
George Santayana represents himself as a non Christian conservative sympathetic to Christianity. He is not a conservative and not sympathetic to Christianity. And Tityrus similarly represents himself.
Wulfgar wrote: “Our faith? You do not strike me as a Christian. Why not prove it by taking the demon worshipper test? Have you answered it yet?”
Tityrus wrote: “I am not a Christian.”
However, Tiityrus also wrote: “the regime fears your faith (really our faith, ….)”
And now I have no idea what is going on here.
I know exactly what is going on here. Tityrus is playing the same game as George Santayana.
George Santayana is a left atheist who attacks Christianity under the guise of being a conservative non Christian sympathetic to and supportive of Christianity.
George Santayana is a similar thing as a shill, but higher level. Unlike a shill, he is not scripted, not robotic, and he does not flat out lie about his identity. But he does not come entirely clean about his identity either. He positions his attacks to get inside by sounding helpful and sympathetic, while injecting the usual attack payload.
Such people should be engaged, and not simply moderated. But engaged with due caution.
He is a pozzed, crypto-commie entryist trying to spray his viral load all over our discussion. That is all he is, just not a very good one. He did, “Hello, fellow White man,” and,“As a Jew, blah blah…” in the same damned thread. They are not sending the best, but I think he is their best.
I have been giving words of encouragement to our shills as I moderate, in an effort to get a better quality of shill. This is a better quality of shill. A huge improvement on the troofers, the ones who are telling us that Rothschilds rule the world, the third positionists, and so on and so forth.
‘Now im not saying my chosen stalking-horse was a postchristian atheist, but he was a postchristian athesist.’
– t. tityrus
Like I said, he sucks. He might suck less than the normal shills, but that is a bar so low it is no achievement at all. The elite is shit, and this is more evidence of it. This is their best, and it is so obviously an infiltrator it is sad. I fear your attempt to reach the elite is doomed to failure. The elite is so incapable and primitive that there is almost no chance that they can understand you, let alone come to an agreement.
Pseudo-Chrysostom, Jim recalled wrong in thinking that Santayana was coming from a “supposedly Christian frame”, which I take to mean that he pretended to be a Christian while not really believing in Christianity. I said: he did not pretend to be a Christian, but he retained an interest in religion and the spiritual life, which is why he wrote so much about it.
Santayana wrote so much about “religion and the spiritual life” out of hatred while pretending affection, but his mask keeps slipping.
All his very different and unrelated Christianities are different things our enemies tell us we believe and want us to believe, but they are not what is the old or new testaments, nor were they official position of any of the official churches he attributes them to.
This is a bait and switch tactic, motte and bailey tactic.
“Christians are always saying X”
“What! No they are not. Link me to one website that says X.”
“X is in the New Testament.”
“Not the one I read.”
One moment X is an official, much preached doctrine, the next it is an implicit consequence of the doctrine, the next it is the doctrine they should have had if only Christians read the New Testament the way our enemies read it for us.
There were real differences between the Christians who lived by kissing the emperor’s ass until he was conquered by barbarians, and the barbarian christians who conquered them, and between christian pioneers and the Christian urban bourgeois elites, reflecting their different lives and different characters. But what was common to them was Christianity, and what was different between them was their particular lives, character, and circumstances.
Jim, as I said before, I am not a shill, and George Santayana was not a shill (it is hilarious that you insinuate this: few writers are more detached, speculative, and apolitical than Santayana).
I said “our faith” because my entire point was that the faith is not Christianity, but something that can be prescinded from Christianity.
Oh come on. He affects a detached, speculative, and apolitical tone, but the payload is far from detached and apolitical. Though this would have been far more obvious in the sixteenth century, when religious issues were hot, political, and covered in blood.
If he had come up with that stuff in the sixteenth century, someone would probably have killed him in political outrage.
The hot burning issue of the sixteenth century was who was truer heir to the ancient tradition of the old and new testaments since the official church had lots of status, power, and money, and since his payload is “nobody”, they probably all would have been in line to kill him. Pretty sure Charles the Fair would have had him assassinated in no time flat. Henry the eighth would not have been happy with him either.
And your, and his, absurd holiness spiraled spin on turning the other cheek and the good Samaritan is political right now.
The payload promised by Jesus and Paul to earthly sovereigns was a state religion that would support the authority of legitimate secular authorities in earthly matters, because the Priest King is safely up in heaven, so high priests will not be butting heads with the earthly King. As events turned out, the Church was a repository of old and good social technology, valuable and effective in creating and maintaining a well functioning society. Which social technology turned to $#!% when Popes started butting heads with Kings. So, claiming you have a pipeline to the good old stuff was effective through much of history in obtaining status, power, and wealth – and because they did in fact have a pipeline to good old social technology, or at least some of the many factions that have made this claim did, it worked. It was, and an inherently political claim, and denying it an inherently political claim. Not so much today, when ruling Church no longer claims descent from Christianity.
Today, however, what Christianity commands and commanded of individuals is very much a hot political claim right now.
Presentist bias.
In 1905 America, the leading edge of the left in power was the super protestants, more protestant than thou, more Chrisitian than thow, who were not yet openly post christian, but in retrospect had obviously been postchristian since the civil war, forty five years earlier. So it was still true in 1905 America that who was the true heir to the old and new testaments was a crucial political issue, though the mask was slipping. When the mask fell off completely, they swiftly rewrote history that they had never been wearing that mask. Santayana was cooking up the rationale that it had always been a mask, to deal with the increasingly severe mask slippage of the ever more blatantly post Christian Christians.
The meaning of walking the extra mile is clear enough in the context of the new testament as a whole, and the Good Samaritan is clear enough all by itself. These have never meant for Christians what the left entryists against Christianity want it to mean for Christians.
They originated in the early bronze age, and from time some group carrying on that tradition has polished them up a bit further. Santayana’s story is that they are all different inventions, because he was speaking on behalf of a heresy that had obviously discarded the deep past, so he told us that everyone had always discarded the deep past.
Seems like you accidentally wrote over my comment.
So they offered two rationales according to you: one, that leftism was never Protestant (and this is indeed memoryholed as Moldbug pointed out long ago), and two, the one you attribute to Santayana, that there have been many Christianities. The latter thesis does not seem helpful to me in any way, unless you mean that the leftists used it to insinuate that Bronze Age social technology is not historically normative. This, however, doesn’t follow from what Santayana wrote. Santayana himself had no problems with Bronze Age social technology and does not call it into question (except to the extent that a philosopher calls everything into question). And as I have said many times before, and is obvious from his letters and his autobiography if you read them, he was not a leftist, and his ideas do not spring from leftist motives; in fact he is semi-canceled for insufficient leftism: see this essay from 1952 by some Jew who condemns Santayana for his “defense of monarchy, the subordination of women, the elimination by government of ‘political vermin'”: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2378964.
I think you should at least read the chapter from which the original quote came from to understand the context (Chapter VII, Book 3), and also Chapter IV: The Poetry of Christian Dogma from Interpretations of Poetry and Religion, if you have the time and are so inclined of course. Santayana takes hold of the subject from a different angle than you do, and this is causing very subtle misunderstandings.
I do that a lot, by accident. I regret doing so, and will try not to do it again.
1905 leftism was not acceptable in 1933, and 1933 leftism is more or less nazism, not acceptable today, though the left has memory holed their 1933 positions. Since Santayana’s shtick was being sympathetic to Christianity and conservatism, he did not get the white wash.
What I see in Santayana is him telling Christians what Christianity is about, and what he is telling us is not what Christianity is about, it is what the enemies of Christianity tell Christians Christianity is about.
This is functionally equivalent to saying “the fact that people believe in marxism proves that marxism is true; after all, why else would you need to ‘explain away’ the claims of marxism?”
My point was, many parts of the faith are exterior and alien to the stories and the symbols which supposedly express it, and therefore your Christian restorationist has to “explain” his positions into the stories and symbols, in a somewhat ad hoc and arbitrary fashion. Jim is good on the Old Testament, he understands the Old Testament better than most scholars. But if you scroll down right on this page, you will see embarrassed and embarrassing discussions on “turn the other cheek” and other problematic positions of Jesus—positions which my understanding of the Gospel has no trouble with.
Nuts. It is your position, the officially mainstream position, the fake consensus, that is silly and embarrassing.
One cheek, one extra mile. In the game theoretic language of Dark Enlightenment, one tit for two tats. All Christians, when attending Church, have always been required to say “Peace on Earth to all men of goodwill”, or some similar formulation – which implies that Christians can do something about men of bad will – and that the Church has always thought that they could. Just war doctrine in some form or other goes fourteen centuries back. Your strained, artificial, and unreasonable interpretation of “turn the other cheek” has never been part of the mainstream of Christianity. It is just leftists telling Christians they should be doormats so that leftists can walk over them.
Jim, you are right about what the Church taught. It is indeed a reasonable doctrine. But it is just not what Christ taught, it is a late misinterpretation, or rather motivated interpretation. You have to torture the Gospel and the life of Christ to make it affirm war and conquest. People did it, of course, and they were right in doing so. Of course I do not believe that Christ was god and therefore do not rule out a priori that he believed some silly mystical things. But my reconstruction of Judean Christianity that I have outlined is not impossible or “morally idealistic”: it is always possible to be a Christian in the sense of Christ, but it is an individual faith, not a state religion. Maybe it is a dumb faith—I should clarify that I take no sides. But that is what is in the book, when you read it with historically informed and psychologically sensitive eyes.
Mostly trivia, but the churches in my region go further in reading Luke 2:14 as using a genitive form of “goodwill” (eudokia) following early manuscripts:
Glory to God in the highest, and peace on earth among men who have His goodwill.
American Protestants were right about almost everything, and the more American Protestant they were, the more right.
American protestantism holyness spiraled into superpropestantism – the nominally Christian predecessors of our current elite.
So, though the original protestants were right about the papacy, and right about returning to older forms of Christianity, American protestants were, in the end, wrong about everything.
I know this OT and should’ve been discussed in previous post. But it took a while to affirms what’s happening with my economy (I’m not US resident).
>Jim wrote scalper price are the true price, arguing otherwise is normalcy bias.
I can get this argument when we are talking about GPU market (crypto & gaming boom), but I don’t see this assessment holds up in any other products.
For example 16GB DDR4 RAM sticks I bought for $65 pre-covid is still $65 today ready stock. Same with HDD, motherboard, monitor, including other tech related stuffs (phones, audio, etc.). I don’t see any extraordinary inflation nor stock shortages.
I think Jim forgot how tech media works. When RAM prices soars in 2018, it always seems like it will keep increase forever, fast forward 2 years later “RAM shortage, where?”.
I still holds my normalcy bias when tech manufacturer can overcome demand (which they will) price and stock will be back to normal/msrp.
As for other sector, I still think recent price increase was due to we kills economics of scale with lockdowns. Without economics of scale we are going back few hundred years where lower income can barely eat, middle class means owning a house and nothing else, and the upper class barely managed a saving. What a great time to live in /s.
Technology is the most deflationary element of the economy. If it’s holding it’s price for stationary tech, that means inflation everywhere else. In fact, inflation in the economy (other than hyperinflation) funnels wealth to the technology market. It’s called The Techno-Sponge.
https://tahoe-is-walking-on.blogspot.com/2010/07/futurist-techno-sponge.html
For mature tech (in my example DDR4 RAM) prices are already rock bottom. Prices in tech deflate because over time tech producers learn to minimize over-engineering and toss away feature people never ask.
SSD market are notorious “deflated economy”. Truth is SSD only gets cheap because we are given crappy QLC and cheap controller. SLC SSD are still as expensive SLC SSD from 10 years only the performance has increased.
I’ve been tech enthusiast for 9 years, GPU shortage and scalping are a thing now and then. I remember the first crypto boom and GPU are hard to find like today, took a long while before supply back to normal.
Again, I don’t see Jim’s argument holding up because the only thing I see being scalped today are GPU and PS5.
That solid state storage prices are stabilizing is not because it is a mature technology. It still undergoing rapid advance – it is technology advancing while money depreciates.
You are just looking at the computer market, because you build computers. In every market for components, something is being scalped. Not everything, not most things. The shortages of toilet paper, flour, rice, and so forth did not last long – but their prices went up. We are getting a mixture of price inflation and shortages, and as the days continue, more price inflation and less shortages. We are also getting price uncertainty, where you can snap up stuff at the old prices if you watch for buying opportunities.
When I was buying Christmas presents, I eventually got almost everything I planned to get (except for one item), but I ran into a lot of people telling me it is on back order. And though I got almost everything I intended to get for Christmas shopping, quite a few times recently I have purchased something inferior and overpriced, because what I wanted just was not available.
>Not everything, not most things. The shortages of toilet paper, flour, rice, and so forth did not last long – but their prices went up.
As I said in last paragraph, inflation in general products is mostly because we kill Economics of Scale and turning complex supply chain network on it’s head for the sake of holy covid demon.
I work as factory accountant so I know mere “2 weeks to flatten the curve” means to the economy because good chunk of costs are for merely starting up operation. Running on less than 100% capacity means I have to increase cost to cover my fixed cost and depreciation.
My best guess why we don’t have huge inflation last year was because companies are willing to reduce their operating margin + cheap fuel. Now that fuel price are climbing and companies not willing to sacrifice their margin for rona bs anymore. We see cost explosion as today.
Also there is labor shortage that for the love of God I don’t understand what’s happening. Like, I know personally people are resigning in my company left and right NOT because of money issue.
I understand exactly what is happening. Print more money, demand exceeds supply. Normality bias means that businesses fail to raise prices fast enough, so attempt to meet excess demand, which requires more capital and labor. Capital is seemingly abundant, due to enthusiastic money issue to the well connected by the fed, so they try to hire more labor. They cannot all hire more labor.
But capital is not actually abundant, it is a delusion created by the fed, so we are seeing our most severe scalping and shortages in goods required to physically build real capital. Not so much in consumer goods.
And we are seeing large numbers of contractors getting horribly burned and frequently going bankrupt, as attempts to build real physical capital fail to complete as a result of shortages of inputs for capital goods (I did mention my recent woes with lumber and steel, etc). Everyone notices the shortages and scalping of stuff needed to build computers, because ordinary people build their own computers, but other capital goods tend to be built by specialists, so most people don’t notice the input shortages, except for cars where the shortage of new cars is in the news, so the shortage of inputs to car building is in the news.
What is happening everywhere is that normality bias continually and repeatedly collides with the reality that normality is over, fails to notice, and fails to adjust behavior accordingly.
Correct behavior is to expect rapid inflation, likely followed by hyperinflation without much advance warning, and to expect political disagreements to be resolved by violence, with the first to resort to large scale organized violence winning, leading, as in the Roman Republic, to more and more violence organized on larger and larger scales until a Caesar grabs absolute power, or until a foreign tribe with some cohesion conquers the ruins as in the Cambodian autogenocide. (Where the Cambodian elite was replaced with an elite of Vietnamese origin.)
Correct behavior for political organizations is to deniably create a militia, or to enthusiastically accept entryism by the largest and most dangerous mafia organization. Correct behavior for businesses is raise prices to rather more than the traffic will bear, raise wages as needed to keep your existing people around. High winds are ahead, and the last thing you want is turnover. You need to focus on preserving your existing, business, team, and people, for bad weather is coming, and worse weather is likely to follow.
Accountants are likely to believe that now is the best time to expand capital. Plenty of capital around, plenty of demand around, they think. They are wrong. Plenty of capital on paper, a dire shortage of capital in physical reality. The rapid increase in the volume of fiat money has turned their books into bullshit. Realize that whatever the books may say, you are in a storm, and the weather is likely to get worse, very possibly a great deal worse. Focus on keeping the ship afloat. Raise wages as much as is needed to halt labor turnover. Raise prices as much as needed to ensure adequate stockpiles, and figure that an adequate stockpile is one that is considerably larger than it used to be. Stockpiles are better than sales, because liquid goods are money and money is not money.
Producer Price Index for the US:
https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2021/12/semiconductor-bottlenecks-and-prices/
The year-over-year change for this price index as of September 2021 was over 21 percent!
Sweet leaping diddlyfuck! I did not expect that.
Note this is from FRED (Federal Reserve Economic Data), an official gov’t data source.
(For clarity, summarizing the PPI definition from the Labor Dept: The PPI gets at changes in prices received by producers, as opposed to what’s paid by buyers. Sellers’ and purchasers’ prices may differ due to subsidies, taxes, etc.)
21% seems rather low.
Low?!
I have spent a lot of time this year browsing datasheets on digikey for component replacements. I would have estimated it higher, but I suppose there’s big selection bias as I remember the large increases more than the small.
People seem to be getting relaxed about much higher price rises, and I do not much trust official data.
Re job market, and adding to Jim’s commentary, border closures may be a big part of it on the real side.
Probably not as huge a factor in the US, but the market Down Under is really feeling the slow down of immigration in the last two years, and you smell the hysterical mood of some big firms (big founr consultants) whose entire business model relies on getting 10k people in annualy. They will agree to infinite boosters just to get a concession on the border.
Yes, very observant of you to notice that RAM chips cost roughly the same as they did 3 years ago. Remember when prices were actually going down every year? You know, “Moore’s Law” and all? What happened to that?
(Don’t bother answering, I already know all the canned responses about how we managed to suddenly and by sheer coincidence reach the absolute physical limits of fabrication technology at the exact same time as the Late Obama Age Collapse when young white male nerds were declared to be unfit for engineering work.)
Japan and Taiwan are still advancing technology. In particular, Toshiba is still advancing non volatile memory.
It didn’t help, that as soon as DDRx prices dropped because R+D costs recovered, everything new switched to DDRx+1, starting the whole damn cycle again. And DDRx+1 never gave you more than +1% overall system performance over DDRx.
I consider the “upgrades that aren’t really upgrades” to be one of the markers of technological decline.
Even in the RAM domain, if you look at the specs, you can see a decelerating pattern: the biggest and fastest leap was from DDR2 to DDR3, every subsequent “upgrade” took much longer and raised clock speeds by a smaller factor. But as you say, virtually none of these improvements since maybe DDR2 have had any material impact on actual performance. It’s just an excuse to switch to new pinouts, phase out the old tech and force people to upgrade all of their components at once.
When an industry – or an organization – stops being able to innovate, it starts to focus more resources on areas that are easy instead of those that are genuinely useful. The mindset changes from “how can we build the next big thing” to “how can we convert short-term profits into recurring revenue”.
And the cycle from innovation to rent-seeking is happening faster and faster, because the takeover of productive organizations by Globohomo is happening faster, and Globohomo doesn’t know how to produce anything of value. Once it owns an organization, it’ll squeeze the shareholders and consumers for as long as possible and then destroy whatever’s left.
In my defense for the same stick now have extra 333MHz and for $5 more I can get RGB.
I am not electrical engineer but I know for certain in tech industry the trend nowadays is “cheap products is getting better”. Stuffs are not getting cheaper, but it gets a lot better. Personally daily driving $125 phones (replaced every 2years) the improvement is very noticeable (less lag, bigger battery, better LCD).
Your version of Moore’s Law is so 2000s I start having childhood flashbacks.
yes, contrary to my expectations, I am seeing continued technological progress in Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea. From whence all that good stuff you putting in your computer comes. But the west has gone dark, as I expected.
And progress in rockets has been dramatic, though Musk looks like he is about to get the chop. Rocketlab, an American owned company whose technology is all located in New Zealand, is attempting to leapfrog Musk.
They propose to use carbon carbon fiber, presumably coated with chromium oxide to resist being burned up, or chrome carbide which will develop a layer of chromium oxide, on, not a space plane, but a space hypersonic missile. The first stage will hypersonically glide back to its launch point, then land as a rocket should land.
But creating a really big object out of carbon carbon fiber is hard. Creating Musk style rocket engines is hard. We shall see if they can do it. This is a proposed technology, not yet actual technology.
Chrome plated carbon carbon re-usable hypersonic glider booster rockets would be a vastly superior technology to Musk’s big stainless steel re-usable rocket booster, but Musk tried carbon fiber, and gave up on it as too hard, and he is having big problems with his engines.
Musk is also making dangerously great concessions to globohomo, which are likely to disable his ability to continue to advance technology. Either he gets shut down, or he goes globohomo. Either way, no moon landing, no Mars landing. Maybe he needs to move to China or Russia.
The warrior class has to be divided into the high and the middle (low is conscript soldiers only used in total war against xenos or zombies, or maybe in some kind of colonial disaster); the high class are officers whose whole business is war, and the middle is a sort of reserve force. The warrior class must be bound to a region or city-state, and they will specialize generally to the climate and geography of that region, and be deployed based on that specialty. High class is hereditary by force. If you’re born to a high family and don’t want to be a warrior, you surrender your surname and the privileges and responsibilities attached. Middle warriors are men that specialize in some other vocation but are attached to war in some way. Both high and middle can be officers, just as both can be grunt level. The officer corps will be complex in terms of socio-political necessity, and many warriors don’t perform well at that kind of thing. Likewise, some men are not the type to butcher and blast, but can still contribute positively to war efforts. Policing should be the general responsibility of the Middle, but we aren’t talking about giant police departments of low IQ pavement pounders. We’re talking about actual detectives, constables, and men of talent with law and human interaction. A man can work his way into high or middle, but it must be exceedingly difficult to do so. Both classes will enjoy high status and freedoms, but the consequences for any type of bad acting or corruption must be severe and very public.
The warrior class will be organized how they wish to be organized. One of the problems of the west is that has to many priests and keyboard pressers dictating how it all should be.
Cathedral propaganda but likely somewhat true:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/china-birth-control-vasectomy/2021/12/09/c89cc902-50b8-11ec-83d2-d9dab0e23b7e_story.html
Xi’s trying to save his country but he’s falling into the same trap that Hitler did with the purple pill.
Progressivism it’s starting to consume China. No wonder Xi is thrashing about like a man drowning.
I wonder how many relationships survive a vasectomy. Even if a woman’s forebrain wants her to get pumped with a load of blanks, her hamster surely doesn’t.
Vasectomies are generally a shit test. Men who fail them soon end up divorced or cucked. However, being a DINK is very holy for the woke religion so the time between the snip snip and the divorce my be extensive.
A friend of mine who married a women way past the wall at 40, lucked out and pumped out 2 kids in 3 years. She insisted he get a vasectomy and now he’s no longer getting laid.
Why would a women insist on a vasectomy? I’d imagine they would just stop having sex anyway.
Why does a women shit test about anything? It’s her nature.
Good point.
Some doctors around here are advertising they do vasectomy reversal surgery…could try that.
Always wondered how they actually implemented the 1cp, vasectomies seem to be part of the answer.
If so, stupid approach, as you only control population by bottlenecking the female, not the male. As to how to bottleneck the woman, I have no idea but this is a very key question indeed.
wapo.com/things_that_totally_happened.txt
Jim random crypto question, are you bullish on “pi” or do you think its not going anywhere.
Comes from Stanford, blessed by the Cathedral. Why would I look into it any further?
It seems to be completely centralized – just another branch of the fed. Like Academia itself, centralism after the style of 1984 dressed in the robes and rhetoric of decentralism.
Exactly but being blessed might they not massively manipulate the price up…
It seems like the boilerplate crypto advice is the same response to women: pump and dump to your heart’s content, but the path to a better future funnels down through One.
Oh my goodness! 😂
“The entire mythological system is prefigured by Wotan being hung from a tree for nine days and stabbed with a spear while hanging from the tree, hence the propensity of Northern Europeans to this day to refer to the cross as the tree. It has more Northern European echoes than it has Egyptian echoes. Wotan miraculously failed to die, and Christ one upped him by coming back from the dead.”
Do you think Wotan was a homosexual, jim? Do you know Old Norse?
Old Norse: “Tha nam ek…”
Dutch: “Toen nam ik…”
Is David Greenberg right about Jesus?
Every form of Aryan paganism is the original faith of the Aryans, which was at the least full of excellent social technology and likely prefigured Christianity in many ways, mixed with the particular variety of demon worship practiced by a particular conquered people. So when Wotan is an antetype of Christ in some stories and a homosexual in others, that’s what’s going on.
On the balance of the evidence, the original faith of the Aryans was some mixture of ancestor worship and worship of the one true God. When Grandad croaked, he was still around and still in charge, and so was great grandad.
When Abraham (not an ancestor worshiper) engaged in large scale cooperation with other similar patriarchs to resist and defeat the authority of Kings, he did so on the basis of shared faith in the one true God. But at the time of the Bronze Age collapse, we see that large scale cooperation among Aryan descended peoples was generally on the basis of distant deified biological ancestors, for example Achilles’ Myrmidons, and to some considerable extent on the basis of gods, some of whom, like Ares, were clearly demons, others of whom, such as Thor/Zeus/Indra/Jupiter, we have reason to believe were very distant ancestors whose original humanity had, for most people, been lost in the deep mists of time, though at least some Icelanders believed Thor/Zeus/Indra/Jupiter to have been a human ancestor who lived in the approximate location that we now know the Aryans originated.
I was thinking about it just a minute ago, and I still can’t believe you censored my comment about narrow banks and term transformation (literally unknowingly echoing CURTIS YARVIN) and then defamed me by falsely claiming that I didn’t understand how fractional reserve banking works.
Just incredibly dishonest.
You were just pushing the same old, same old Marxist ideology that capital is unproductive and parasitic, and reframing Dark Enlightenment discussion of banking and finance as a false consensus that we already agree with you. We don’t
No matter what your ostensible topic that you are purportedly pushing, you are actually pushing old type Marxist economic theory, and pushing it, as old type Marxists always have, by false consensus.
Not going to allow argument by false consensus on my blog.
When a lender profits from college debt or long term credit card debt, yes, unproductive and parasitic, but nothing to do with fractional reserve banking. When a lender profits from a housing loan, productive – though it would be a lot more productive if lenders were on the hook should they lend into a speculative housing bubble. That college debt and long term credit card debt is parasitic and unproductive is nothing to do with fractional reserve – rather it is unproductive and parasitic for the reasons given by Islam and Christianity.
And the Christian definition of usury is and always has been based on the principle that it is wise, virtuous, and good, to profit from the wise and productive use of one’s capital. The issue is that loans against the person, such as college debt, are apt to be unproductive, while loans against productive property are apt to be productive. This is orthogonal to unrelated issues with fractional reserve.
I have no idea what the guy wrote, but maturity transformation IS fractional reserve written more fancifully, assuming this had anything to do with the disagreement here.
In general, James obviously knows hic econ , but somewhat less than he thinks he does. My two cents amyway.
Did I say fractional reserve is not maturity transformation?
I said the opposite.
I used the words “fractional reserve” where our marxist shill used the words “term transformation” because they are almost the same thing, and by speaking in this manner I presupposed and implied that they were synonyms.
Not every evil and corrupt elite financial activity is term transformation. The correct term for your issue is seigniorage tax.
Swing and a miss.
Fractional reserve is a subset of maturity transformations, not the other way around. Zero-day liabilities entered into the books against 25-year assets.
Nice work making this amusing error in the same post where you criticize the host for an apparent lack of economic knowledge.
Guilty
Loans to build housing are productive loans to buy houses are unproductive and parasitic. Consumer mortgages should absolutely be banned.
A loan to buy an existing house pays off the person who produced the house, and the house continues to produce value for the new owner (or owners, the mortgagor and mortgagee both have ownership rights, with the mortgagor having use rights as long as he makes his payments, and the mortgagee not having use rights). Same principle as a loan to buy an existing cow who is just reaching the age where she will produce calves and milk.
So a loan to buy an existing house is productive. Trouble with existing laws is that the laws under which if the house is sold for below its mortgage, the mortgagor is in the hole for the difference, encourages bankers to make loans that are not a good idea. In particular, it encourages bankers to lend into a speculative housing boom, which is not always very different from the grossly unproductive college loans and long term credit card debt, where some kid signs off his future on the dotted line with absolutely no idea what he is getting into.
I don’t like credit in consumer housing because it makes it artificially way way too expensive and then the government feels the need to prevent it collapsing. The average consumer house should cost no more than the average man can save up over say 7 years. Credit has roughly tripled to quadrupled that price.
Probably much truth here, ballooning morgtages plus lower rates PLUS house flipping can plausibily lead to runaway appreciation of the stock with no feedback mechanism or end in sight.
Nah, what has tripled the price is regulation land of development and building codes which mandate obsolete methods of construction and limit supply of critical goods and services to privileged suppliers.
But the biggest thing that has tripled the price is whites being driven out. You build a house, blacks take it over, and it turns to ruin. There is a blight of ruin rapidly spreading over America, Detroit being the oldest and most infamous example. That is what is driving up building costs. Housing is not expensive. Housing where your kids will not get beaten up, you driven out of your house, and the house you built slowly turn to ruin, that is what is expensive. The problem is that our housing stock is being subtracted from as fast as it gets added to.
The headquarters of major corporations now find themselves cheek by jowel with ruins where wild plains apes roam. Unsurprisingly, someone who works at that headquarters, and people who provide goods and services for the people who work at that headquarters, find their housing costs going through the roof.
Yes.
Not expensive at all to live amongst the negro underclass in America.
Quite expensive indeed to live amongst the white upper class.
Aussie has far fewer of those issues (by no means none of them though) and the median house has gone for A$ 1M for a while. I hear KiwiLand is even worse.
There’s something more than vibrants and zoning at work, which is not to take away from the heroic work vibrants and zoning are doing.
>There’s something more than vibrants and zoning at work, which is not to take away from the heroic work vibrants and zoning are doing.
It’s zoning. I used to drive through San Francisco on my way to NoCal and it always struck me as odd how the areas leading up to the bridges to the city was empty land for 30-40 miles going down the freeway despite there being a massive housing shortage in the city. The political class was preventing that land from being developed which drove up housing prices.
empty land for 30-40 miles going down the freeway despite there being a massive housing shortage in the city
Part of the sales pitch for the High Speed Rail Boondoggle is that folks will be able to live in cheap housing in B.F.Egypt, and commute to the Gay Area on that train.
Insane, because relocating half the city to BFE will drive BFE real estate up. Also insane, because train tickets will not be cheap. Won’t save much commute time either, if a blazing fast train has to stop every 5 minutes at every podunk town.
Mostly insane, because BFE lacks Good Schools, for lack of Good Students from Good Families with Good DNA. Victor David Hanson has written tons about the crime problem there.
Okay lets say all thats true, STILL only credit could lift the price beyond what the market would bear on out of pocket costs…
There’s truth to this. Accounting for inflation, I will still be paying four to five times what my grandfather paid in the 50s when I buy my first house. Nogs have not taken over 80% of the country.
But Jim’s solution still holds. Force the lender to take a haircut on a bad loan, credit will become less available and the market will deflate to more attainable out-of-pocket costs. Cut the regulation out and people will become very interested in building houses at the current price, which will drive the costs down. The market has gotten bloated on every level through artificial intervention. Get rid of it and prices will come down.
Seconded.
There’s much to try before one starts to think about gross intervention in the credit market, from monetary policy, to law & order, to reviewing some zoning and much more.
Liberty is worth shit if at the fisrt indication of trouble a nation jumps at the chance to regulate. Probably not where Aidan or Jim are coming from, but same same.
Christianity and Islam’s opposition to usury is legitimate and well founded, but in the past it got holiness spiraled, and when holiness spiraled is economically destructive, and, of course, corruptly administered. Which corruption gave the Jews an angle. When elites defect on their subjects, they hire hostile outsiders to do the dirty work.
When not holiness spiraled, the prohibition on interest on debts against the person, and the requirement that only productive property can bear interest, redirects capital from consumption by foolish people that the lender seeks to entrap, to production by capable people who need capital.
Probably can find one cheaper, bigger, and with more land if you’re willing to live in the middle of the countryside half an hour from the nearest grocery store.
But if you want to live in a comfy suburb near some civilization, going to have to pay a premium to find one that isn’t undergoing rapid race replacement.
In the exurbs, you can live a long walk or a short drive from the shops, albeit for some stuff, quite a lot of stuff, you will have to drive half an hour. You are a lot closer than half an hour to a grocery store, but half an hour from some stores you care about. You are at least an hour, and probably five hours, from any jobs other than work from home contract jobs.
But if you want to live near corporate headquarters of megacorp where the good jobs are, the fact that megacorp headquarters are surrounded by ruins may have something to do with the astonishingly high prices.
Exactly where I live now. I have a nice sized house on a decent amount of land in a nice community with nice neighbors that look like me. Still not exactly cheap but for the same price near the corporate headquarters of megacorp gets a tinbox apartment with no land surrounded by Ethopian neighbors.
There is no such thing as free market currency and credit though, this is a core difference between neoreactionary and austrian economics.
Credit should be for productive enterprises not consumption. Jims solution is good but in housing a hard fast rule may temporarily be needed.
@Cominator,
Whilst there may not be such a thing as free market currency (depending on definitional quibbles) there surely CAN be a free market in credit. But there are serious issues with enforcing contracts there too (merchant of Venice scenarios etc) so I understand where this is coming from. Still a libertarian though, and we part ways when prohibitions on this or that sort of credit come up.
Cannot seperate credit from currency…
@Cominator,
Easiest thing in the world, don’t get too attached to the way the BoE and its minions conducted monetary policy by way of credit, there are obvious alternatives (Singapore) that work much, much better.
@Pooch
I am indeed planning to live in a big house on several dozen acres of land deep in the country, which I can get for half the price of a studio apartment around where I live now. Will have to spend a few years working in an office in a small and minimally nigger-infested city, but after that it is likely I will be able to work from home. If not, I will buy a house in an exurb and a hunting lodge very deep in the mountains that my family and I can bug out to.
In a few months I will be able to afford kids, and thus will start banging them into my fiance. The price of homes is not completely insurmountable for a young man, but it is still pretty rough compared to how the boomers had it.
We have heard it all before. It was rebutted over a century ago, and it further rebuttals are redundant.
Not a reply to what I said.
It is a reply to what I would have said if I believed that Marxism was true, but opposed it because I am an evil capitalist.
I don’t know what Marxism is, but I know that communism is capitalism in the limit. Who do you think sponsored all those commie revolutions? Fucking capitalists, that’s who. Jacob Schiff gave Lev Bronstein a billion dollars. Later on they used Lend-Lease to keep the Soviet Union afloat. Today they lead the UN and their stated goal is depopulation. I don’t intend to die in a Watermelon gulag and I don’t intend to be sterilized or killed by arch-evil capitalist Bill Gates’s magic shots. Fuck banks, fuck capitalists, and fuck you.
Jacob Schiff was no more a capitalist than Soros is – he was the Soros of his day, A cutout for the state to do stuff that it would find embarassing to do directly.
His primary wickedness was not sponsoring communism in Russia, but rather state takeover of the banking system in the US.
Tfw you tryna hello fellow reactionaries but your discipline keeps breaking down.
Sure thing Jim. Jacob Schiff wasn’t a capitalist.
Irrelevant. Jacob Schiff was not a capitalist, because he was the states point man in state takeover what had formerly been private enterprise, the railroads, banking, and finance.
If he got rich by producing value, and creating capital he would be capitalist. He got rich by the state putting him in charge of other people’s capital. And when the state put him in charge, it rapidly became apparent that the state, not Jacob Schiff, was in charge.
All your CEO titles and things he did are in what rapidly became quasi state enterprises.
Similarly, Soros is funding no end of ngos with money he got as favor from the government, but in foreign countries we see the important people in these ngos working from US government offices, and putting on their state department hats when they want to do something in official state department capacity, and putting on their ngo hats when they want to engage in hostile acts against a foreign government that the State Department wants done, but would find embarrassing.
Irrelevant.
Capitalism isn’t about what you make. Capitalism is about what you own.
Simple as.
Moron.
Where does what you own come from?
It comes from the creation of value, both by doing the work that you wisely and cleverly discover needs doing, and the wise and clever application of your existing capital.
Value is created by labor, capital, and entrepreneurship, and someone had to create the capital that creates capital, the tools that make tools. All this stuff did not grow out of the dirt by itself.
You could not make a pencil, except the boss gives you specialized materials, specialized tools, and someone had to envisage and create those special tools, and the boss has to tell you what to do with those specialized tools and specialized materials.
Proverbs 31:
When she seeks suitable inputs, and transforms them, she creates value. Some of that value becomes capital. When she “considereth a field” she determines how to apply that capital to its highest and best use, then she “buyeth it”, applies that capital to it highest and best use, then “she planteth a vineyard”, creates capital with her existing capital, her entrepreneurial skills, her labor, and other people’s labor.
You can eat grapes because of that vineyard, which someone like her planted. Cattle are capital, that is where the name comes from, means “head” in the sense of a count of cattle, Abraham being the earliest recorded capitalist. A vineyard is capital. A fracking rig is capital. Someone had to create those things, which requires thought, knowledge, skill, labor, and existing capital.
You dumb ignorant commies think that the supermarket shelves magically refill themselves from the magic dirt, and man who owns the store just gets in the way for no good reason. Communism is stupid. You are stupid. Communists are always taken by surprise when the shelves empty. Happened to Hitler right when he was starting his attack on the Soviet Union and in the middle of his Greek operation. Happens every time. Ignorance and stupidity.
Bites you every single time.
Over and over again. You just never learn, not even when your fellow commies kill you when they wind up quarreling over the scraps. Dumb, ignorant, and stupid till it kills you.
But let’s play ball. What happens if we assume you’re right?
>He got rich by the state putting him in charge of other people’s capital.
Which “the state” put him in charge?
Wikipedia: Schiff accepted Kuhn’s invitation in January 1875, bringing to Kuhn, Loeb & Company his connections with Sir Ernest Cassel of London, Robert Fleming of Dundee (later of London), and Edouard Noetzlin [fr] of the Banque de Paris et des Pays-Bas (Bank of Paris and the Netherlands or Paribas).[5] On May 6, 1875, he married Therese Loeb, daughter of Solomon Loeb. The couple were the parents of a son, Mortimer L. Schiff and a daughter, Frieda.[4][5][7]
What do you see? I see a coven of foreigners in this paragraph. Two Brits, a Frenchman, and several Jews. In other words, None of these people are Americans.
SO WHAT ARE THEY DOING IN AMERICA SETTING UP AN “AMERICAN” CENTRAL BANK?
A hostile treasonous elite uses foreigners to do the dirty work against its native people. Jews have been doing the dirty work for over a millenium, but it is obvious that they were not in charge.
And today, they are being replaced in this role by dot Indians. The older enemy hirelings are grossly disproportionately Jewish, the younger grossly disproportionately dot Indian.
You can see who is charge by what eventually happens to the Jews who do the dirty work. They are highly replaceable. Every one of the many expulsions of the Jews was a layoff of people who were serving an elite by doing the elite’s wicked jobs against the natives.
When the time comes for a layoff, it becomes obvious who the real bosses are, and right now today Jews are being replaced.
If I’m a commie why do I hate godless capitalists for repeatedly and compulsively bringing in communism?
Checkmate, faggot.
Commies hate other commie factions more than anyone. Commies kill commies. Vastly more commies have been killed by commies than by all other factions.
You imply you are not Godless?
Give me the affirmation:
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.
I suspect you will not be able to lest you burst into flames.
I was raised Christian so your “affirmation” gave me a flashback to my childhood when I first witnessed a Catholic friend’s family chant the Lord’s Prayer. Somewhat later I witnessed a mass for the first and only time. It was very weird. I still can’t believe they worship Mary.
Jesus whipping Jews and flipping over usurer tables is very fun and I hope one day to become so Christlike, but overall the Old Testament is my preference.
Perhaps the Pilgrims had a better oath than your affirmation. I would swear.
Don’t give us any more of your hail fellow Christian stuff unless you can give the affirmation.
I guess I’m probably a Deist. My views are essentially synonymous with the views of the Founding Fathers in aggregate. I believe in a Creator and Absolute Truth.
Out of accident or malice, you are reversing the meaning of various words, and also attributing the socinian shill/entryist position to puritans/protestants.
?
You attributed the socinian position to puritans and protestants, and reversed the meaning of oath and affirmation.
In an oath, you promise to do something in future, or promise not to do something in the future, or promise to continue doing what you are doing now.
In an affirmation, you agree that something is true.
An oath is sworn with respect to a higher power and an affirmation is for atheists.
Oath: “A solemn declaration, accompanied by a swearing to God or a revered person or thing, that one’s statement is true or that one will be bound to a promise.”
Affirmation: “A solemn pledge equivalent to an oath but without reference to a supreme being or to swearing.”
Black’s Law.
Fair enough, but that is inconsistent with non legal usage. This is not a court of law. When you imply you are one thing, I want to know what thing you really are.
In the struggle between faiths, a lot of people come under pressure to give affirmations, and schooling is a great big pile of coerced affirmations in the holy faith of globohomo. We need to have a word for that thing, and have always had such a word, and I am not giving that word away to the lawyers, who are a bunch of priests who are always doing too clever by half things to the meaning of words.
Legality is over, and if lawyers ever had any moral authority over what words mean, they have thoroughly lost it by being a nest of corrupt lying snakes. Legalism is uninteresting and unimportant, because legality is over.
When your business has a legal department, chances are you will find yourself in an incredibly expensive long running lawsuit with another business, and that your lawyers have far too friendly relationships with the other guy’s lawyers and with the judge, and if your legal department has representation on the board, you are in big trouble.
Legalism may be over, but legalism is not lawful. Consider this excerpt from Black’s definition of lawful: “The principal distinction between the terms “lawful” and “legal” is that the former contemplates the subÂstance of law, the latter the form of law. To say of an act that it is “lawful” implies that it is authorized, sanctioned, or at any rate not forbidden, by law. To say that it is “legal” implies that it is done or performed in accordance with the forms and usages of law, or in a technical manner.”
Legalism slides very easily into color of law: “The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under “color of state law.”
Almost every wrong ever done you by an “authority” has been done under color of law. None of it is lawful except insofar as law has been removed from the law.
Law comes from God and is of God. The problem is not law but the color of law that has grown up around the law like a thick nest of vipers around a precious jewel.
Replying to the tedious shill payload: You are pointing away from the matador’s sword and to the matador’s cape, and there is plenty of that all over the place, and it is not coming to Jim’s Blog.
Lawyers and judges do not need “International Financiers” for induce them to give themselves more power and the sovereign, the legislator, and the citizen less.
Just say Jews. It is grossly disproportionately Jews – but they are Jewish lawyers and judges of paper American nationality, not “International Financiers”.
And this particular shill payload usually comes from Soros shills.
So, you are excused from the Demon Worshiper test, provided you go easy on “hail fellow Christian”, but now let us have the Soros shill test.
How do we say Soros made his money?
What we say his job, in the sense that who is it with the power to steer money to Soros who directly benefits from steering money to Soros? What is that direct benefit? You can disagree, and argue for your position, but you have to argue against our position in a way that makes it perfectly clear what you are arguing against.
What very bad things is Soros responsible for lately. Again, you can disagree, but you have to disagree in a way that reveals to a supervisor who is not allowed to read the stuff you are disagreeing with what you are disagreeing with.
What is our story about Soros?
Saying “Yes I agree with your story about Soros†is a fail. What is our story?
Saying “your story is wrong, and here it is why it is wrong. You say X, but Y is evidence against X, and Z is a better explanation of the evidence for Xâ€, is a pass, because in that reply you state X explicitly at least once, and implicitly or explicitly at least three times.
The pattern that I see in interaction with shills indicates that they are allowed to be exposed to thought crimes, but the supervisors reading their output must be protected against thought crimes.
If you read “international financier-capitalist” as “Jews” that’s your problem, not mine. I don’t use it as an anti-Jewish dog whistle. They worship Satan, god of usury (interest-bearing debt alchemy) and aren’t Jewish except insofar as Judaism is inherently usurious and satanic. I’m aware of the Saturnian speculation and the black cubes etc. but I haven’t looked into it. Whether Jews are the prime actors I don’t know. It could easily be the European “aristocracy” (S). Christopher Langan thinks so. Regardless, Get fucked.
Total fail of Soros shill test.
What a surprise, someone with a bee in his bonnet about powerful International Financiers causing everything that is wrong with the world is strangely oblivious to the doings of one particular powerful International Financier who is causing quite a lot of what is wrong with the world.
I am very surprised. Is everyone else surprised? 🙃
Surprising isn’t it?
But he is a higher quality of shill, and I am happy to debate with him, but not if he pulls up a dump truck full of the usual Soros script.
Rex, please keep it in chunks small enough to be debated. I am not going to respond to a full page of Soros script casually presupposing two dozen Soros memes each of which would take several paragraphs to respond to. One bit of Soros script at a time. It is impossible to have a fruitful discussion when someone throws a dump truck at one.
With God as my witness, I have no idea what you’re talking about.
The Soros shill test is an open book test, which can be passed by copying wholesale from the book, though paraphrasing and criticism would be preferable. I posted how to pass it many times already. And FBI shills can pass it, which why I only ask it when I see a plain and stereotypical example of a Soros script.
Until now you seemed unscripted and interactive, but now you are formulaic and repetitious.
As I said, I am happy to debate, but one cannot debate an npc. Get your supervisor to cut you some more slack. It seemed that until now, you were getting more slack than I am accustomed to.
A: I am more Christian than thou
B: Oh yeah? Say the magic words then
A: Uh- n.. ah, a-actually, im a d-deist…
Magic indeed…
I made no religious claim until you demanded my religious affiliation. then I admitted to be raised Christian (as opposed to Catholic or Anglican) which is true. Catholics and Anglicans aren’t Christian, they’re Antichristian. I, probably a Deist, remain infinitely nearer Christianity than Papists or Papists Lite.
Here’s YOUR shill test, fuckface:
Acknowledge the contents of the article. Restate in your own words. A child could do this, can you?
The article says that Soros earned his money in the legitimate capitalist fashion that he supposedly did according to official truth, somehow neglects to mention any of the bad things he has done here and abroad, even though it purports to be an attack on Soros, and claims he is mere minion of the evil all powerful Rothschilds who rule the world. The article is very obviously issued by Soros himself, or one of his numerous minions, as have a vast pile of very similar posts we have all seen before far too many times, supposedly issued by different people with supposedly very different ideological positions, but all pushing the same tale, and most using a strikingly similar dialect of English.
To summarize further in my own words “Stop looking at the matador’s sword. Attack that cape!”.
Now give me our shill test. Until you do, anything will be deleted. After a few such deletes, I will go to silent deletion, and after a few more, to the kill file where I never see stuff from your email again.
I was allowing you through, because you are a higher level shill than I am accustomed to getting, but this stuff is not higher level. It is the same old stuff.
Regarding the parable of the good Samaritan – I’m always very annoyed by the way this is used popularly.
A Priest – who should help his charge – walks past. A levite – close enough to be a kin to the Jew – walks past.
Only the Jews hated enemy, a Samaritan, helps him.
To call someone “a good Samaritan” is to literally say that, despite being your sworn enemy, they help you. I’ve never heard anyone use the descriptor and actually understand the implications.
The good Samaritan is not the subject of the story – the good Samaritan *helps the subject*.
I’ve always taken two things from the parable.
First – When you’re defeated, even your hated enemy can have sympathy for you. We’re all “equal” in defeat.
Second -It’s foolish to assume someone from a hated outgroup will defect on you, just because they’re a member of the hated outgroup.
To ask someone to “play the good Samaritan”, for example, to be charitable, is to ask them to acknowledge that they are the enemy, the outsider, the unholy – and help the “holy” person who needs help.
The Samaritan is an image of Christ, for he came down from heaven to save even those in rebellion. The bandages, oil and wine are sacramental images for the garment of baptism, deliverance from sin, the oil of chrismation, new life in the Holy Spirit, and the communion of the divine Blood, leading to eternal life.
In short, Christ commands us to show kindness and mercy to others, just as the Good Samaritan showed mercy to the man from Jerusalem, even as the priest and the Levite did not. Thy neighbor is the Good Samaritan, and Christ exhorts his flock to follow in his example. One ought to have mercy and forbearance even towards outsiders.
Remember everything Christ says is a continuation and fulfillment of the Spirit of the Old Testament. Imitating the Good Samaritan means being charitable and merciful to those around you even if they are not close kin. Please do not read “holy” and “unholy” into scripture, the central prayer is “Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner.”
I don’t think that if makes any sense in the context of the story to compare Christ to the Samaritan, or to consider the parable to somehow be a story of Christ. Again, the Samaritan is the enemy, the adversary.
It seems obvious to me that Christ tells the story to remind us that we are all God’s children. Even your sworn enemy, whose temple you have burnt down, can act with Gods compassion toward you.
Don’t assume the outgroup can’t co-operate, isn’t a person. Agree that it’s a story of mercy to others, just not framed that way. The Jew in the story expected his kin to help, instead, it was his enemy. That’s the lesson I get from the parable- default position of your enemy may not be defect; expect co-operation until proven otherwise. It’s very cleverly framed, and I think that “Christ commands we show mercy” waters down the message.
“Christ commands we judge who our neighbour is by their actions”, far closer. Your priest – defects against you. Your kin – defects against you. Your sworn and hated enemy – helps you. What does this mean?
>Please do not read “holy†and “unholy†into scripture,
I meant, simply, from the perspective of the subject who was a member of their group. But, noted.
The question was “who is my neighbor?”, and the answer was that neighbors that do not act neighborly are not neighbors, and enemies who do act neighborly are.
But he also told us to “do likewise”. Which does not mean you invite the starving children of Africa into your house, still less into your neighbors house, but the good Samaritan did put the man set upon by thieves in an inn. But he did not put them in his neighbors house. The trouble with the starving children of Africa is that if you give them half a chance they are going to kill you and eat you.
The Samaritan is an outcast, not necessarily an enemy, certainly not a friend. Connecting the Samaritan with Christ in Orthodox theology is called typology, in which certain people and events in the Old Testament prefigure things fulfilled in the New Testament. For example, Jonah being in the whale for three days prefigures Christ’s burial. This is not to be confused with allegory, finding symbolic meaning in the Old Testament which does not depend on future historical fulfillment.
The interpretation is not my own, it is taken from the Orthodox Study Bible, the interpretations within taken from the church fathers.
Jim:
Yes, exactly right.
>But he also told us to “do likewiseâ€.
Yes, agree. Where I don’t agree is the popular usage of the phrase “A good Samaritan”. It implies that someone is a pleasant enemy.
Neofugue
>The Samaritan is an outcast, not necessarily an enemy,
No, definitely an enemy. The Jews burnt the Samaritans temple down because they hated them so much.
> typology, in which certain people and events in the Old Testament prefigure things fulfilled in the New Testament.
Good Samaritan story is entirely an NT story.
I’m not particularly arguing whether or not we’re taking allegorical meaning here. I understand how the orthodox interpreted it and I see that as a perversion of it’s meaning. Many take it, as Jim mentioned, to mean “Christ said be good to everyone even your explicit enemies when they’re trying to kill you”, which isn’t the case.
Christ’s message, without any interpretation needed is, judge who your neighbours are by their actions toward you. To compare Christ to the Good Samaritan is to imply that Christ is an enemy who will be kind to you.
This is how, in my view, Christianity gets cucked. Easy example, “The meek will inherit the earth”. Meek does NOT mean “people who co-operate with their defectors”. It means “People who are keep their weapons sheathed”. They’re still armed and WILL kill you. Just not for no reason.
“Do likewise” is misinterpreted to mean “co-operate with people who defect against you”, when Christ’s meaning is clear – don’t assume that someone associated with your enemy is your enemy.
There’s nothing Christ-like about helping a thief load your TV into his car.
Samartians were former enemies who became merely an outcast outgroup so not an enemy in the time of Christ.
Good point, Cominator.
Actually, the more I ponder this parable the more interesting it becomes.
The Samaritan would have been considered kind of distasteful to a Jew.
But despite this, and the Samaritan knowing this, he helped the Jew.
Why did the Priest and the Levite ignore him? He was naked, I think, which was offensive. Also, clearly he had no money because he was naked and just robbed.
So, the parable can tell us – you may think your enemy has unpalatable beliefs, but if he helps you in your time of need, when your friends don’t, what does that say about your friends? And your own beliefs? Pretty good one.
Considering what just happened yesterday with the outright hostility towards the Roman Rite and the conservative wing of the Church, making it very clear. Good relative timing for this post.
Traveling South America I have visited many churches, and in all of them I have noticed many obvious, and little details of serpentes, and other symbols. I am Catholic, but have always had a bad feeling about churches and priests. You know very well that the vatican is hiding lots of things!