Around 350 years before Christ, paganism had died among the intellectuals. Not long after, it died among the common people, for we read writers in the late Roman Republic ridiculing attempts to motivate the common soldiers by appeal to faith. They believed the ordinary soldier was even more cynical than themselves.
So the philosophers set to work manufacturing a replacement.
For Aristotle, “logos†(“wordâ€) was rational and responsive debate, and the meaning of that debate – the kind of debate I encourage on my blog.
But obviously this debate is going to be substantially about moral truths
Moral truths from material and effective causation:
For example the red pill on women implies that we should restore the social technology our ancestors had for dealing with the woman problem, law on women sex and family in the spirit of Old Testament sex and family law, and similarly, the debate on anarchy, stationary bandits, the warrior class, and the existence of the state – if you don’t have an army, and that army a leader, you will soon have a hostile foreign army in occupation. Or, worse, mobile banditry. And that army is going to have to be funded, hence taxes, also known as stationary banditry. So a warrior is honorable if he fights not for gold alone, but for God, King, and Country. And, similarly the debate about religion and state religion. If you don’t have a good state religion, you will shortly have a very bad one, for a priesthood, like an army, is a mechanism of large scale cooperation by a group that seeks to impose its will on a larger group. (Harvard.) The “no establishment of religion†clause is not viable or even meaningful except as in accord with the Westphalian principle that each state has its own state religion, and no one attempts to impose one state religion on all states.
The sovereign needs to establish consensus, for no man rules alone. Establishing consensus is what priesthoods do, as armies do command and coercion, so a priesthood is going get in bed with the sovereign, and he with them. They need him, and he needs them. Holiness spiral is apt to ensue when they get the upper hand.
The Logos as a person.
Natural law is law and right conduct deduced from the way the universe is, and the way it works: the moral and social meaning of physical law, of material and effective causation.
But meaning requires a meaner, requires a person. So, around three hundred years before Christ, fifty years after Aristotle, “the logos†(“the wordâ€) came to mean a person. That person, the person that gave rise to physical law, logos spermatikos, to material and effective and causation, was The Logos (the word). A person who meant the moral and social truths that arise from material and effective causation.
Which Stoic doctrine is right there in the New Testament: The Gospel of John, Chapter one, verse one:
In the beginning was the Word, [The Logos] and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
Game theory 101, prisoners dilemma. Everyone should cooperate with cooperators and defect on defectors. tit for tat.
But while we get good results if everyone does that, the individual incentive is to be seen as a cooperator, in order that he can defect. And the priesthood is apt to manipulate the consensus to disguise defection as cooperation, hence Christ’s indictment of Jewish legalism. The Talmud is a great pile of too clever by half lawsuits against God.
So the stoics, starting three hundred before Christ or so, personified the logos, as the person that animated the universe, made it real, not just an idea.
And Christianity announced that that person had shown up, fully man and fully God, and announced game theory 301, and suffered everything that flesh can suffer.
Game theory 301, in a world of imperfect information, one tit for two tats, or else everyone gets stuck in defect/defect. So, turn the other cheek, but you only have two cheeks, and walk the extra mile, but only one extra mile. Peace on earth to all men of good will, but Old Testament solutions are applicable to men of bad will. Christianity is not a suicide pact.
But again, this sound policy, though in the collective interest, is not in the individual interest. But it is in the individual interest to be part of group that attempts to ensure conformity to it.
So you attempt to deduce law and right conduct, the behavior and beliefs that distinguish a man it is safe to cooperate with, from a man that it is dangerous to have anything to do with, from the nature of the universe. But you are not going to persuade anyone that you will in fact conform to this behavior, unless you regard the meaning of the universe as the will of a person.
Classic Romano Greek paganism was long dead, Aristotle tried to substitute meaning without an author to mean it, and that did not fly either. So the stoics had to personify the logos, through whom all things were created.
So, Christianity. Which is stoicism plus all the excellent social technology preserved in the Old Testament from the Bronze Age before it went decadent, plus The Logos showing up in person and suffering all that flesh can suffer.
And, since Christianity contains the philosophy that best leads to large scale extended cooperation, it needs to be the state religion, and the state needs it to be the state religion. No man rules alone, and the sovereign needs a priesthood that cooperates with him. So Christianity and good conduct in ordinary everyday family life needs to be a requirement for state and quasi state office. Equality before the law for all married taxpaying Christian men with children.
The dominant nations of the past 400 years have been white and Christian. But I don’t see any evidence that nonwhite Christians are markedly better at “large scale extended cooperation” than nonwhite non-Christians. Christianity works well enough, but it is hardly proven to be the best possible tool for the job.
Why isn’t Ethiopia evidence?
From four hundred AD to eighteen twenty, obvious and overwhelming evidence. Compare the concert of Europe with Asia and the Middle East. Similarly the Holy Roman Empire. Something went horribly wrong with Christianity and Christendom during the nineteenth century.
The British accidentally conquered India while trying to purchase spices in the face of large scale disorder. One prince would quarrel with his brother, one of them or both of them would ask the British for a hand, and both princes would wind up sitting bare assed in dust with the British in the palace.
That is entirely consistent with the Christianity/civilization link being mostly due to confounding by race and other factors. There are a zillion ways in which the British were different from the Indians, things that affected their ability to reach cooperate/cooperate and had nothing to do with Christianity or the Logos.
The history of Britain and Holy Roman Empire is not consistent with that. Following the Roman withdrawal from Britain, three centuries of violence, disorder, chaos and ruin, ended by King Alfred establishing official Christianity at swordpoint. Until Alfred’s grandparents, ruling Britain was like plowing the sea.
Lebanon was peaceful, prosperous, and a nice place for people of all faiths when Christians ruled it. Christian retreat from the Middle East has led to dire consequences.
Obviously white people are more cooperative than other races. But equally obviously, Christians have been more cooperative, merciful, and generous than other faiths.
And if you say race is the sole factor, take a look at what is happening to Europe now. Our officially unofficial faith of demon worship has not yet resulted in deadly interelite violence, but it has rendered our elite incapable of governing. (Well, not much inter-elite violence. Notoriously being a “friend of Clinton” is apt to be bad for one’s health. Inter-elite violence started with the assassination of JFK, and is now getting worse.)
The elite started slowly pulling their support for it which has now culminated in zero support for it. Without elite support, Christianity does not seem all that formidable, unfortunately.
Critics of Christianity notice that it has spread, not exactly at swordpoint, but as a result of domination established at swordpoint by Christian elites. But if you look at how that domination was established, it was because Christian elites had better cooperation than pagan elites. Most of King Alfred’s enemies wound up murdering each other, which is also how the British wound up ruling India.
Most large organized religions support elite cooperation. That’s how great empires, whether Chinese or Greek or Hindu, were built.
The main unique point with Christianity and Islam is that they actively encourage you to hate, convert or kill the outgroup. That is the secret of their success. When you have that mindset, you’re always on the offensive, which gives you a lot higher likelihood of success. And nothing unites you and your friend as much as shared hate for the other guy.
While the pagan is just sitting around minding his own business, his Christian and Muslim neighbors are scheming up ways to kill him and steal his property.
Once the outgroup wises up to this, these two religions lose their competitive advantage. Like how the Japs wised up to Christianity a few hundred years ago, and how the Chinese wised up to Islam in Xinjiang.
Nah, Christians lost their advantage when they lost their faith. The west was uniformly winning wars to 1840, losing them thereafter.
“While the pagan is just sitting around minding his own business, his Christian and Muslim neighbors are scheming up ways to kill him and steal his property.”
Fucking faggots. This is the same level shilling as “we must protect white women from the virile masculinity of the nigger adonises with +300 IQ and superior dance moves.”
Scheming up ways to kill and steal is ubiquitous in humans. Coordinating to do those two things is the root of all societal level cooperation. Harnessing the coordination facilitating those impulses delineates which/what social construction(s) dominate and abide. Just as capitalism uses the localized selfishness of man to effect the betterment of men, properly aligned state religions harness the personal/tribal impulse to exterminate and exploit Others for the betterment of the Nation, the People. This is why most words a society labels itself with translates to “the People.” Those I know, my kin and kind, are People. Those I don’t are not. Christianity is a literal hack for this, far outstripping paganism in its capacity to organize, coordinate, motivate, and maintain. And just like every other exploit, its utility creates a weakness, and in the case of Christianity, that weakness is the ease with which malign influences can turn the Solidarity Compact into a Suicide Compact, using the exact same words as the former with code switched definitions. “Turn the other cheek” becomes “turn a blind eye,” and “walk the extra mile” becomes “never stop walking.”
Look at how long it took the Entryists to begin destroying Christianity from within, versus how short a time it took to extirpate paganism. Paganism is easy, Christianity is hard.
Double forgiveness tit for tat does win the game and allow for cooperation. I’ve wondered if the problem is the midwit and we are destined for a world of the Morlochs and the Eloi. The midwit is the one who fails to comprehend that finding a way to trick or force defect-cooperate will still only work for the short term. The midwit is unable to understand that game theory applies through time, through generations. The midwit also fails to breed as they defect on the future.
Speaking of cooperation through generations things like ancestor worship, or genealogy, is a social technology that can help. The idea that there is an after life and your family will be there with you. If you defect on your kids or your grandkids, or great grandkids, you’ll be spending eternity with them trying to explain. The reward in heaven for the sacrifices of today can help. The midwit is might temped to think I’ll defect on the future, they can’t defect on me back, without realizing that they can simply continue to defect on the future until we have no more future as a people.
I suppose I wonder how much of the rot of progress is the midwit problem? My ex wife brought those two bastards of mine to a skeptic conference, as she’s a midwit, a highly credentialed one. She wants to make sure that she counters the Mormonism I occasionally try to instill into them. To make sure they understand all this cooperate stuff I occasionally try to feed their minds with is just a trick so the church gets their tithe and they don’t feel free to “have fun”.
Perhaps over time the midwits succumb to the matriarchy, breed themselves down to the Morlochs, and the Eloi rise to the heavens.
No, because the midwit fails to comprehend period. They merely copy the thoughts of those above them. Whatever is in fashion they copy. If betrayal is in fashion, they will work to tear down society.
The Women Question means degenerate societies don’t form castes- they breed out intelligence.
The midwit did not conquer the current ruling elite, evil has. A leader has to emerge with some level of mastery over the world, like Trump (economic growth) or Elon (technology) for good to be done on a large scale.
The root of the problem is that it is easier to lie than tell the truth. Easier to drop a weight than carry one. Easier to consume than produce. Very few people are alert and conscious to what future they are creating.
It is easier to lie than to speak the truth, but lying makes you weak, while the truth, like lifting iron, makes you strong.
There are two groups we need to bring together for this to work.
The first group are the Christians who never stopped being Christians. I’ve had little success with them — either they are too old and stuck in their tainted blue pill ways, or they are distrustful of our rather practical application of Christianity. Gnon, mankind descended from the apes, ‘nullius in verba’ applied to biblical miracles, all of these concepts tend to be regarded as hostile by red pilled Christians.
The second group are the post-Christian right-wing intellectuals. The guys who say: sure, Christianity was great, but it’s over now. Similarly, I’ve had little success with them. They tend to be black pilled, or otherwise, to my mind at least, fairly delusional in their ability to come up with an alternative logos. Variations of Nietzsche, basically.
If we are to mount any sort of resistance, we need to get these groups on board with Jimian Christianity. So far, I’m not getting the traction I feel we need. Not sure if that is something I’m doing wrong, or if the message is not fully done yet, or if God simply has other plans for the moment.
I smell progress by a lesser standard of progress. The Republican wing of the Republican party is Christian nationalist. And, really, how can you be a Christian nationalist and a McChristian? Which does not stop them from being McChristians, but the mental tension is there.
Secondly, we are seeing large scale acceptance that our official religion worships demons, with even Tucker coming on board. They did not directly poll people on that question, for to state it plainly would imply that there are some people who think we have an official religion (and, of course no one could ever think such a thing). I am interpreting poll results, rather than having direct poll results, but I think that about a quarter of those polled on linked issues think we have demon worshiping state religion. And, if you are a McChristian, and believe that our official religion is demonic, you have to know that you are burning your pinch of incense to Caesar. When in real life I tell a Christian that covid masking is a ritual of worship of awesome might of the awesome and mighty Covid demon, they get my point. They don’t think I am joking. They get the point. In this sense, I am seeing mass penetration. What I see in the polls and in real life makes me optimistic.
As for online discussions, don’t worry. I have been in online discussions for a very long time, and what happens is that no one admits to changing his mind, and in fact he does not change his mind on the spot. But he falls silent, and a year or two later, he thinks it his own idea.
There is progress in the sense that men are agreeing against a common enemy, and yes, that common enemy is increasingly characterized as demonic by folk who just a few years ago would’ve scoffed at that kind of thinking. Call this progress A.
There is also progress in that *our* memes are spreading and that this place has been doing great. Call this progress B.
We must not conflate A and B. Just because people agree on what they hate (A) does not mean they can cooperate (B). Everything I see on the internet and in the real world confirms to me that A is happening on a grand scale, but B is still very far away.
alf:
My experience is that acceptance of our memes is spreading rapidly. The enemy’s memes are also spreading, and so their memes and our memes are splitting everybody into camps. As C.S. Lewis said, “Over time things become more what they are.â€
As an example, it was recently revealed that the Foolish Butthead Idiots regard anyone who uses the terms “chad†or “red pill†as a potential “violent extremist.†God, these hysterical twats! “Every person under age 30 is an Enemy of the State!â€
How do such a bunch of hyperventilating vaginas take themselves so seriously?
You love to see that and I don’t intend to countersignal those trends. But let’s not make more out of it than it is: two of our words that have been picked up.
It’s like the left’s word “homophobiaâ€: There’s an entire worldview implicitly embedded in those words.
That is a very priestly thing to say, and again, not saying you don’t have a very valid point. Just saying it is equally valid to say: they’re just two words bro.
Every man is either a homophobe or a homosexual. There are at least a dozen dudes within walking distance who would eagerly suck your dick for free, so if you didn’t find such acts utterly reprehensible, you’d be dropping trou right now.
I guess this is a difference in experience. Not that I have not had similar experiences like this, but they are restricted to completely over the top demonic affairs such as covid.
I cannot even begin to start explaining the gap in life view I have compared to pretty much everyone around me. I want to say it’s an IQ gap, but really it’s closer to.. I don’t know… The collective weight of the sins of our forefathers. You can’t brush aside over a century of societal sinful behavior. And I too feel like a lot of my life revolves around atoning for my and my family’s sins.
At some instinctive level people know, feel in their bones, that we are right. But we have traveled so far off God’s path that they cannot say those truths out loud, and that I can not tell them those truths out loud. I can only practice what I have learned here, mostly non-verbally, over the course of my life.
All of this is not meant to be black-pilling. I am as white pilled as they get. All I’m saying is that it is probably most realistic to think of our plans in terms of decades, not years.
On gab there are some accounts that despair of Christianity, and their arguments are getting harder and harder to defend. They have to rely on factually incorrect historical revision to criticize Throne and Altar. They are no longer seeing others come to their defense. You cannot make the argument that monarchy or Christianity are inherently opposed to science, when it was atheist democracy that has outlawed vast swathes of science and crippled the rest with diversity.
Sure, completely agreed, C logically follows B logically follows A.
But then I look at my actual gab experience. Granted, I hate social media and suck at it, but I really don’t feel the following is unrepresentative:
Generalizing, two groups on Gab:
1 – red pill Christians, the RPC’s.
2 – red pill intellectuals, the RPI’s.
Of the first group, two examples: annodominus and andrew torba.
Neither will give me the time of the day. I have tried to engage annodominus several times, will not respond. He got into a fight with Starman on the subject with McChristianity, blocked each other. I bowed out. Andrew Torba has a very wholesome feed, much resembles my own life, but will not give me the time of day neither. Will not give Jim the time of day neither. He will occassionally post links to intellectual articles – Jim is never mentioned. Note that Torba has no reason not to mention Jim; it’s not like he isn’t already unpersoned.
Of the second group, two examples: trevor goodchild and judge dread.
Goodchild will actually give me the time of day. Somewhat. He actually reposts Jim. But he’ll also repost nazism. In fact, on gab at least, about 80% of the RPI memes are white nationalist, about 20% christian nationalist. Then there is judge dread, who posts about religion, mostly the ‘Christianity is pretty dead’ content, and when I tried to engage him about it, blocked me.
If this is what right-wing cooperation looks like, I shudder to think what right-wing in-fighting looks like.
Judge Dread continues to get his ass handed to him by Shadow Knight on Christianity. But Judge Dread has kind of the same hang up on real Christianity that I do, “where is it?”. I can’t find fellowship with people actually practicing it. I’m surrounded by sea of Progressives but slower McChristains.
There’s only 2 forms of religion that work: Fellowship with other true believers and large multi generational families worshiping together. I don’t see either happening.
The hang up Christians have with evolution is a pretty serious one. It’s an easy attack vector and I think that’s why the faith died in the 17th century. I think the creation myth might needs to be re-interpolated in a manner that jives with evolution.
Hmm, thinking it over, God had a Chosen in people in the Israelites, why not a chosen hominid? Of all the candidates to know the creator only we were chosen to know him and we slaughtered all the lessor hominids much as the Israelites slaughtered the Canaanites.
Christianity is pretty dead. There’s no getting around the elephant in the room. A sea of McChristians prevent fellowship, but they do have a real desire for genuine Christian schooling for their children. People naturally desire the authentic. The problem is that the vast majority of Christian schools they send their children sell a fake assortment of GAE McChristianity.
It must be built from the ground up, like the apostates with a modern twist. 1000 monastic-light private/charter schools. Gender segregated. Academics balanced with physical and spiritual. Mandatory wrestling classes for the boys, mandatory homemaking classes for the girls. Bible reading, not scholarship, for both. Reading by itself communicates the message 9/10 times. Scholarship often turns into debate turns into rule lawyering. The schools must also aim to funnel graduates into associated Churches to preserve the teachings and culture.
A Christian community can be created this way. This has already been accomplished on the regional small scale. The expertise is there, but needs to be taken national. Poach a few Mennonite and Amish and franchise their methodology.
You guys could convert to the LDS faith. I mean we’re gonna replace you anyway, and you’re all moving to where we are for a reason. I could tell you how to go about it since I already did. Leaving church today and there are so many kids running around it’s like a giant horde, like someone kicked an ants nest and the ants are all coming out. Where I live, almost all white, tons of kids, family focused, but no alcohol and you actually have to live the gospel not just demand everyone else do so while you keep sinning.
From the mouths of based & redpilled Mormons, I’ve been told that the convergence is happening, albeit slower and piecemeal. Looking at Brigham Young University, looking at Salt Lake City politics, looking at the messaging on social media, Mormonism has the same problem American Evangelical Christianity had in the 1980s: an unclear or incorrect perception of what’s actually happening.
If anyone wishes to become Mormon, good. But it’s disingenuous, or even destructive, to pretend Mormonism has some secret, special sauce that other cladistic faiths don’t or can’t have. I got very excited about Mormonism on paper a while back. When I went to the local Mormon church, it was disconcerting: loads of immigrant & negro fetishization, very few Chads and lots doughy men with soft hands. This is one place at one point in time, so assess accordingly.
The church in SLC I attended had no children. Cities have some affect that demolishes morality. Possibly too dense that some kind of Dunbar number overload happens? I live outside the city.
Positive social technology of the LDS faith:
The plan of salvation, why we are here, is so we can become more like “heavenly father” by having families here. Having a family is literally the point of existence. This means motherhood for women.
Families are forever, so the family you have here you will have after here. Help create cooperation through time.
Men and women are separated for teaching and duties, women go to the relief society and their duties are to support the men. Men have the priesthood authority (main reason this church is separate from other Christian churches) so men can act on the authority of God.
Ancestor worship is incorporated into the religion, but it must be actual ancestors that you research and verify. This is done through baptisms for the dead. Ancestor worship helps create cooperation through time. Today a baby received a blessing from her father, said blessing included hope that the girl will know and understand the effort of all ancestors to create the world she lives in, and to create her.
Enforcement of morality, the law of chastity, words of wisdom, etc, you can not go to the temple to do temple ordinances if you are not temple worthy. Becoming temple worthy requires one year of following said moral code.
A lot of families home school, the families talk about what schools they have control over through the school boards and only send their kids to those schools.
Downsides: no one understands women’s sexuality, women are viewed through the blue pill. Progism is always encroaching. Families send their daughters to University, they send their daughters on missions, their daughters are still becoming their sons. Making it easy for young men to get married, relatively speaking, results in fat physically weak men. But they’re smart, all have ham radios with licenses, guns, and know how to work together outside of the city.
Solution for me? Raise strong boys into strong men. Teach those boys game. Write my own book to try to keep said knowledge continuing to pass down through the generations.
The blue pilled men are a huge problem but it is less bad. A virgin wife means less shit tests, less harsh shit tests, but failure to pass still results in increasingly bad shit tests and divorce.
Another downside, mass failure to recognize that covid worship is demon worship. I guestimate one in three families took the injections.
LDS has massive potential to be the vehicle of the American Reconquista, anyone with eyes can see that. But there are substantially more protestants in gross total, and factional squabbling is the Adversary’s favorite free gift next to sending daughters to college.
I’ve looked into LDS. Even little towns in Utah are full of good looking young women dressed as dykes and rainbow flags everywhere. The rot that comes with consuming the poisoned progressive pill has not effected the people much, but when you consort with demons they will destroy you.
My own dealings with the Moromons has been quite negative, they’re basically white jews. Refusal to do manual labor, gain status for ripping off non Mormons, etc. Typical shysters.
Mormons my well survive the fall better than other groups, but I find it unlikely that they’ll thrive as anything other than parasites. Their refusal to become warriors in a major problem for them and it’s very likely they’ll get wiped out by the first military group they fuck over.
I have lived in both rural Utah and the rural midbest for a bit.
I have not found LDS to be particularly more fecund or special when compared to others that take the faith seriously, though I admit I was part of neither inner circle and merely observed from outside in both cases, and it has a lot of baggage when it comes to it’s history. That said, not a terrible choice, and if you deem it best personally, by all means teach your children in their ways.
Valid points Red. Mammon worship is also very present and most families are at least MC so they raise kids who “have to” go to college. As far as being a warrior? Right now this does not seem like a good idea. Nobody even knows who exactly we are trying to fight since we’ve been conquered through a culture war. Fighting back culturally appears a better path forward as warriors just get the old lets you and him fight routine.
As far as the fertility rates, 1.6 vs 3.3 means LDS families have double the rates of non.
The Mormon church has been converged by progressives. Your pope is basically Mitt Romney. All the top FBI officials working against Trump were Mormons. While the birth rate is still, the actual ruling group inside the Mormons is quickly debasing your people. Nor can outsiders join and expect to marry well.
A religion of Merchants and Priests built around subversion is unlikely to survive without a warrior class as things get worse. To attract the sort of men to build that warrior class they need to hand out their virgin daughters to them much as the Israelite’s did with the tribe of Dan or they need to train some of their young priests as warriors(call them security companies and train them to military grade). I don’t see the Mormons doing either. I think they expect to inherent the US empire as it collapses but this is very unlikely without any sort of military power.
The leadership of the church is President Nelson, mitt Romney is just some snake. Literally haven’t even heard that name for years until now. I’m right here and not seeing what you are seeing. My church neighbors are raising virgin brides for my sons, my sons will be able to lead their own families. Problem? How to find neighbors and a community that is raising moral girls ready for marriage for my six legitimate sons? Solution.
Is everyone pozzed out prog? Those at BYU and who claim they have leadership positions surely are. Ridiculous to listen to them brag about how they have six masters degrees and have never done any real work. Or give their opinions on marriage counseling, as a marriage counselor, and yet they are fully blue pilled. Guys in my church self depreciate in front of their wives and praise their woman on the pedestal.
Yes much like the Jewish religion the members of this faith mostly engage in very high investment parenting. The children are pushed to be successful, and are financially successful. Yes some members are engaged in usury, non productive lending and rent seeking. Yes some members are hypocrites, such as one of my uncles who apparently has spent his entire life banging hookers and worse. Hypocrisy exists but don’t forget perfect is the enemy of good.
Don’t forget perfect is the enemy of good. And yes if you convert, as I did, I would suggest you bring your own wife. But if no wife you can attend the singles ward. The women in the singles ward will be mostly single mothers, but still young enough to give you a few children. Ideal? No but the burden of sluts is the burden of our time. It could be worse and it is something we can fix.
As far as needing warriors I agree we have an epidemic of weak men and we need strong men. Hence I raise strong sons. Mormon girls are not taught to desire a “warrior” but a returned missionary who they can get sealed in the temple with. This is part of the fence that keeps them virginal. Should that fence be torn down, I am not sure of the results.
Red:
Maybe I’m high on optimism, but I think this will be easy. The only challenge will be deciding just how explicit to be about saying, “The story of Genesis is a metaphor for… (etc.)â€
Adam was the a King Priest during the latter part of the Y Chromosome singularity, at the beginning of the transition to herding and crop growing, and the fall was getting black pilled on discovering that large scale cooperation was hard, and that agriculture was considerably less fun than hunting and gathering.
With herds and crops to defend, people needed large scale extended patrilineal patriarchal families, and it turned out that if your extended family was too large scale, it was hard to keep peace within the family, and hard to maintain patriarchy. Hence necessary to promote a moral code, and difficult to get people to stick to it.
The Y Chromosome singularity represents property rights upheld among cousins by patrilineal clans. The fall is that they needed virtue for this system to work, and that was not easy.
Vaughn Heppner has a series of Biblical fantasy novels, total nine so far, set in the Old Testament. Though apparently it’s against his religion to give a proper ending to his books -don’t just end the story when Gollum falls into Mount Doom, ya nut-, they’re otherwise gripping yarns which flesh out the chronicles in Genesis akin to a Conan/LOTR mash-up.
My reason for mentioning Heppner is he, like Jim with his above tale of Adam, captures the spirit of the narratives. If anything, they strengthen my faith in our Heavenly Father and His Only Begotten Son Jesus Christ.
“There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” Ancient tales may very well not be literally true, but woe to him who will not learn their lessons.
Is taking notes from Platonism acceptable? The stories contained in Genesis are more real than reality, the same way that a perfect sphere is impossible to manifest and yet clearly is more than a mere conceptual tool. It is easy for me to say, Genesis is clearly real and absolutely occurred,and at the same time say that the way man was made manifest was through a series of transformations from lower forms as directed by the hand of God. Two different “layers” of reality.
Platonism and Aristotelianism begat Stoicism, and Christianity is the marriage of old type Judaism (spirit of the law) with stoicism. (Logos as a person).
Reading Robert Lewis Dabney, I’m not sure Christianity ever really recovered from 19th century evolution and geology. Which is not to say it is not right, but that my impression is quite a lot of people took a lot of what is now metaphor literally, and it is hard to keep the stuff that was never meant to be metaphor literal. Seems to me like people who very much were not shills, very much were high IQ old type Christians, took literal creation literally. And people who very much are not shills today still do.
When you can’t prove how things were created, creation stories are generally taken literally. Catholicism and Orthodoxy rolled right with the new information without a hitch, but it was the Protestants with their Muslim like obsession with the 100% literal truth bible that got steamrolled by it.
I’m still of the opinion we need a Prophet to set things right.
Yes, but they are overwhelmingly blue pilled.
Is Jimmy blue pilled? Hey Jimmy, What is your position on husbands exercising “servant leadership”, or beating one’s wife for misconduct? Is it sometimes appropriate to slap a woman in the face. (Not too hard, female faces are more fragile than male.)
Before 1820, Christianity was red pilled. The Young Earth Christian argument that interpreting away Genesis made it easier to interpret away everything else has some truth in it, and yet the overwhelming majority of Young Earth Creationist Christians have interpreted away everything else, and are burning their pinch of incense to Caesar.
I often say “Show me a Christian who believes in Genesis as history and geography, and you will find he does not believe in the moral and spiritual truths of Genesis”. Is Jimmy an exception? We shall see.
Yes I think the person who sets things right will be a prophet, to say it another way.
I see plenty of people on Twitter that literally believe Genesis, yet do not suffer women to teach.
I think you mean “yet do suffer a woman to teach”.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-religion-darwin-idUSTRE6584JX20100609
Is this Creationist movement indigenous to Orthodoxy, or an American import?
My wife, who’s descended from Old Believers on her mother’s side, says they believe the earth is flat, but I can’t find any other source on that.
@Alf
JudgeDread would often joke that he believes in Christianity as much as Andrew Torah does.
I don’t know what information this message is meant to convey.
Is the joke that Judge dread means that Andrew Torba is really as much a non-Christian as himself? And does the ‘Torah’ part refer to that he is really in the pocket of the jews? And since this is an often-made joke is this regarded as public knowledge? None of this is public knowledge to me, and none of this helps portray judge dread blocking me in a better light.
Based on the conversations Judge Dread has with Shadow Knight, as well as his comments, he has accepted the progressive Whig History. The rise of the left was baked in to technology, evolution is incompatible with Christianity, lots of the harmful policies were desired by the people and not decreed by elite fiat, etc. He is trying to fight them within their own precepts, so he is always going to be fighting with one hand behind his back.
The general consensus on Gab is that Torba is a grifter. His faggot brother and pagan mother working for Gab lend some credence to this, as does how he managed to skate away from any trouble after Charlottesville. The way he makes his money and deals with the feds looks a little suspicious, too. However, I am not sold either way. Torba does tend to commit thoughtcrime an awful lot for an informant. There is a lot on Gab that could get people in trouble, and yet nothing seems to be done about it.
Hm OK. Playing the field a bit, I can understand. But if the accusation is that Torba is a McChristian..? Hey Starman have you ever given Torba the multiple choice test on women? ^_^
I saw somewhere that Torba is Jesuit and went to a Jesuit school. I don’t necessarily buy into the whole Jesuit theory suggested here and other places from time to time, and don’t necessarily think there’s anything wrong with Torba, but sharing this because I noted the theory as interesting.
On the other hand — why does Gab get away with what others on the Right cannot? Far as I can tell, it is the only right wing, social discussion site that has a modern UI.
Most of the white nationalist posting is nazi posting, which are for the most part obvious shill accounts. Same principle as flat earth posting. Notice the complete absence of any mention of the activities of Soros, Nuland, and Blinken in creating wars everywhere. Even though they have Rothschilds on the brain, they will not mention that the Rothschilds funded the Russian revolutions – far too close to what Soros et-al are doing today. They will mention Soros like figures that were involved in sponsoring communism after the revolutions, but no Blinken akin activities. If they were the real thing, we would be hearing all about Soros. Even if they really had Rothschilds on the brain, would be telling us that Soros is doing so and so, and linking it to similar Rothschild activities in the 1910s and 1920s
Right now Soros et al are working on color revolutions everywhere, though with considerably less success now that people are thinking about what happened in Libya, Syria, and the Ukraine. Any white nationalist who is not ranting about color revolution in the Ukraine and brother wars, is not a white nationalist.
It the same kind of tell as with 911 troofers, who will never mention the most persuasive evidence for their thesis – that the FBI rolled over and smoothed the path of the terrorists. The Nazis will never mention the most persuasive evidence for their thesis either – that Blinken, Nuland, and Soros are taking whites into World War III.
We have another brother war, Jew fingerprints all over it, and in many ways a repeat of the Rothschilds 1910-1920 villainy. Why are they not all over it like a dingo on a baby? They will claim Rothschilds rule the world but will not mention this stuff.
Notice the absence of Nazis on this blog. I do not censor Nazis. I censor shills. If any real Nazi is reading this comment, please respond, please butt into my conversation with Alf. I have a stupendous number of page hits. Is there one real Nazi who read this comment?
Even my post on Holocaustianity, I do not recall any real Nazis showing up. Nazism is dead as a dodo. Search Holocaustianity on Yandex. My post has top page rank. And yet I don’t recall a single Nazi commenting. Comments are still open. Lots of hits. Hello, Hello, any real Nazis out there?
Hey, Nazis. Joo Joo Joo, why are you not commenting? Hello? Any real Nazis out there?
There have been a lot of conversations with Christians pushing back against Jimianity. Nazis, dead silence. No Nazi pushback on throne and altar, no response on throne and altar, no response on Holocaustianity Some neopagan comments, largely from Hindus, but I am pretty sure that all the white neopagan commenting was shills. Any real white nationalist neopagans out there?
There are a lot of real white nationalists who would like to be neopagans, but they have noticed that the white neopagan movement is all fat childless barren women and faggots, plus a few guys beta orbiting fat childless women who have hit the wall. Wholly owned subsidiary of Globohomo. Makes McChristianity look based. Nazis are as fake as troofers, and the white neopagan movement is not much different.
Everyone has some sort of religion, even if they think they do not. The choices are Globhomo, McChristianity where one burns a pinch of incense to Caesar every Sunday, and old type Christianity. Our enemies are still flogging Marxism, thinly disguised as third positionism, but that horse is dead, the fly maggots have eaten it, and the bones are scattered. Faith in Xi Thought pretends to be live, but it is walking dead, like the faith of Julian the Apostate. Randianism is still live, but barely, due to the woman question becoming front and central. Everyone will come to us, because we are all that there is.
How do you define “Nazi”, and where are you finding all these “Nazis” that won’t name Soros, Rothschild, etc.?
National Socialists. Those who espouse white nationalist socialism, and who cite Nazi Germany as example of white national socialism.
Gab.
They name Rothschild all the time, even though the Rothschilds have been out of power for seventy years and are no longer super rich. Musk has a private jet, whose comings and goings tend to be watched with great interest. Trump has a flying palace. The Rothschilds fly business class. Supposedly Musk is a Rothschild tool, and did not build anything, just given rockets by Rothschilds. But they will not point to the bad activities that Soros, Blinken, and Nuland, nor mention those activities of the Rothschilds that resembled what Soros et al are doing today.
[*deleted because I was asking for Nazis who are not obvious shills to respond*]
[*deleted for rectification of names*]
That is not socialism.
So, do you still value liberty? Because your enemies don’t. Free trade and free markets? Your enemies don’t. Are you race-blind when hiring engineers? Because your enemies aren’t.
Or, do you believe the government is not a business? That the racism that works in the private sector somehow wouldn’t work in the public one?
Obviously Russians have more freedom of speech than we do, and Elizabethans more freedom of speech than either. You should as yourself why?
Shakespeare during his later career was directly employed by Royalty to be the mouthpiece of Royalty, and it did not cramp his style. His stuff was still good. Today, restrictions so severely cramp everyone that it is impossible to write good books or good movies.
As for free trade and free markets, the Transpacific partnership was a plan for world socialism thinly disguised as coorporate capitalism. Trump’s national capitalism was free trade and free markets.
As for “racism” – obviously private corporations and the state should be “racist”. The reason we cannot build nice stuff any more, nor weapons that work, is because “racism” is forbidden.
I don’t follow the shill accounts on gab. Just the cool kids. Let’s see what the cool kids are posting
https://gab.com/kalogerosstilitis/posts/110317593262424759
https://gab.com/TrevorGoodchild/posts/110317174923586797
huh.
Obviously we aren’t talking to the same people. I’d say pretty much every “nazi” I have seen meets the requirements you listed. Especially talking about Ukraine and color revolutions. I have yet to see someone defending or minimizing Soros. It is probably more common on Gab, though.
Neopaganism is almost dead, with a few weird people still supporting it.
But nazis, meaning using explicitly nazi imagery, supporting Hitler, having some socialist ideas, while still being anti-communist, mostly blaming jews for our issues front and center, supporting Russia and refusing the vaccine – I have seen people like that, and they do not seem like shills to me.
They might even have some ideas similar to NRx, but still reject NRx as insufficiently blaming jews.
Give me links. I have yet to see one. If they are nazis and have Jews in their bonnet, should be saying that the origin of the war is that Soros and Nuland overthrew the government of Ukraine, and installed a hostile Globohomo Jewish government, just as troofers should be talking about the strange blindness of the FBI.
Where is the Nazi that says the war is a plot by Jews carried out by Soros and Nuland to get whites nuking each other?
> I have yet to see one. If they are nazis and have Jews in their bonnet, should be saying that the origin of the war is that Soros and Nuland overthrew the government of Ukraine, and installed a hostile Globohomo Jewish government,
That is more or less what I hear people say in those circles.
I won’t provide direct links, to begin with I don’t really have a link for all these specific things, but also I don’t really want to be that specific as to who I’ve interacted with on other platforms. I’ve said too much about myself here already.
All I’m going to say is that I spend no time on Gab, and do not use twitter for political stuff. Instead, I have been spending some time on fedi. That is where you find people with sonnenrad avatars talking about the “jew controlled government of Ukraine” and Azov being stooges.
Still, every poster has their own opinions. Some are bluepilled.
It’s a space that’s still mostly made up of many individuals rather than asymmetrically big influencers and their followers.
Because what you are saying is just not true. I am on gab, you are not. I see what I see, and you are not even looking.
A link to a post on fedi does not identify you – posts are public, any of the many people who read them could be the one providing the link. If you see nazis on fedi who are not shills, nothing stops you from linking to them.
And if you can find someone on fedi with a sonnerad avatar saying the Ukraine goverment is Jew controlled, which I suspect you cannot, is he saying that Zelensky was installed by Soros, Nuland, and Blinken, or he saying it was installed by Tel Aviv and the Rothschilds. Is he even capable of mentioning the foul origins of that government? Is he capable of mentioning Soros in the same breath as color revolution and the Ukraine, or is he strangely incapable, as the troofers are strangely incapable of mentioning the strange FBI blindness to the terrorists, even though that is the best evidence for their claim that 911 was an inside job?
The Maidan color revolution and coup was organized by people funded by Soros who wrote in English with a Harvard dialect. Will he mention that, or even make relevant response to people who notice that. If he is not a Jew or dot Indian employed by Soros to make the alt right look bad, should be all over that like a dingo on a baby.
Things like the sonnenrad and nazi imagery in general provide symbols that unify a number of people on the right. Their actual beliefs vary, and they might align more with the actual historical national-socialists or more with other ideologies, even when they claim to be nazis.
I think a lot of them could in fact cross to our side, given the right circumstances, but that would only work if we had something equivalent to offer.
Ideas are abstract and complex, and words like “Jimian Christianity” mean nothing to anyone who isn’t a reader of this blog.
We don’t have alternative symbols, such as a different banner to offer them. Nazi imagery is strong because of how it is despised by the left and recognized by nearly everyone.
Not saying that it could be useful to us, but it explains why it still survives and is quite strong in certain circles.
Christian symbols can be quite strong as well, and they become more meaningful the more the left attacks them, but they don’t convey enough given the amount of demon-worshiping sects that pretend to be Christian.
> I am on gab, you are not.
Certainly. I am not on gab, and I won’t express myself on it.
@notglowing It’s not too hard to search for “Ukraine” keyword on big rw fedi instances and pick profiles with some kind of nazi symbol in the name
Found a guy with a few followers:
https://poa.st/@MechaSilvio/posts/ATJ9Q6bRBs3TaQBZj6
[*the word “Soros” does not appear in this link. Neither do the words “color revolution”*, nor any indirect reference to color revolution.]
Can search similar keywords like “soros ukraine” on fedi instances with an account to find other results
https://poa.st/@EdBoatConnoisseur/posts/AKZVYUmIYPFXsAkP1k
[*This link explicitly lies “funded by Israel”. It was not funded by Israel, but by Soros and Blinken’s state department. A lie in the service of Soros, Blinken, and Nuland. Tells half the truth, and then tells us to pay attention to the Matador’s cape, rather than the matador – mentions Soros, but leaves out Nuland and the State Department.*]
https://poa.st/@DahlHaus1776/posts/AGop0mfe6tb37Gx1IO
[*this link identifies as fascist, but not as socialist, and not as nazi*]
Most of the alt right, and all reactionaries, are plausibly fascists in that we have given up on democracy.
So one out of three, and that one questionable. Obviously not a shill, but on the evidence in the link, not obviously presenting as a national socialist either. Might be, might not be.
If that is the best you can do, two shills and non shill not necessarily nazi, you are hard up for examples.
When I look at the gab cool kids and their nazism, it is mostly not very serious ‘let’s worship Hitler’ nazism. They don’t really care that much about the real 1930s nazism, they just like the military imagery and how it triggers progs. And the part about differences between races, but honestly, who wasn’t into eugenics at the time.
It’s more of a search for alternatives kind of thing, flirting with different ideologies.
So it’s not really that bad, just that, social media being what it is, hard to distinguish the ironic from the serious, the superficial from the wise, and the shills from the genuine.
The innovation of broadcast media not so coincidentally coincided with the world wars, therefore the mass of iconographic imagery of those who would be the Wilsonian Empire’s enemies comes from those who were in this period. Militarism, manliness, mass movement, all atavistically appealing to the thymos of young men repressed by the matriarchy.
There has been an unfortunate lack of warlike christian kingdoms genociding inferior kinds in a properly christian manner in latter days, leading to a dearth of such iconography in mass graphic form.
I’d say the main thing there is that places like gab are still relatively small ponds, and that right thinking men are still atomized from each other in general.
The usual trend of history is that when a polity catches poz, it doesn’t recover, it just dies.
But the trend of history is also that they can be strangely recurrent.
The western roman empire died. But when the Holy Roman Empire rose from the ashes of Evropa, it did not advertise itself as a replacement, but a restitution.
The trend of history is that successful new hotnesses don’t stake their claims on novelty in of itself, they stake their claims on truer continuity with hotness of all past. Tradition.
The man without Tradition cannot truly innovate because he is ignorant. He cannot walk anywhere because he is always getting stuck on stepping from zero to one. The builder without Tradition is always falling prey to unknown unknowns. It is the accumulated feedback from Being itself that is necessary for adaptiveness. It is men who signal continuity with that accumulated patrimony that are signaling their trustworthyness to cooperate with you in accordance with such. You simply cannot trust a man who claims he has broken with History in general, and your inheritance in particular.
How well does the American Revolution (18th Century) jive with this pattern?
It took less than a hundred years for the revolutionary government to turn murderously totalitarian, and less than a hundred years after that for the cancer to become terminal.
It took less than a hundred days for the French revolutionary government to turn murderously totalitarian. The difference was that England had a strong King who could only be defeated by the people uniting behind a strong leader. Which meant that when the American Revolution started holiness-spiraling in the 1780s, George Washington had the authority to step in and put a stop to it. Thus was order restored and a Constitution drawn up that made no mention of equality among men.
Of course, by historical contingency the details differ, but it did not divert the trend itself into something else, merely slowed its roll.
Agreed with all of this.
The kind of victory we seek is attainable, but it will also be a while.
We are still at the phase of the meme Musk posted on twitter, where every man (priest) is standing silently in the metro thinking: ‘after all this collapses, my ideology will rise from the ashes.’
It’s not our turn yet.
I have not seen anyone reference this blog, or something undeniably from this blog, anywhere else, with few exceptions. Nor do the other places I visit think favourably of “neoreactionaries”.
That said, some of the ideas we discussed, at least in their essential points, seem to have made their way into other, larger right wing avenues of discussion. I have seen discourse shift over time towards things a poster on this blog might agree with more.
That said, I tend to project my views onto people I sympathize with. So I am biased.
Even so, I have a feeling that there has been a change within far right online places, coming from the previous tradcuck (not McChristian) / national-socialist dichotomy into a mix of some ideas from both combined with neoreactionary ideas.
Recent historical events of the past few years have been a big catalyst for that.
However, being bluepilled on things that really matter is the norm. I agree with alf that there is no way at this point that we can reach the level of consensus which would allow for cooperation. There is too much disagreement and no one who can actually lead everyone else in the same direction. There is no authority, and no agreement on what words even mean.
Pretty much everything discussed here is also discussed on RW Twitter (BAP and his circle).
Of course Gab is bluepilled. Gab users are morons. Twitter censors banned all the dummies and forced them to alternative platforms. The only right-wing Twitter users left are those who are so much smarter than the Twitter commissars that those commissars are literally unable to perceive that they are posting wrongthink.
I have listened to a few BAP podcasts, and he absolutely does not discuss everything we discuss here.
I’ve listened to quite a few, and it seems he is too attached to classicalism. He is neopagan in a bad way, unwilling to accept the evolution of the collective psyche. It’s lead to a destructive nihilism. To return to a better state of man, must burn the world to ashes. There’s a core that is essentially correct, the lack of mans natural state, which is, paraphrasing Aidan, “total unrestricted genocidal warfare”, is leading to a very stark decay of our quality biological and spiritual. What looks to be missing between the conversation here and what he, in his own artistic manner, proscribes, is an actual social tool for coordinating the emergence of his ideal eugenics through barbarian warbrigades. There is an actual pattern to be applied here, a way of emerging through the ashes, a description of just how the European man managed to reach his zenith around the time of the exploit of the new world. Putting words in his mouth, he seems to think the religious and ideological precepts of the preenlightenment man were mere apparitions of the underlying biological being, rather than a force that unifies and directs those underlying biological beings to something greater. If the world burns, the forge of conflict will bring back those biological forms, a “Heroic Stone Age”, rather than just a disordered collection of warring tribes aspiring only to more pussy and more cattle, probably incable of coordinating the higher forms of philosophy and art he appreciates until the resurrection of the social technology that got us from there to here.
BAP is /ourguy/. He’s running a different operation than Jim, and that’s fine. we need not worry about him, he’s doing fine and doing good. There’s no need for factional struggle in that sphere. Anyone who is WQ correct is fine, that’s the only thing that matters.
Twitter anons have their own thing going. We don’t need to worry about the trenches, we need to worry about transitioning Theory into Practice. The stuff we do well gets picked up by them.
Not without a throne. We need a priesthood but priests alone are never going to solve the problem. Priests ruling alone are the problem.
The problems evident on Gab and Twitter are inherent in rule by priests.
The key point of Jimian Christianity is that we need a Caesar, that we need Christianity to be the state religion. An army needs a priesthood. Constantine was opposed by his army’s priesthood, as our Caesar was will be opposed by his army’s lawyers, and so turned to Christians. Who proved considerably more effective, perhaps because they really believed that God was on their side, or perhaps because God really was on their side. Constantine’s army cut through opposing Roman armies who heavily outnumbered them, even though the same training and equipment on both sides, neither side using any clever, unusual, or surprising tactics, and the enemy with the home ground advantage.
Christianity conquered the world as a state religion. We did not convert the masses at swordpoint, but we converted defeated Kings at swordpoint, or installed Christian Kings. Whereupon the state religion became Christian, frequently retaining major elements of the previous state religion with a quick spray paint touch job of Christianity on top.
You always have a state religion. If Christianity is not the state religion, a hostile religion will be. Which is likely to rapidly become infested by metaphorical or literal demons, as enlightenment postChristianity has become.
The women problem brings everyone together. That’s the issue every man is looking to solve weather he knows it or not. Among middle and lower class men I have yet to find a man react negatively to a comment such as “give her a spanking and tell her to get back in the kitchen†or even outright saying make women property again. A few laugh nervously and most would not say it themselves but many are immediately in total agreement.
Academic and philosophical debate coming into agreement with Jimian Christianity will come after the red pill on women becomes accepted.
The WQ is our greatest asset. But look at onlyfans, at social media, at female life in general, and tell me the hubris isn’t immense. There is an immense gap between where we are and where we want to be.
Have to know the destination before you can start walking there. Americans largely lost sight and started wondering from the 1990s to 2010s. That’s a lot of time we’re working against. A lot of time required to course correct as well. This won’t be easy, but it is doable.
The rot accelerated greatly in the last 30 years. But it has been around much longer than that, closer to at least a century.
How long were Sodom and Gomorra sinning before God burned them to the ground? Theoretically, one could’ve walked into Sodom and say: ‘hey guys, let’s stop f%*@$ng each other in the ass and honor God again, we could have our sh*t together in a couple of years.’ But realistically, was punishment not the logical, dare I say, just outcome?
I think a great pruning of the tree is about to be effected. Christ once told his disciples
We, if I may use the term we, are not to save the entire world, are not to save all white people, to save all Saxons. We are to offer the solution, and to live the narrow path. For a simple and well repeated example, just look at the birth rates. They are waning and we are waxing. Do your best to survive the collapse, and do offer cooperation to those who are able to understand, and you will be the branch that bears many fruit.
In the last post from Jim I wrote a short review of the book Anna Karenina, 1875, detailing how the rot had already set in.
They were forgetting what purpose Chesterton’s fence served.
Also had already forgeton why the fence was built.
The slave morality aspect of Christianity is by far its biggest weakness in practice and does need to be addressed. Past Christian leaders avoided this weakness with either a “divinely-mandated” authority or, later, with a populace of sufficiently intelligent and empathetic white Christians. We don’t have either of those anymore and thus our leaders are either Christian slaves or anti-Christian masters.
We need a reminder of what true divine authority looks like. Maybe we’ll figure something out, or maybe Jesus will come back, or maybe Gnon will take out the trash instead.
>We need a reminder of what true divine authority looks like.
All morality that is determined by consent is going to be blue pilled, liberal and socialist. Consent is an attack on authority and an attack on order. Jimian Christianity solves this with the throne, imposing cooperation by sword point.
Priests seem to be inherently liberal and socialist, or at least their attack on the throne is consistently liberal and socialist. Even the idea that cooperation has to be imposed when necessary would be incomprehensible by any priest today.
Someone with the means will need to hang a number of high priests in broad daylight to remind everyone what divine authority looks like.
[*unresponsive*]
I don’t think you are a shill, but if you are not, you have so deeply internalized progressive reality that you are unable to comprehend when people talk about the reality that is right in our faces, so tend to post entirely bizarre replies based on genuine incomprehension.
“…‘nullius in verba’ applied to biblical miracles…”
I wasn’t there to witness any of the Biblical miracles. But then again, no skeptic was either. As Chesterton says, God is wild, not tamed. He is not bound, like a djinni in a lamp, to our limited imaginations. Christianity is worth indulging in the belief of a burning bush or talking donkey. Plus, such things are amusing.
Start with the resurrection:
https://archive.org/details/coldcasechristianityahomicidedetectiveinvestigatestheclaimsofthegospelspdfdrive.com1/mode/2up
There is sufficient reason to believe that it happened.
The literal physical resurrection of Jesus from the dead is a prerequisite for the legitimacy of Christianity.
Otherwise you are NGMI(Not going to make it) as a Christian.
We have to re-interpret Genesis to accommodate evolutionary psychology, without which the red pill and Old Testament law on sex and marriage makes no sense, but there is ample precedent for that – Saint Augustine got away with it.
Lots of people have tried re-interpreting the resurrection as not exactly a physical body, and the faith always turned evil.
Obviously the state religion must demand belief in certain things unfalsifiable. A lot of Christians have an interpretation of Genesus that is, as Saint Augustine warned, falsifiable. I have personally verified that the earth is immensely old with a small pickaxe.
Lyell, on assembling a detailed proof that the earth was unimaginably old, cast doubt on the proposition that it had a beginning. We now have plenty of evidence of a beginning, an unthinkably ancient beginning, plenty of evidence that the universe itself had a beginning, and evidence that plausibly suggests that time itself, time in the sense of one dimensional directional time, had a beginning.
But without the resurrection of the body, you always wind up with “I love Jesus the Jewish community organizer who so greatly improved on that horribly old fashioned Old Testament morality, and I am walking in his footsteps by improving on it a whole lot more”
I would like to humbly submit:
The data we see all around for what we call the “red pill on women” must be explained by a powerfully predictive model. In this we agree. You have always plugged evolutionary psychology into that slot, and it predicts very well. Good model. I think it is wrong though, but predicts well because it almost always predicts the same thing as what I believe to be the correct model: a robust, good faith interpretation of creation and fall. The pre-enlightenment Christian interpretation of the creation and fall of man (Devine image/corruption of nature) completely explains the woman problem, and can do it within either a young earth or old earth interpretation of the creation of the world. Adopting this (or even just allowing for it) will go a long way toward building a bridge between trad Christians abs right-wingers.
You can’t blame us for getting nervous around people suggesting we must adapt old earth models. I know you are doing it in good faith, but for the last hundred years, everyone pushing old earth on us was doing it as step one of his 5 step proof for how the Bible definitely says he can have sex with our children.
Yes, but I know the earth is immensely old. Look at it through Lyell’s eyes. Leonardo Da Vinci noticed it long before Lyell, and Saint Augustine had his suspicions.
Yes, but since Lyell the atheists and post Christians have been successfully hammering the young earth Christians because young earth creationism is falsifiable and false.
The bible tells you that women are the weaker vessel, that they need male authority and supervision to protect them from themselves, but I tell you that women cannot help $#!% testing men, just as men cannot help looking at women’s breasts, and for the same reasons. Evolutionary psychology leads to the same moral implications as the fall, but it provides considerably more detail, and everything hangs together, while the biblical account and biblical laws seem rather arbitrary, and are therefore rather subject to Jewish legalism and excessive interpretation.
I’ve posted similar here before, but the are corners of the west where old type Christianity is thriving. Well behaved teenage girls who look to their fathers to choose a husband. TFR hovering around 6 on the average. Half of the men are engineers, PhD scientists, or craftsmen, technicians, etc. We aren’t getting hammered by old earth evolutionists, and we don’t know any under 60. I’m not going to win any of you over, obviously. Just reporting the facts as they are in my neighborhood. Your reasoning is sound, but based on incomplete data.
The age of the earth is not actually important to old type Christianity. What is important is that the fall predates death in the world. Death being the unnatural result of sin coming into the world through Adam. The lightweight modern Christians actually are the ones who trend to break old earth. Trads don’t. And won’t. Can’t, really. If that’s a deal breaker for unity on the right, then it’s on the side of the evolution true believers. It’s you who won’t have us.
Which is fine, I guess, although it’s a shame.
We are happy to have you, but don’t demand that we believe in things falsifiable and demonstrably false.
I think that Adam was a real person, who lived at the tail end of the Y chromosome singularity and the beginning of the Neolithic, but the book of genesis is theological poetry about what happened spiritually and morally to his clan, not actual history of his clan. And there was plenty of death before him. We wiped out all the other humanoids, in much the same style as the Israelites taking Canaan.
But I do not demand that any other Christian believe that. I am just telling you that if you do not believe that, love sex and family is going to be more complicated and difficult.
Similarly, the flood occurred after Adam, but did not flood the whole world, just the relatively civilized parts, which are still under water to this day, (there are faint traces here and there of the cultural and technological influence of an older civilization, pre literate and pre bronze, but capable of building impressive machinery from wood, stone, and rope) and I think that Exodus is true, but is about the moral and spiritual meaning of the events reported in the the scroll of Ipuwer, and takes a few liberties with the facts on the ground here and there, for the sake of clarifying the moral meaning.
For example, had Pharoah ordered the the death of the children, would have sent soldiers, not midwives, and that the midwives were not having any would not have mattered. Consistent with scroll of Ipuwer, I think Pharoah ordered infanticide on the Hebrew equivalent of Obama’s health plan, as Obama ordered Roman Catholic hospitals to provide free abortion on demand to their employees. Ipuwer wanted the Hebrai culturally assimilated because they were breeding too fast, and Exodus similarly records that the Egyptians were disturbed by rapid Hebrew population growth. I don’t think Exodus is lying or making stuff up, rather it is deliberately oversimplifying coercive pressure to assimilate to Egyptian norms.
And likely Jonah’s survival after being tossed overboard far out to sea was astonishing and impressive, and seemed plenty miraculous to Jonah, but seems unlikely it involved being swallowed by a big fish.
If nobody in your group is an “old earth evolutionist”, safe to say that everyone in your group is in an imbecile. Including you. Maybe you’re amazing as a person. But you’re retarded.
This does seem like the key point here. The idea that sin directly causes all death is ridiculous. Every cell in your body is designed to die at a certain point and it’s DNA code can only be refreshed via sexual reproduction. Sin causes reproductive death or speeds up death but does not directly cause physical death. Everything alive must die sooner or later.
The Old Testament law is massively weighted towards behavior that results in reproduction and survival. The spirit of that law is “And ye, be fruitful and multiply, teem in the earth, and multiply in it.” Everything flows from that.
Reading over the creation and the fall story, it’s pretty clear that the tree of life gave eternal life, eternal life wasn’t inbuilt in us. Genesis strongly indicates we would still live forever after sinning if we’d continued eating from the tree of life.
“And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.—
Living forever in the New testament is a spiritual life after death, but physical body must still die to achieve that. Death sucks, but is necessary.
My own anecdote: I had a friend who was that sort of Christian, who told me quietly that he didn’t believe in evolution and didn’t think it was necessary for dealing with the Woman Question because God’s commandments are already clear enough on the subject. We didn’t argue much about it, he stated his opinion and knew mine, and we had a gentlemen’s agreement to avoid any deeper discussion on the subject. This wasn’t a problem for either of us.
Under less favorable circumstances, two things can make it a problem. The first is Teddy Beale, AKA Humanity’s Greatest Genius, although I don’t really mean him specifically and him alone, I mean him as an avatar of the militantly anti-evolutionary movement. They huff and puff and sneer, borrowing mathematical equations they don’t understand and applying them to assumptions that make no sense, then refuse to accept any objections, and finally loudly congratulate themselves on their flawless victory, Because Math. Many of us have run into these folks and they’re insufferable. There used to be a whole “Creation Science” movement although I think they’ve mostly disappeared.
The progs can’t stand it when their subjects say “maybe you’re right, but this is what I believe”, but I am fine with people saying that. It’s when they refuse to keep it in their pants – when they’re openly contemptuous toward “evolutionists” (as if it’s some kind of contrived ideology, like Communism, as opposed to a readily observed phenomenon like the Fibonacci sequence), demand that it be kept out of schools, etc. that it is a deal breaker. And I’ll hasten to add that I know this kind of militaristic anti-Darwinism is actually fairly rare, blown vastly out of proportion by progs, really almost a non-issue outside the fictional world of network TV and cancerous social media, but it does exist and we know it exists because of Beale and his fan club. And these demographics are inclined to be nutty on other issues like moon landings and 9/11 trooferism, highly vulnerable to shills, grifters and quacks.
The other problem, and this is only my personal opinion, is that “God commands us” as the entire basis of law is a kind of peasant morality. The peasant is content to be led and commanded, but it really doesn’t fly with elites, with the smart fraction. I am not saying you aren’t smart, I’m sure you are just as the friend I mentioned above, but it is a tendency among smart people to ask “why?” and demand a reasonable answer. God and Gnon can be the starting point — indeed, as has become increasingly obvious, must be the starting point, for all other paths lead to the left-singularity — but it is incomplete. How do we know what God wants? How can we be sure Jesus really said X? We must be able to make our own observations, use our own logic, and draw our own proofs, even if the proofs are flawed and incomplete. We can only suspend disbelief entirely when the claim itself is unfalsifiable, and religious doctrines work best when limited to unfalsifiable metaphysical claims.
If you don’t have even a half-assed answer to the “why” then the only solution is violent suppression of the question, and violent suppression of scientific curiosity is dysgenic.
I think it was Jim who pointed out some time ago that if, as a society, you make it low-status or taboo to believe and discuss observable facts, then the truth doesn’t ultimately win out as idealists like to believe; rather, you end up with a lot of high-status people in that society believing in a lot of silly nonsense. Clown World, essentially. Negative outcome. For better outcomes, need to be tolerant of grog philosophy but still reward legitimate intellectual pursuits.
“Maybe you’re amazing as a person. But you’re retarded.”
Yes, this. I feel exactly the same way, about many things. That’s the point I was trying to make. “Can we work with the retarded, for their profit as well as ours?” The answer to that question is what differentiates a universal fairy from a sect. Which is “Jimian Christianity to be?”
Alf asked the question about bringing two groups together. I was just trying to point out that there are lots of groups out there in the west who share quite a bit. Natural allies, even. Some even possess in fact what exists only in theory for many here (functional patriarchal families). They are bearing good fruit, in other words. But they don’t share belief in the correctness of one dogma that is being set up here as a boundary marker. I was just asking the question “are you sure you can’t work with us? We have chaste daughters and masculine sons. We do engineering and science the way it used to be done. Is the belief about how humans got to be the way we both agree they are that important?”
I asked you to take the red pill test on women.
You say young earth Christianity suffices. Does it?
Before 1820, almost all Christians were young earth, and were red pilled. Today, seems that all young earth Christians are blue pilled.
I remarked that everyone who takes Genesis literally fails to take it spiritually. Do you take it spiritually?
Show us the color of your pill. Tell us about shit tests.
Universal faith. Not universal fairie. The answer to the question “can we work with the retarded for their profit as well as ours?” is what makes a universal faith rather than a sect.
>We have chaste daughters and masculine sons
Do they?
>We do engineering and science the way it used to be done
Do they?
>Is the belief about how humans got to be the way we both agree they are
Do they?
Pseudo-Chrysostom has a good point. @Jimmy you’re making claims without evidence.
You’re also haven’t stated your position on the biblical concept of the ownership of women.
Jim, half my last post was erased due to me accidentally using html metacharacters. I used angle brackets. Please delete and use this one instead.
I’ve been following Teddy Spaghetti since he was a columnist for WorldNetDaily. Back then he struck me as an idiot, basically writing McChristian screed (although that term hadn’t been invented yet. Sapir Worf anyone?). If you follow Jim’s metric for shills, he appears to be an extremely high functioning one. To wit:
1. Anti-evolution.
Four billion years ago the Earth’s surface was covered with magma. Today it is teeming with life. As far as I’m concerned we got from A to B via the application or process of natural laws. The rest is details.
2. Anti-moon landing – the moon landings were fake. Stanley Kubrick, etc …
3. Anti-Einstein and/or Einstein was a plagiarist.
How does GPS achieve its accuracy brah?
4. incessant Anti-“boomer†tirades. “Day of the pillowâ€, etc. Sows division between arbitrary groups of people.
He does seem to be “good†on a lot of other things though, for example.
Gamergate
Ukraine war
Clown world
I’ve always loved this passage in Genesis!
“become like one of us”
Who is “us”. God does NOT say, “become like me.”
“He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”
Sounds mighty defensive to me! Seems to me the metaphysical goal of existence is to win back the Tree of Life. We are “God’s children”. Children grow up. The goal is to continually become more Godlike over time, both spiritually and technically.
You don’t really need to know about relativity for receivers not moving terribly fast near Earth’s surface since the 38 microsecond error is roughly the same across the 4 satellites and cancels out in the triangulation. So the actual error is less than a centimeter a day (less because positions are updated more frequently).
But it is pretty quick evidence of relativity.
I’ll take the test, and I’ll give answers from my Christian frame that (I think) will pass the test even though it comes from the evolutionary psychology frame.
A woman misbehaves (sins against her covenant head (the man responsible for her)) because in her creation nature she is made to do for one man, but in her fallen nature, she can’t be satisfied that she’s with him yet. Her desire is for her husband (“demon rapist”) and (only) he will rule over her. She periodically gets subconsciously anxious, desiring confirmation of rule. Because he WILL rule over her. Fitness tests are her sin, failing them is his sin. When the state puts it’s thumb on the scale to make him lose, it is their sin. She really misbehaves. It’s really her that does it, she is responsible for choosing to do it. And it is aimed at the man whose authority she’s under, because her desire to be under the authority of the strongest man is hard-wired in her from her original mother’s creation and fall.
Biblical Christianity models the relationship of man to woman (daughter, wife) as ownership. She is his. And it’s a strong model, because of she gets a whiff of the possibility she isn’t, see the above. Furthermore, man’s ownership of his wife is in the mode of steward. God will require an account. Not of how easy you made it for her, not of how “happy” she was, not of how much she was loved, but of how sanctified she became in your care–which is chiefly displayed by obedience (see the qualifications for office of bishop).
There is no prohibition on physically disciplining your wife. The statements often used to construct such (that you must treat her as your own flesh and love her as Christ loved the church) are misapplied. That said, wife beating is crass. Public arguments are crass. Spanking children in public is crass. You should not have to ever see it, even though some might have to do it. It is not a mark of the church, let’s say. But claiming a biblical prohibition where there is none is the definition of judaizing.
There is no biblical or apostolic mandate for coming between a man and a woman under his authority. Not for the state, not for the church, not for a family member.
I’m not a shill. Family man who is barely online.
As for those asking for evidence that non dysfunctional old type Christian communities exist today and that they believe mostly in a young earth, and that the have chaste daughters and happy submissive wives, and that they do science properly, etc., I don’t know what to say. I’m an anonymous guy claiming to have seen them. You can throw it out since it doesn’t fit with the rest of your data set, or acknowledge that the US is a big place and you might not have seen all there is.
Full pass.
I was not accusing you of being a shill, I just wondered at your claim of red pilled young earth Christianity.
It’s funny. You guys spend time here and there trying to figure out how the young earth explanation for the nature of men and women can be explained as an analogy for the real cause (evolutionary psychology) that is accessible to Christians. . For years I’ve e been reading here and always automatically read the evopsych explanation for the nature of men and women as an analogy for the real cause (the events of the beginning of Genesis, read fairly literally) that is accessible to people who grew up materialists. It really does translate backward and forward. Because, I think, both models are strong and correspond very well too observable reality, at least in the case of relations between the sexes.
Your Young Earth Christian explanation of $#!% tests is strained and complex. Not that evolutionary psychology is simple either, but “women cannot help $#!% testing men in the same way men cannot help checking out a woman’s breasts, and for the same reasons” gets to it far more directly.
Being strained, it is easy to come up with a equally plausible, and equally strained, explanation that the spirit of the law is that headship means “servant leadership”, marriage 2.0.
And we are going to have explain Chesterton’s fence to Caesar, that the spirit of the law commands Caesar to institute marriage 1.0.
In your explanation, she is pursuing her divine curse “he shall rule over thee”. In the Young Earth Christian explanation of $#!% tests, she wants an alpha husband. In the Evolutionary Psychology explanation, she wants alpha semen. The Evolutionary Psychology explanation points to the problem of defect/defect, the game of players and bitches – that women will defect on men by cruising for someone more alpha all their fertile years, a relatively small number of men who are alpha in female eyes will pop all the virgins, and those few men will defect on women by spinning plates, that women are apt to spend all their fertile years as number ten on booty call lists. We are worse off than a peasant subject to Droit de Seignure, (which does not appear to have ever existed) for Droit de Seignure meant the peasant got a wife that had only slept with one man more alpha than himself.
The Evolutionary Psychology explanation directly explains that external enforcement is needed to attain cooperate/cooperate equilibrium, marriage 1.0, as the two prisoners in the classic story of prisoners dilemma needed to be members of a mob that will kill anyone who ratted out his partner. This gives the reason for Chesterton’s fence, while the Old Testament simply commands marriage 1.0. This makes it easy to argue that marriage 2.0 or 3.0 is a proper compliance with the spirit of the law.
If we want to revive marriage 1.0, need to explain why Chesterton’s fence was instituted. Because Christians are required to comply with the spirit of the law, and Caesar is authorized to interpret the spirit in accordance with his people’s culture, character, history, and the circumstances of the times, need to explain Chesterton’s fence. We are going to have to explain to Caesar why marriage 1.0 is indeed the spirit of the law.
And your account of $#!% tests fails to explain this Chesterton fence, why Caesar was commanded to institute marriage 1.0.
Your explanation easily slides into the Victorian account that women are naturally virtuous, so no enforcement is needed against women, only against men. Which necessarily led to a horde of bastards born in the rain in dark muddy alleys, which necessarily led to child support, AFDC, women married to Uncle Sam the Big Pimp. It was the Victorians that started what is now AFDC.
The reason we don’t like Young Earth Creationism (when it comes up) is that much like flat earth and fake moon landing theories these are wedge issue theories that don’t threaten the establishment but serve to alienate right wing base from smarter right wingers and put low status seemingly absurd beliefs as an albatross around their necks. And yet they pose no threat to the Cathedral or the government.
As Tucker said very shortly before he went off, the government doesn’t care if you think the earth is flat that is no threat to them but they are very worried about people who think their elections are fake.
Jimmy has made my case. We must do more to bridge the gap with worthy Trads in regards to our material/immaterial synthesis. As I claimed, there are based, redpilled, and valuable Christians who completely deny evolution its due. They do this not put of spite or fear or ignorance, but out of. robust and valid defense against destructive entryists. It’s not flat earth, it’s Amish; the Amish don’t deny the existence of cars, they have ordered there society such that they don’t need them.
…but. But the Amish do use cars, they just don’t own or drive them. Certain Amish do use landline telephones, they just deploy them in a way that comports with their standards (community phone booth, no voicemail, no texting). Certain Amish use modern diesel powered equipment, but they remove the rubber tires and replace them with steel wheels of their own design and fabrication.
I assert that it’s incumbent upon us to configure evolution in general, and evopsych n particular, for use and/or toleration by old type Christians.
Young earth as a wedge issue works both ways. Very hard to bring a purple pilled strong decent Christian father up to throne/altar/freehold table when he smells the familiar bait from a thousand familiar traps he’s kept his wife and children out of. We need to neutralize the wedge in a way that doesn’t alienate either side. That means nobody gets to declare ideological victory. We both want the same things. I have had ten times as many conversations with guys on my side of the fence trying to build the bridge.
Jim, I don’t disagree on any point. It’s just how it is with those of us who are retards–might have to go the long way around. Thanks for writing all these years.
There is more flexibility with evolution as Darwinian evolution alone is an insufficient explanation for speciation… but to admit that the earth is only 6000 years… I might as well admit trans women are women.
Its not only absurd but it’s also not required by scripture. We can avoid the issue but we cannot “budge” on the issue.
Darwinian’s “The Origin of Species” gives the complete and sufficient explanation for species. Races. The origin of species is races. Races diverge, until, as with whites and blacks, interfertility is diminished, and as with Tasmanian aboriginals, completely erased, making them a completely different species. We observe this happening all the time with shorter lived, faster reproducing species. No two scientists will agree on whether two closely related kinds are two subspecies (what Darwin called two races) or two species.
Coastal aboriginals were the same species as Tasmanian aboriginals, and coexisted on the Australian mainland with modern type aboriginals (who can interbreed with whites) for thirty thousand years or so without hybridization.
Respectfully it has not (in my experience) prevented those men from falling into the trap of female consent. I have had many conversations with blue and purple pilled church going men with daughters and wives, nearly all will argue for infinite female consent and against coverture.
The young earth position has to go because it is compatible with the blue and purple pilled christcuck, and progressive liberal gay anal demon worship.
The christcucks have failed and are converged. The demon nigger faggot tranny worshipper is hoping the christcucks keep clinging to the young earth model and keep rejecting the work of St. Darwin.
I remember growing up in Protestant evangelical churches in the 80s and 90s as they rejected evolution as an attack on Christianity. All those who rejected it fully embraced feminism and female emancipation.
Need to get to coverture again. Not going to do it with the young earth model. Young earthers will die off or be conquered.
I believe in evolution I believe in natural selection but I do not believe Darwin gave the whole picture. Plenty of evolutionary intermediary steps which would make you less likely to survive until completed…
Not seeing them. Give an example.
If we could cross such valleys in fitness space, we would not have crossover in the optic nerve, and not have optic nerve on top of the retina resulting in the blind spot.
What use is the nub of a wing before a wing fully forms, not even useful to glide initially. And how would it form through a series of random mutations…
It was not the nub of a wing originally.
Consider the flying squirrel. It is handy for a squirrel to have the capacity to fall long distances without harm, and the more loose skin it has around its limbs, the more air resistance. And, when falling he spreads to stretch this loose skin tight. There is your proto wing right there, which in due course results in the capacity to glide a considerable distance between one tree and the next. Thus your flying squirrel. And thus in due course bats from something like flying squirrels. They came from arboreal rats. Similar story with small tree dwelling dinosaurs, except feathers in place of loose skin, giving rise to birds.
For skin, we see the intermediate stages still living at every step along the path. For dinosaurs giving rise to birds, the intermediate steps have long gone extinct, but some fossils are arguably suggestive of intermediates.
Same for eyes. Eyes have evolved and re-evolved time after time, and we see living creatures in intermediate stages at every step along the path.
Creationists propose the bacterial flagella as something that could not have evolved in small steps “irreducible complexity”. But here is a paper reconstructing the small steps. In the same way you can find a very human, and very useless, five fingered hand inside the dolphin’s fin, you can find similar traces of original use for a very different purpose inside the bacterial flagella.
The hand of the dolphin reveals a common ancestor with ourselves, an ancestor that needed to grab hold of things, and could do so. And the flagella of a bacteria reveal a common ancestor. That ancestor had systems for the active transport of materials across the cell membrane, that had the accidental and very slight side effect of moving the bacterium through fluid, as the baggy skin of the squirrel (or arboreal rat) makes it slightly more likely to survive a big fall.
Rats are nocturnal when they go outside, they like it dark and moonless, and when they are inside, they are often very noisy every now and then, to figure out the structures around them by echolocation. It is easy to get lost in narrow spaces in the dark. They have pretty good echo location ability, though they rely primarily on scratching, rather than squeaking. So these arboreal rats had echolocation, and relied on good echolocation rather than good night vision. And some of them grew bigger, and started to have problems with big falls. And thus, bats. The ancestor of the dolphin had paws capable of grabbing berries from trees, and when he went swimming to catch fish, used those paws as we use our hands when swimming, like a bear, but, like a bear, caught fish with his mouth rather than his paws. And thus the remarkably human looking but completely useless hand skeleton inside the dolphin fin.
BTW, I read the eye of an octopus does not have this issue. The neural wiring of their eye is behind the retina.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalopod_eye
“The young earth position has to go because it is compatible with the blue and purple pilled christcuck, and progressive liberal gay anal demon worship.”
They are not compatible. They are orthogonal. Old earth worships demons, young earth worships demons, old earth keeps the faith, young earth keeps the faith.
Plenty of people of both sides of the evolution question are preaching female consent. Only the tiniest fraction from both sides preaching patriarchy. We need to hang together. Accidentally allowing the wrong position on the origin of species a place in your society gives you robust science. Accidentally allowing the wrong position on the wq in your society gives you about 4 generations until the lights go out. We need to hang together.
Sure they are. You just proved it. You failed to explain the marriage 1.0 Chesterton’s fence, which leaves room open for the claim that marriage 2.0 gives effect to the spirit of the law. Because the failure of family formation is supposedly totally men’s fault.
We can take down old fences provided we comply with the spirit of the law. What is the spirit of the law?
Obviously men are polygynous, women are hypergamous. To justify the marriage 1.0 Chesteron’s fence, have to conclude that hypergamy leads to very bad consequences, so the spirit of the law is that state, society, faith, and family must forbid women from doing that stuff, that the spirit of the law is that state, society, faith, and family must come down mighty hard on women. Which infinite miles and infinite cheeks type Christians are going to argue and did argue is unChristian. Infinite forgiveness and total absence of consequences for (female) sinners.
The Victorians argued that women were so naturally virtuous that no amount of evidence of misconduct could constitute evidence of misconduct, short of doing it in the street and frightening the horses. And explained that by imputing virtue to women, they would persuade women to be actually virtuous. Which was as effective as blowing on erupting volcano and pushing on a glacier. These forces are primal and immensely powerful. A woman will crawl nine miles over broken glass to be with her demon lover.
“Anna Karenina” is set in a time where Chesterton’s fence, fencing in women, is still there, but people have forgotten why it was there. Old Testament rules do not explain.
Undeniably true.
But Old Earth makes the spirit of the law more intelligible.
The purpose of the law is to ensure cooperation on reproduction. Well, what goes wrong? Why does it go wrong?
Women call the tune, so men have no choice but to dance the pimp monkey dance. Men perform and women choose. You play the game of players and bitches, or you wind up incel. Women can always get some. A very large proportion of men never get any. So it is women who have to be restrained. If women are restrained from playing that tune, men will not have to dance.
Without evolutionary psychology, Old Testament law on marriage, sex, children, and family seems random, arbitrary, and oppressive. So people can argue that the spirit of the law is marriage 2.0 and servant leadership. “What is this fence doing – I see no reason why it was there. Sweep it away.”
If a woman can cruise all her fertile years for an upgrade, everything falls apart. Eggs are precious, sperm is cheap. You control that which is precious, and that suffices to control all.
Controlling male sexuality is a cop out from controlling that which needs to be controlled. If you control female sexuality, male sexuality has no alternative but to follow.
Whigs don’t actually believe in St. Darwin’s revelations, as the implications are unthinkably shitlordian. Much like how in former days they would contingently claim ownership over progress in techne in general, even as they hate everything that make it possible. It was always a psyop to equivocate themselves with the fruits of civilization, while driving away civilized men, their mortal enemies, from that which cultivates fruit.
Indeed. Have them quote the full title.
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
And look how they treat Galton, or even James Watson.
I experienced the same thing. I also don’t see trads calling for coverture. Instead they’re either fully blue pilled or they’re at least preaching being fully blue pilled while practicing something else.
Admittedly it’s quite dangerous to call for coverture, but remaining publicly silent is quite different from talking up the blue pill in public.
My litmus test is if they’re willing to punish women for misbehavior. They always blame the men. I’ve yet to see them do even preech the basic proscription that “she shall be saved through the child-bearing, if they remain in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety.”
If that’s different somewhere, let me know and I’ll join that church.
None of the denominations where a red pilled church can be found are homogeneous, but if you are willing to look, they can be found. Try: CREC, various small Lutheran denominations (only those to the rightcontinuing Anglican, Latin mass catholics, orthodox (various).
The reality is that none of the good churches will explicitly teach about evolution, age of the earth, etc., because it isn’t a pertinent issue (I used the word “orthogonal” earlier) but if you talk to the men with well behaved, happy families, they will almost entirely be young earth. That’s based on my personal experience, living amongst these people for decades. And you will find lots of people, even in these guys communities, practicing female emancipation. They will stick out because of their fruit. Lo, the retarded you will always have with you.
My only point was that there are redpilled Christians, individuals and communities, today. They aren’t extinct. Just rare. But if you filter out examples who reject evolution, you won’t find any.
The problem is it’s proven reality. We even know when Noah’s flood happened, but it was 8-10k years before the Young Earth creationists date for creation. The Scientific Revolution came about partly because very religious men who felt the Christianity commanded them to seek out truth about the natural world. Such men would be expelled from your circles today because the world is clearly very old. It’s no longer something you can take on faith.
And you should be far more concerned about your daughters being married to good Christian boys and your good Christian boys being given virgin brides than about faggots raping your kids. It’s easy to keep faggots away, all it takes a is a father willing to kill any faggot who touched them, much harder to illegally re-constitute patriarchy so that your sons and daughters will reproduce. To do that you need to understand why Women behave the way that they do.
I’ve made this argument before to McChristains and I’ll make it again: God works through the natural processes of the universe he created to achieve all things. When he decided to smite Sodom he sent and air burst asteroid to destroy it. We’ve found it’s location and it’s covered in salt just as described. God designed the game and he sticks to the rules he made to control things in a manner pleasing to him. Evolution and the Old Earth is part of those rules, denying that is denying God’s creation.
Indeed. To do otherwise would be to be dishonest with humanity by cheating. To put his finger on the scales for some but not others.
@Red
Instead it should read:
Nicolás Gómez Dávila says somewhere something like (paraphrasing from memory): “The origin of docetism is not the disgust of matter, but the necessity of transforming the agent of salvation into its revealer. The docetic Christ does not save, he enlightens.”
Given the nature of Genesis 1-2:3 as poetry. That can definitely accommodate Old Earth Creation.
Its Genesis 2:4 onwards as Prose. That means that it should be taken as literal history. So Garden of Eden onwards have to be taken literally IMO.
As Jim notes the resurrection of Jesus works and produces good fruit. The problem is women and evolution that explains women’s behavior. We can’t throw out evolution without throwing out understanding women which runs us smack into the creation myth issue.
You cannot falsify the priests’ explanation that the disciples sent some women to get the guard drunk, and then swapped out the body with an impersonator, though the subsequent behavior of the disciples strains that explanation. Let us stick with faith in things not seen.
@jim
The Cold Case detective did find the Gospel accounts plausible enough compared to alternative explanations to believe.
“Christianity is not a suicide pact.”
Amen. The implied passivity of Christianity in the modern church is a rotten development. If an NGO vessel carrying migrants is bounced from one EU port to another with no hope of aid thus discouraging further attempts by others then who is truly being humane? Yet ask any professed Christian and they’ll answer the same as the secularly minded – bring them ashore, feed them, ‘help them’. To admit that allowing a small group to perish is the more humane choice is something which is anathema, yet in reality completely diabolical.
Private-public key pairs ought to function as universal logins even without blockchains. A username can be a simple word paired with a public key, “Joe-X37bs…â€, “Jim-585nc…†and so on, with the bulk of the public key visible only on mouseover, the simple name selected on the individual website, the public key also generating different visual fingerprints as with the cats on here
To “login†you paste either the private key or an appropriately signed message into a single “login†box, or upload an equivalent “login†file
If you click “registerâ€, it generates in JavaScript a private key for you, and tells you to save it into notepad and paste it anywhere to sign in anywhere
The lazy route with the obvious attached security vulnerability becomes a feature . Normies can immediately use it without understanding it (all they are doing is saving and pasting a code) but it passes the incentive to browser developers . Browsers would eventually update to encrypt their private key(s) (unlockable only with a normal password/pin/face id etc) and not paste the private key into the box, but to do the more appropriate action of generating a signed message instead so that the receiving website does not get their private key , even though from the normie end either way all he would see is a bunch of stars go into the box. he would go from having to use notepad to having the browser take over the effort and save him a click, along with a happy message about the browser somehow making it safer
Of course any individual website could impersonate the public name of jim-454dvg… but that is no different from the current system and relies on your trust of the website, but it is an easy stepping stone towards having browsers and websites sign and verify the content itself in real time too
Normies and everyone else would be encouraged to backup their browser-encrypted “logins†to cloud services, which is already commonly automatic. They would also be encouraged to use a good and updated browser which generates a safe signed message from a login, and certainly not to paste it directly into the box like people were doing in the old wild days before our big tech benefactors intervened to help guard grandma from being “hacked†by strange sites, the updated browsers would probably even stop you from directly pasting a private key
And if you are “hackedâ€, so what? Make a new account. You could even use the old key to submit a warning message about it which would help limit hacked account being used for spam. The incentive given to the browser developers will make the hacking of normies go down over time, which will allow them to use their universal login for longer time periods
Once secure it is even simpler than legacy usernames and passwords. I find myself using multiple machines with multiple operating systems and browsers so that autofill (saving many different passwords) becomes a mess and I often have to reset passwords, often on multiple email addresses. this would function as a single universal code for each identity
I am making a content platform which will have everything an absolute minimum filesize and where the entire database, or chunks of it, are easy to backup. Rather than learning about blockchains as a defence against rewriting history my idea is that preppers can easily download and fit copies of the whole thing into cheap and small units of long term memory, which can be put into chests inside prepper bunkers, hollow tree stumps, or buried on the moon, whatever. It should also be very easy to reupload in different countries. With a private key login system, the network complementing the content can be immediately picked up again once the database or fork of it is reuploaded, this is a step up from something like Wikipedia which naturally cannot include hashed username-password lists in its backups
Working on it. That is web 3.0. Any web 3.0 program that does not implement this is enemy owned.
Obviously web 3.0 has to rest on Private-public keypairs and Zooko names.
But then how does anyone know that the backup is the real thing, that what they are reading was written at the time? You need a blockchain whose root is the root of a merkle tree that includes and timestamps everything in the world. (With only a limited amount of material being published on the reliable broadcast channel of the primary blockchain.)
Web 3.0 needs to be an enormous tree of reliable broadcast channels, all of them rooted in the reliable broadcast channel of the primary blockchain. (Or rooted in a reliable broadcast channel that is rooted in a reliable broadcast channel that is …. rooted in the primary reliable broadcast channel of the primary blockchain.) One blockchain to attest to them all, which is rooted in the weighted consensus of the holders of the primary currency of the blockchain.
I can’t recall if we’ve ever listed out the Memes of Jimian Christianity. If we have, link it here. If not, stand to and present memes. This isn’t a shill test, nor is it a shibboleth primer, so no need to explain them, just list them, and Jim & Frens can correct them or invalidate them.
Hippity hoppity women are property.
Countries with pride parades can’t win wars.
God made me with evolution.
Young girls are terrifyingly sexualized.
Jews are patsies, not overlords.
There are no real Nazis, just out of touch Feds.
The anti-concept suit:
-pedophile means gay man
–
–
Global warming is just wealth redistribution.
Throne, Altar, Freehold
Capitalism and Communism predate language.
Jesus was not a community organizer.
A girl will crawl over nine miles of broken glass to be with her demon lover.
Repressing a girl’s sexual desire is like trying to hold back a glacier while simultaneously preventing a volcano from erupting.
A girl’s consent does not make sex good, nor does lack of consent make sex bad.
Something like this requires the rigor of the equivalent of Criminal Court to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
I don’t think people will believe in such a thing unless definitely proved and all objections undeniably countered.
Because to get this wrong is to be party to a potential Capital Crime.
Case in point:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FvfvhiLXsAIGGKw?format=jpg&name=small
From this twitter:
https://twitter.com/goddeketal/status/1655054754450485248
You’re a blue pilled McChristain faggot.
Let me quote the Holy Bible:
A couple of under age girls got their father drunk and fucked him because their sexual desires were out of control. That’s normal female sex drive.
That could be true. But what could also be true is that the degenerate culture of Sodom also helped to twist their morals.
Remember that the men of Sodom tried to rape God’s Angels.
Red is dead on target. You’ve had years to unfuck your bluepilled bullshit, and yet you are ever ready to don your white armor and slay imaginary dragons.
i, have you ever taken an RPWQ shill test?
[*deleted of evasion*]
You say you only care about the truth, but the question is “how do we know the truth”.
Sense Data, Personal observations. Statistical analysis.
I don’t believe it simply because people on the internet says so. I want ways to confirm for myself.
And also be able to help prove it to other people. Indisputably.
I don’t find it worth potentially risking my life.
If indeed I am partially responsible for perpetuating evil by being wrong in regards to particular topics like this.
>I don’t believe it simply because people on the internet says so. I want ways to confirm for myself.
This coming form the guy who posted a link to wikpedia nigger fan fiction on the Haitian Slave revolt.
It’s easy to confirm for yourself.
Find a very, very attractive man.
Pay him to interact with a woman you think is loyal.
Watch as she completely destroys her life to rut with him.
Female reaction to Elvis and the Beatles should be proof enough of this concept. Being near insanely high status males makes women lose control.
@Red
Yes I make mistakes. You got better alternatives? So I can actually use better links?
Female reaction to Elvis and the Beatles was created by granting incredible preselection to these men, hijacking the female brain. Imagine the young, large eyed, mega titties, skinny as a rail but still hourglass figure of the anime girl and how that hijacks the male sexual preference. Preselection is like large breasts for women, only moreso.
@i
Complete the following sentence:
Women misbehave because –
[A] Capitalism makes them misbehave, by economically incentivizing reckless high time-reference behavior over long-term planning. The capitalist class benefits from one night stands and sterility, as it benefits from third world immigration of spendthrift cheap labor to replace frugal Whites. If it weren’t for capitali$m, women would totally be completely sinless angels.
[B] The (((jews))) make these totally innocent angels misbehave, since the jews own the media and the entire entertainment industry from Hollywood down to the tiniest pornography studio, and use them to direct propaganda at women, telling them to fuck Blacks and lowlifes. There’s no way that pure White women desire to be on OnlyFans to whore for money. The jews forced these angels on that website.
[C] Sorry, but this is a misleading question. Women don’t misbehave at all. All misbehavior is done by men, who are vile pigs.
[D] Lecherous men make them misbehave, since men are ultimately responsible for all female behavior (including misbehavior), and unlike women, men have self-control and moral agency. Thus it logically follows that any female misbehavior would merely reflect bad decisions taken by irresponsible and lustful men. It is men’s fault entirely, so men must be forced to pay for every bad decision done by any random women.
[E] They are feral, blindly following ancient instincts from prehistoric times, which instincts tell them to cruise for rape by alpha male Chads, and to resist kicking-and-screaming all attempts to restrain them from pursuing alpha male Chads. Stable monogamy has always been a way to allow each man to own a woman so each man can start a family and raise a future generation for civilization’s survival.
E obviously. And also because of the fall which helped the allow for distortions for otherwise good sexual instincts and sexual desires to be pathological. i.e. Hypergamy.
Hence they need salvation. And God’s help in bridling and purifying their passions.
You’re so blue pilled on women that you ignore the evidence of your own eyes.
I observed it first hand as a child. My sister willing got into a car with a boy of 16-17 when she was 12-13 and they went for a little ride. Later she talked about how she now had a boy friend. I didn’t know who was her boy friend, but I later put 2 and put 2 together. They fucked.
Everyone else ignored this. It’s like a great magical spell was cast on everyone besides me.
@James
Exactly. And also why I posted that comment.
You think people want to be party to or involved in genuine evil?
I believe you. But I think it takes solid undeniable proof for them to believe but quietly and cautiously of course. And every objection to its factuality is solidly defeated.
Leaving no other possibility.
Obviously. Evil for the sake of evil even at the personal cost of self destruction. Particularly common in childless women, who want to pull the whole world into their grave with them.
The scorpion and the frog is going in my children’s bedtime tale rotation. A very powerful story.
@jim
That’s true. Although I am thinking about people who are otherwise decent. And don’t want to do wrong.
It certainly is a twisted world where Righteousness and Wickedness gets inverted. And people buy into that.
Thinking good is evil and evil is good because of lie perpetuated by bad actors.
For example painting Patriarchy as an evil thing. Or able to convince people that Jesus was a blasphemer that deserve to be killed.
Good is called evil. And vice versa.
People with a reasonably functional moral compass has an instinctive revulsion against child abuse and hatred of the perpetrators. As they are meant to.
Now what happens when they have to consider the facts explained here?
If its false. Then its the usual narrative of course. But considering its true. Even then they will tread cautiously as well.
@i take the shill test.
@i take the shill test.
What is your explanation for why half of all mothers are single mothers, 60 million or whatever children have been aborted in fifty years, and women admit to an average of eight sex partners on average? What is your explanation for these things?
KD said:
Which in the language of our enemies, means the old men are the ones sexualizing the young (teen) girls.
In Jimian Christianity, we see that young girls are sexual (as in acting in ways that in caveman times would result in getting “raped”) from young (9 year old) ages.
Not sure how to correct the meme, but it stood out to me as needing a fix.
Also, we can add to the collection:
Women cry rape or sexual Harassment over a lack of rape or sexual Harassment.
Good catch, that’s a typo, should read “sexual,” but if clarity needed then we can rewrite altogether. Some attempts:
Young girls are undeniably sexual.
Young girls are uncomfortably sexual.
Hmm. Not sure if getting better or worse…
Also, something I wanted to add but cannot remember the structure: what is Jim’s “poster girl” observation? I recall that it’s actually two, an observation and it’s converse, but I can’t recall it. Molala Yusefsi and Gay Couples adopting children are the two examples most commonly used (or Rotherham girls instead of Yusefsi…) IIRC.
Poster girls are manufactured due to a lack of real examples. The lack of real examples necessitates the poster girl.
Is that it in totality? I thought there was more to it, though I thank you for the summary.
That is what I remember however Redbible may be more on point.
Correction to what Adam posted:
A poster child for any given concept or idea will always be the best, brightest, shining example. It will ALWAYS be the example that has the least issues and disputable points*. With that in mind, if the poster child does NOT in fact prove what it’s supposed to be an example of, then it is fair to say that there is probably no real example of the concept or idea anywhere in reality.
*(unless the poster child is being made by a grifter for the sake of discrediting their opponent.)
I figured it might be a typo, but I could see some not understanding the issues the typo creates.
As far as a potentially “better” version, I’ve thought of the following:
Prepubescent girls are sexually aggressive.
Many men don’t see it because they either are too low status to get treated that way, they are simply never around young girls, or they don’t want to see that their “precious princess” is already seeking dick at 9.
Postergirl principle is that everything in the set of [thing] is worse than the postergirl.
If the postergirl is not that impressive, then none of them are impressive. If an illustrative ideal can’t be found somewhere, the species can’t be found anywhere.
Example: the constant refrain that sub-saharan bantus are unjustly maligned by yt pipo oppression rays. Examples of this unjust oppression are men like… George Floyd, Michael Brown… shiftless thugs, wastrels, and bottomfeeders who spend their life committing petty crimes, doing no good for nobody.
Where are the worthy martyrs? Drug addicts getting shot while getting into altercations with police are the best they got. In late antiquity, men like Saint Georgius were members of the elite and elite adjacent social classes, where christendom spread amongst those remnants that still had vitality, and his martydom was widely regarded as a shame to lose such an honorable man in such a way.
What then of Basket-Ball Americans of great virtue and accomplishment in otherwise good standing in society being stuck down? The presently regnant theocracy has dedicated vast resources, made it a prime object of the official religion, directing all faithful at all levels of society, spending the better part of a century poring over everything with a fine-toothed comb to find even one example. They can’t manage it.
Female sexual preference is dysgenic.
Is that Jimian, or older redpill?
Female sexual desire is 2 million years out of date.
Arguably not that out of date based on how often the human condition devolves back into caveman barbarity. In fact, maybe not out of date at all. We are looking at civilization as if it were the norm rather than the exception. As a consequence, the West forgot civilization requires maintenance and is rapidly de-civilizing. We may very well find ourselves living in a world in which female sexual preference matches the environment once again.
Hypergamy and female nature is well suited for defect/defect, and the males hypergamy selects for are well suited for defect/defect. Both are opposed to civilization. Out of date if you enjoy air conditioning and supermarkets.
My point about Red’s comment is that out of the 100,000+ years of human history, most of it is not civilized. Even the last 2000+ years there’s much fluctuation between civilized conditions and decivilized conditions. Much of the civilized world is decivilizing and female sexuality is not out of date under such conditions.
>Out of date if you enjoy air conditioning and supermarkets.
High tech decivilized is more than likely. Air conditioning may survive but not warehouse supermarkets. One may have to make due with the open air, open sewer mud cookie market, but at least there will still be access to 3D printed hightech! 🙃
Never mind, it just occurred to me that Red was being tongue in cheek and I was being a autist fixated on literals.
No I was being quite literal. Studies on woman’s sexual desires involving wiring up the genitals and shown various stimulate show that they get aroused by video of alpha male chimps and a whole host of other shit men have no interest in. Any man you know want to fuck a monkey?
When we invented the spear women stopped having any choice in mates and were assigned to one man. The alpha male declined in importance because any alpha male hogging the women would get a spear in his back by even the weakest member of the tribe. With that change men evolved towards being more cooperative as they no longer had to fight their fellow tribesman’s to secure their wives and children. Women never had a chance to evolve in another direction because they no longer had sexual choice.
Female behavior like getting 2 men to fight over her, shit testing, and the alike continued like we were still killer apes even though it had little to no effect in which mate women ended up with. So woman are poorly tuned for even basic male tribal society, let alone civilization.
Hence they’re sexual desires are 2 million years out of date.
Female instincts were intolerably out of date two million years ago. Females still have sexual instincts appropriate for when we lived in trees. When we went out on the savannah, they stopped mattering, so stopped being updated.
Female instincts are intolerably out of date for civilization. I see large parts of America, and most of the West, are artificial concrete jungles full of killer apes with low male ape cooperation. I don’t see much civilization there. I don’t see much civilization in Haiti either. Wretched conditions, yet the women are thriving if birthrates are anything to go by. Their sexual instincts seem to be doing just fine for them in a purely reproductive sense, certainly more so than miss PhD-never-will-have-kids. The longhouse BAP describes existed (evidence from China suggests it was universal), their instincts worked just fine in such conditions. Sure, that is a terrible arrangement for men and civilization ceases, but that’s something we will have to deal with.
If anything, female sexual instincts are a fail safe in case men fail to uphold civilization. If they had the same sexual instincts as men, and civilization collapsed, there might not be future generations to be around to rebuild.
The US is keeping those pavement apes alive. They’re unable to feed themselves without outside help. Women who produce a lot of kids without a father will starve as soon as US food aid stops.
Their numbers are small and in decline when the Aryans overran them.
Rebuild? Civilization’s don’t generally rebuild. When they do it’s because the civilization was forced back into Patriarchy.
I repeat. Even if you are back to chasing animals with a pointy stick, not going to reproduce unless cooperate/cooperate equilibrium, not going to get cooperate/cooperate equlibrium without female instincts being restrained.
A harsh lesson that their sons will learn from. If they survive.
>Their numbers are small and in decline when the Aryans overran them.
The gene impact of the European natives appear quite large, are you sure about that? They certainly didn’t overwhelm the modern Hindu people by numbers but by superior cooperation and technology. How do you know it wasn’t the same in Europe as well?
That previous civilization, no. It’s dead and not coming back. But civilization as a metric of cooperation does come back via the whip of a conquering tribe. Power leaks from master to slave. The Bible points this out and tells slaves to be obedient. Only through obedience can power leak and the slave not end up dead.
When the masters get a little to decadent and they lose control, a power vacuum exists and many of those former slaves now find themselves with enough of the knowledge of their former masters to rebuild… or at least that’s what largely happened with the slaves of the Romans, Greeks, Moors, Castilians, etc, etc. The Africans learnt nothing from their European colonizers and let everything go to rot. They’re a bit special.
They won’t. Children without fathers raising them are genetic failure mode. I’ve know a lot of bastards, all are failures and wouldn’t survive 5 minutes in a environment where survival mattered.
European Hunter gathers yes, not the long the house people who were never very large in population and confined to a rather small area. We know the genetic make up of Europeans pretty well now.
The long houses are a dead end, like everything else women produce when men are not ruling them.
Male slaves generally don’t reproduce besides in the US where slave owners insinuated Patriarchy for their slaves. Woman fucking around with random men results in bastards that quickly end up dead. That’s not a successful reproductive strategy. Women defecting to a stronger tribe to become wives and concubines is very successful but that’s not what you’re pushing for. You’re claiming that women fucking around is success. It’s not.
>You’re claiming that women fucking around is success.
In a very narrow relativistic scope that you’ve continuously ignored. I’ve bluntly said it’s anticivilizational. Repeatedly. I’ve pointed it out many, many times, often tongue in cheek and you’re somehow ignoring all of that while claiming I’m making a generalized statement. I am not.
>Children without fathers raising them are genetic failure mode.
>Woman fucking around with random men results in bastards that quickly end up dead.
Bastard rates in late medieval Europe were as high as 1/3. Not only did Europe survive the horde of unclean births, but it thrived and the Church with state power was able to get rates down under 1/10. Late medieval Europe was a shit show, as was many other parts of history, as is today. They were able to course correct, we can course correct as well. For anyone black pilled about today’s situation, this should be a giant fucking white pill that these things are indeed reversible and not civilizational dead ends only solvable by getting conquered by outsiders like Attila or Genghis.
The condition for bastards in medieval Europe were harsh. Harsh conditions have a way of clarifying what truly matters to people. Some of that was natural, some was socially enforced. Sure, many were crushed into an early grave, but obviously not most as people react well to overwhelming authoritative force be it nature or social. Today’s bastards fail and are rewarded for it by the government, shielded from natural and social consequences. If they break shit in a tantrum the government might use tear gas… and then apologize for it afterwards. You’re going to get radically different outcomes based on the environment. Yes, humans are genetically predisposed to many things regardless of environment and genes don’t change, but we shouldn’t forget that genes interact with the environment and that interaction isn’t static.
>The long houses are a dead end
You keep saying this and similar, yet I observe the long houses keep popping up throughout history. They are clearly not so dysgenic to completely disappear as they are genetically fit just enough to stay in the gene pool. They are also not complete dead ends either. We can save the sorry bastards by shooting a few of the worst, beating a lot of the mild offenders, and slightly starving all of them before throwing them into a reconquest of America. And like Australia, make the surviving ones patriarchs.
>Male slaves generally don’t reproduce besides in the US where slave owners insinuated Patriarchy for their slaves.
And Rome, and Greece, and many other classical kingdoms and empires. Do you not know they participated in slave breeding as well? Who do you think the Americans got the idea from. Instrumentum vocale are more valuable than cattle and any good herder will breed his flock. Unfortunately, Americans decided to take slaves that could never hope to be as useful as a Greek, and thus American slavery became far more harsh to get the little economic value there was possible.
>bastards that quickly end up dead.
Many of them sure, in more civilized times they could be useful in conquest. Russia discovered recently that their prison population could be put to good use. Some survive and raise above the rest.
Some tangential evidence towards this theorem Pax is developing: the human type apt to desire leaving lots of bastard children above building a family is more likely to have daughters than sons. We know this for sure in black populations, I’ve observed it anecdotally for their paler subhuman counterparts. I bet data can be found, what is the m/f ratio of at least on paper legitimate children vs single mommy wastes?
So, civilization fails, brainstem senses this, women now desire bastards even moreso because a father just might get in the way of the strong tribe successfully abducting her and her kin, observe murder suicide behavior, whereas a brood of bastardettes just makes the abduction more attactive to the strong tribe. If you cannot convince someone to rise, convince them to fall faster.
People stuck in defect/defect on reproduction disappear, even if you are chasing down animals on savannah with a pointy stick.
When became obligate carnivores, incapable of surviving on what can be gathered, higher levels of cooperation between men and women were required. The ape men that survived found ways to ensure that cooperation.
Defect/defect condition continuously returns. It’s an old problem. The OT tells us it’s as old as Babylon. If those people truly disappeared from the gene pool, we wouldn’t be dealing with it today, but we are.
The ape men forgets the ways to ensure cooperation, falls, and his descendants have to rebuild.
More typically they’re replaced by men who didn’t forget. Civilizational failure on the women question tends to be total.
>Civilizational failure on the women question tends to be total.
It kills the civilization, not the people as they ironically get stopped from self destruction by getting conquered.
The Greeks conquered Egypt, much of Turkey, Persia, etc. I don’t see those peoples looking like Greeks. They got conquered by the Ottomans yet still look Greek. The Aryans conquered much of Central Asia and India. Their substantially higher rates of lactose intolerance indicates they didn’t get too replaced by the conquerors. The Spanish, who by all accounts were far more brutal than the WASPs, created places that are today dominated by brown people of mostly native descent…
Yeah, I’m sure a lot of that had to do with reproducing with the local women and not having enough men from the conqueror tribe to sufficiently change the gene pool, but they also left many of the native men alive because slaves are usually preferred over a bunch of dead bodies.
Civilizational failure does not kill the gene pool in most cases. Complete genocide seems to be pretty rare. History is full of stories of various tribes bouncing back by remembering old lessons. Major historical civilizations preferred taking slaves over killing all the men. Power leaks from master to slave, and over many generations the failed tribe becomes the frighteningly conquering tribe.
Their civilization does not come back, and their new civilization will look an awful lot like their previous masters, but they are very much (mostly) the same people.
> Complete genocide seems to be pretty rare.
Survivorship bias. No end of groups have vanished from history. You are looking at the racial makeup of those groups that survived conquest. Because you cannot see the races of those that did not survive conquest. The
If you throw a pile of dice ten times, and every time smash all those that do not come up six, and you look at the histories of the remaining dice, you will say that dice always come up six.
>You are looking at the racial makeup of those groups that survived conquest.
I’m also looking at recorded history.
You’d think there would be at least some records of complete genocide. They are vanishingly few. Even in Carthage, 10% were taken as slaves. The entire point of war is to gain property be it gold, land, slaves, or women. No sane leader organizes mass violence for no gain, the troops will revolt and hang him. No sane man is going to risk life and limb in organized mass violence for no gain either, at minimum money for the whorehouse.
Women are the most valuable sort of property. The idea of killing everyone with absolutely no survivors mostly happened in the last 300 years. Even then, with printed records, complete genocides are rare in the literature. The Armenians are still around as are many other groups that have suffered genocide. Even the Circassians who suffered up to 97% population decline are still around. What appears to be rare is maintaining a pre-conquest identity.
>you cannot see the races of those that did not survive conquest.
The Bible and most classical literature on similar mass killings say the women are taken alive. The conquered tribe gets merged into the conquering tribe minus the Y chromosome. You see them in the conquers.
You have a high standard for genocide. There have been no end of peoples that were entirely erased from large parts of their homeland, and in all of their homelands, their race massively diluted by alien conquerers, their language, their religion, and their culture erased, their history only known by accounts from outsiders, the place names of their cities and landforms lost and renamed by their conquerors. language and culture.
The Romano British were completely erased in most of Britain. Not even their place names remain over most of Britain. They held onto Wales, and their refugees founded Britanny. So in this sense, not complete, but complete enough in most of Britain.
@Pax, you’re now confusing the male line surviving with the female line surviving. Civilizational failure mode results in total destruction of the male line, as seen by the modern Greeks who’s fathers are descended from men who were not Greek. Women always survive, but for men that hardly matters as our Y chromosome doesn’t get passed on. That’s total destruction for us.
>you’re now confusing the male line surviving with the female line surviving.
I am not. The question was on ‘complete genocide’ which is usually what is inferred by the term genocide. A modern anti concept. Our modern perception of genocide involves something like gas chambers for all including women and children, or in liberal American Star Wars terms “Not even the Younglings.” I was pointing out in nearly all the historical literature that at worst the women survive, but there are plenty of cases where some of the men did survive. Carthage was destroyed for example. Not all Carthaginians were in Carthage and many of their colonies survived and became Roman cities. That tribe clearly didn’t die with Roman conquest as their demons are still with us today.
>Civilizational failure mode results in total destruction of the male line
As I pointed out in comment-2868488, this is survivable. This should be a white pill. Late Medieval Europe survived the long house and got it under control. Australia as Jim points out survived a hoard of whores and criminal bastards. They survived. This isn’t without risk of being destroyed, but it’s no guarantee of total destruction and no reason to lose hope and surrender to death.
>modern Greeks who’s fathers are descended from men who were not Greek.
I pointed out the Greeks stopped looking like Greeks before they got conquered. Same with the Romans. Turns out when one conquers people, does not kill all of them, and proceeds to bred with them, the children end up looking different.
The Romans and Greeks had relative good fortune to conquer relatively useful people. America, Spain, and England not so much. There weren’t many female conquistadors. Where do you think mestizos come from.
Are there any Caribbean Indians still around?
female sexual instincts are one of the reasons civilization is cyclical. im not sure if them being outdated is strictly correct, because as you pointed out below, they allow for perpetual civilizational resets.
BAP’s longhouse (what evola following bachofen called “civilization of the Mother”) matches the contemporary social order to a great degree, but it should not be seen as an anomaly since it’s fertile ground for the emergence of militaristic patriarchy
the good men hard times meme misses the central role of women in this cycle. since man is order and woman chaos, the only way woman can “restore order” is by escalating civilizational decline (mirroring the endless escalating shit test), until a mannerbund led by a Great man emerges (domestically or from outside) to impose order on the gynocratic longhouse. as male restraints soften and female sexuality becomes increasingly free, they act out in order to facilitate clashes between groups of men, to cull insufficiently brutal y-chromosome lines
it seems to me that the illiad can be read as Aphrodite, the goddess of love or “the sexual instinct” caused the Trojan War through the medium of Helen, who seduced Paris in order to exterminate the weaker of her two lovers and the weaker of their two empires
On the contrary, terribly infertile ground. Observed history is that militaristic patriarchy does not arise from the longhouse culture. Rather the younger sons of the nobility of a militaristic patriarchy wander off with a bunch of followers to graze their cattle on lush pastures of standing corn.
I know of examples of longhouse cultures that remembered their pre-decadence past, and revived it, but they are not very common. And they had seeds that sprouted. Not seeing any examples of a longhouse culture turning patriarchal de-novo.
The rotting longhouse, if not revitalized from within, is genocided (its male line, at least) by the younger sons of a militaristic patriarchy and gives birth to a new civilization – is what I meant.
My contention is that the telos of female sexual instincts is producing y-chromosome bottlenecks akin to the one in our genetic history, but this is achieved in a roundabout way, by “slutting it up” in a manner that forces her lovers to fight over ownership and slaughter each other until only one is left standing – that is, unless, the first lover immediately takes possession of her.
This same pattern plays out at a civilizational level.
The various factions of the “dissident right” can be seen as seeds of restoration sprouting out of our modern longhouse and in many cases it takes a series of escalating shit-tests for someone to detach from the narrative.
“God made me with evolution” is pretty good.
Peace is hard, war is easy.
Abstract version: cooperation is hard, defection is easy.
From this follows: if you want nice stuff, e.g. civilization, you need ways to enforce mass cooperation. We call this: social technology.
Religion is the best, if not the only, social technology humans have.
Christianity, which is to say, red pilled, old type Christianity, is by far the best social technology humans have ever had.
Peace is hard, but war is also hard as it requires cooperation with the men fighting on your side.
What is easy is giving up, not fighting at all. Just look at what men around us are doing. They are not fighting an invasion of foreigners, they are not fighting a scoiety that is trying to make them die childless, and they are not raising children.
You’re confusing 2 different dynamics. War is between elites. Peace is Hard and War is Easy applies to them. When it comes to the American elites destroying the common man, they’re doing it pretty much in lockstep. Resistance without elite support is doomed to failure due to lack of coordination.
Power is hard, not easy.
This is precisely why the bureaucratic oligarchy functions the way that it does. they shatter power into many pieces, giving a shard to a chosen committee or group. For power to be wielded after this, requires some kind of system of consensus. when they are successful, credit goes to the institution, and when they fail, there is no one to take the blame. In truth, they are cowards; they want to be in charge, but they fear the natural consequences.
[…] The Logos […]
Here in the US the state religion seems to be the global warming cult. As a Christian I will not bow to their false god.
No, it’s “White people are bad.”
No, it’s “trust the science.”
Their false god is a hydra with many heads. Occasionally someone manages to cut off one of the heads, but that does not kill the beast and it quickly grows more heads
Many false gods, One True God.
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Matthew%207%3A13
The debate about leftist infighting on gab appears to be real:
https://gab.com/theshadowedknight/posts/110329692003425108
Elon Musk is being protected by a powerful faction which is trying to get the country ready for war and that same faction is denying the more insane leftist faction the Marine’s head on a platter.
Case in point:
https://twitter.com/USATODAY/status/1655232284440551425
The counter narrative is killing the official propaganda in the replies.
The sinister-but-reasonable Leftist puppet-master cabal might think they have the crazies under control, but they broke the first rule of black magic: they called up something they can’t put down. Their own monster is going to devour them, just as it did the Old Bolsheviks, Robespierre, J. K. Rowling, etc., etc.
Off-topic.
When proto-humans first consumed cooked meat with bodies only familiar with fresh meat, some fruits, and miscellaneous herbs, they flooded their bodies with innumerable novel compounds, as well as dead microbiota. The proto-human human body absorbed what it could to form healthy tissue, but the remaining onslaught got caught in lipids and stored in fat tissue as neutralized toxins. Unfortunately, the brain was mostly fatty tissue, making it a candidate for toxin deposition. Thus emerged the direct survival advantage of a larger brain (more tissue, lower concentration of toxins deposited per toxin consumed) and rapid cranial hair growth (shedding toxins via non-essential tissues), resulting in our characteristically big heads with (most customary for women) long hair.
Cooking meat offers some advantages, such as softening it. All other arguments against fresh meat fall apart when considering clean (organic, non-GMO, hormone-free, etc.) meat because we never lost the ability to digest raw meat. We need the incumbent microbiota and natural nutrients. Cooked food is either the cause of disease (by poisoning) or enables degeneration through malnutrition, ie. absence of proper nutrients. All diseases as we know them today, including but not limited to cancers, auto-immune conditions, and mental illnesses (“mental illnesses†if you prefer) arise from chronic malnutrition.
This philosophy is known under the term “The Primal Diet†as developed and documented by Aajonus Vonderplanitz in two books and numerous recordings. Tangential reading includes the works of Grant Genereux. Both authors’ work constitute deep rabbit holes, whose validity lies in their falsifiability. Genereux’s protocol is much simpler than Vonderplanitz’s, but not as deeply developed. The practitioners of the Primal Diet understand that it is not easy to follow, but immensely rewarding.
Why proto-humans continued to eat cooked meat, I cannot yet say. Obviously, it gave them some higher order survival advantage over their more primitive counterparts. I loosely surmise that the poisoned proto-humans, internally disturbed but not self-aware, sought external solutions for their anguish, which manifested as ambition and aggression.
My grand thesis, if not my own then at least independently conjured among other Primal Dieters, is that the advent of cooking is the original sin of mankind, predating all known historical documents and religious records. When humans cooked, they fell into disease. After thousands of generations, all direct knowledge is lost, and only through the collective unconscious – religious stories – might we figure out our story.
Considering the framework of the Primal Diet, and this blog’s discussions of religion and social and psychological evolution, I submit this thesis to all varieties of critique and criticism.
We have been eating cooked meat for about a million years, so probably a good reason for it.
We started drinking milk five thousand years ago, though many people still have problems with it, but they are primarily people not descended from those who have been drinking milk for five thousand years.
If five thousand years is enough, a million years is rather more than enough. Just looking around, it is obvious that the healthiest diet is to eat what your ancestors ate a few thousand years ago. Food adaptation occurs quickly. Going back a million years is an absurd overstretch.
Yes, I speculate about what the good reason may have been, because it was not nutrition.
My experience following the protocol of the Primal Diet has been of optimal digestion. In comparison to my time spent on an ordinary diet, a raw vegan diet, an ordinary vegan diet, and an ordinary vegetarian diet (each for multiple years, and fairly clean), the Primal Diet yields no abdominal bloating, small stools, no constipation, and (nearly) odorless farts. It is my experience that all standard claims about consuming raw meat are false. My teeth can tear and chew it, my tongue enjoys it, my stomach can tolerate it, my intestines can absorb it. I have not been ill, I have put on muscle, and my sex drive is high (I am mostly eating red meat), which all aligns with those that others report (see online forums).
Generalized claims about milk digestibility are dubious. Pasteurized milk and its derivatives are garbage. See Genereux’s work (https://ggenereux.blog/) about how retinoic acid, a metabolite of vitamin A (found in most foods, including milk), is toxic. He and his readers report resolving eczema (among other conditions). It seems to me that retinoic acid is simply oxidized retinol (vit A), the process taking place through heating, ie. pasteurizing/cooking. If there is a study on normies comparing effects of dead milk to raw milk, and the milk is quality organic, and the time frame is at least six months, then I would be interested.
Adaptation to raw milk succeeded in short time (a few thousand years) because raw is proper and raw is fundamentally, categorically different than cooked. Those who have some issues with raw milk can enhance digestion by adding raw egg and honey, or letting it become kefir, but some are indeed likely entirely intolerant.
Eating in an ancestral manner is good for those who wish to degenerate as their ancestors did. Eat mostly rice, as the East Asians do, and become diminutive and weak. Eat mush like the British, and watch your teeth misalign.
>is that the advent of cooking is the original sin of mankind
Cooking and preserving foods allow future planning.
Cooking meat allows for more protein assimilation, boiling bones extracts nutrients, cooking softens inedible parts of animals.
Which means pound for pound an animal body can sustain more humans.
I reject your thesis. Cooking food made man.
Most people who undertake such a radical diet as a raw meat diet see improvement as they remove grains and other processed rubbish from their diet.
A similar positive change occurs when people adopt a raw vegan diet after a crappy western diet.
However, people eat the same volume of raw meat as they would cooked meat.
Vegans quickly become malnourished unless they manage to maintain eating 8-10kg of plant mass a day. And even then, not everyone is lucky enough to be able tto thrive on such a diet.
Similarly, this happens with people on raw meat diets. Difficult to maintain the volume of nutrition needed. None too many are smashing thigh bones and eating the raw marrow, or spending a day chewing tendons.
Cooking made man, as my first paragraph above describes. In addition to cooked food, metal working introduced metals into the body – through respiration during processing – also probably played into poisoning and brain expansion.
Consider that people don’t need their entire brains to function normally (“normallyâ€). There are cases where, through accidents or operations, people have lost parts of their brain, up to an entire hemisphere, and regained their functionality. This indicates that the “functionality of brain per mass†is rather low in normal cases. Our brains are not large for intelligence, but because more (fat) mass protects against fat-soluble poisons.
The Primal Diet has two fundamental principles: raw foods are proper, and people raised on cooked foods need a variety of foods to heal from such malnutrition. Dairy and bee products, as well as vegetable juices, constitute essential roles in the PD. Energy primarily comes from fat, mostly butter, and micronutrients from meat and vegetable juice. Rules govern food combination to facilitate digestion.
The proto-human only needed apply the first principle. One can prepare foods for future use by manipulating fermentation to minimize stink. Raw meat (muscle and organs) is edible at any stage of decomposition, it just reeks. The trouble lies in keeping away scavengers. Norwegians have a rotten fish dish (the name escapes me), the Polish enjoy sour milk, the Chinese have the Thousand Year Egg, and moldy cheese is a thing.
I see a lot of theorizing, but no evidence.
Wild or feral animals that are caught, domesticated and fed a diet of mostly cooked meat, tend to vastly outlive those still out in the wild. If cooked meat is poisonous to humans, why is it not poisonous to any other animals?
Cooking kills pathogens, raises protein bioavailability, and tastes awesome. As long as lipids aren’t oxidized, nothing of value is lost. If we weren’t meant to eat grilled meat, why are all of our biological instincts (which had to have evolved) telling us to?
Raw foodies are demented, fundamentally unserious people repackaging old hippy-dippy philosophy and shill sloganeering as their own deep wisdom (“organic, non-GMO, hormone-free?” at least two of those terms don’t even mean anything). I blame their condition on all the campylobacter and prion diseases.
If there are scientific (“scientificâ€) studies of people following the Primal Diet, I would love to read them. Otherwise, testimonials in forums and Vonderplanitz’ books and personal experience must suffice. The strongest testimonial is simply to look at the radiant health of long-term practitioners.
One study the layman can conduct is replicating stomach acid and comparing digestion (dissolution) between cooked and fresh meat. A reading exercise is to familiarize yourself with various cultures’ traditional rotten/fermented food dishes, see for example my other comment.
Cooking kills microbiota that we can process just fine alive, provided that the plant or animal was healthy in life. (But we should not eat most plants). Cooking meat forces the body to secrete enzymes to digest when raw meat undergoes autolysis. Taste is flexible. I drank tap water for years, and despise it now, as with salt. What you regard as instincts may just as well be a habit. You have been conditioned since birth to eat garbage, how can you assert what is instinct and what is practice?
While I may be an odd fellow, I am only referring to the protocol of the Primal Diet, and no other form of raw nutrition. The PD is not for hippies, it is expensive. One cannot sell it, all foods are to be ordinary, albeit handled fresh (between 10 and 40 deg C, usually), without industrial pesticides or herbicides, or drugs (vaccines or hormonal injections), referring here to animal and plant products, and there are no vitamin/mineral supplements as conventionally understood. The only benefactors are farmers, ranchers, butchers, and beekeepers.
Every diet guru can make the claims you’re making. Every one of them has testimonials and personal experience and practitioners supposedly in radiant health. They’re a dime a dozen.
Mostly you are conflating the supposed benefits of raw meat with a conventional paleo, primal or carnivore diet. “…no abdominal bloating, small stools, no constipation, and (nearly) odorless farts” is a consequence of the elimination of fiber and cellulose; nearly everyone who adopts carnivore and most who adopt meat-and-fruit diets experience this, and the ones who don’t, are usually lactose-intolerant to some degree and continuing to eat dairy.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It’s one thing to say a certain diet works for you, quiet another to claim “Our brains are not large for intelligence, but because more (fat) mass protects against fat-soluble poisons.” Or even “Raw meat (muscle and organs) is edible at any stage of decomposition” — rancid fats have undergone oxidation, and if the proteins themselves are spoiled then that’s always a sign of bacterial contamination. None of those are things you want in your gut.
I see you’re playing a bit of a motte and bailey game here, in which you make a lot of improbable or nonsensical claims backed by little more than a few testimonials and one or two quacks, while frequently circling back to facts that are not in dispute but also have nothing to do with the anti-cooking nonsense, such as animal fat being a better source of energy than cheap grains like rice. Self-evidently true, but it does not logically follow that the meat is better raw.
People love to rave about their lifestyle choices, it seems to be human nature and I accept it, but you’re crossing the line between enthusiasm and shilling. For example, you’ve posted the phrase “Primal Diet”, in Title Case, a total of 9 times so far. That’s not conversation, it’s advertising.
There are some nutritional benefits to eating raw meat, as some nutrients degrade with heat, but there are also some nutritional benefits to cooking meat, as it can enhance bioavailability. A good heuristic is that if you can improve the flavor through how you cook it, you get better nutrition.
If you eat plenty of organic meat, including organs, you will be fine, cooked or not.
Totally OT, my apologies, but I was recently pondering my enthusiastic support for G.W. Bush in 2003. I guess it’s because I wasn’t racist then.
The question, “Why not invade Iraq, overthrow Saddam, and install liberal democracy there?” is much like the question, “Why not invade the South, free the Negroes, and give them the right to vote?”, i.e. one cannot give a convincing answer without saying very bad things about the people the do-gooders intend to liberate. All the Arabs I knew were nice people; if they were typical of Arabs as a whole, liberal democracy in Iraq would work just fine. To this day, conservatives piously believe that Arabs and Negroes are “just like us”!
No, even if all Arabs were nice people, liberal democracy would not work in Iraq. Liberal democracy does not work anywhere. It leads to holiness spiraling an disastrous results. Gay pride parades, trannies in your local school, etc..
An older, pre-gay, pre-tranny version of liberal democracy might work, if you could find a way to turn off automatic updates.
That gets you Japan. You die with pre-women’s suffrage + emancipation and those followed universal suffrage near instantly. You can have democracy without imploding that way (Swiss direct democracy) but unless you have the HRE or universally recognized neutrality, you aren’t going to replicate it.
Japan’s birth rate is not that disastrous, considering how overpopulated the country is (2/3rds of the population of the US but only 1/20th the land area).
Liberal democracy has its problems, but it demonstrably works just fine in many cases. The perfect is the enemy of the good. Japan’s only major problem is feminism. I see no reason why the Japanese people cannot, in principle, deal with it without upending their government.
The US is a different story. The US is a society suffering from multiple organ failure. No comparison.
Hail fellow Reactionary, I hate women just as much as you do, just wanted to let you know that Liberal Democracy is not that bad; after all, those Japs had way too many children anyway.
Pretty soon every Japanese town and village will have scarecrows to replace all those people who hurt Gaia, no need to worry here…
Hail fellow reactionary, that is exactly the case. There is no logical connection between Japan having a parliament and elected officials —> full nigger communism.
It’s shills who want to make people believe that having an orderly, clean, safe country like Japan requires Restoring The Stuarts, Full Catholic (or Orthodox) Integralist Theocracy, or Scary Nazi Authoritarianism. Japan has none of that and is just fine.
Japan is not just fine. It lacks the will to defend Japan, and will very soon lack the population. They are already talking about importing other races to replace the missing grandchildren.
It is orderly and clean, but without grandchildren, soon will no longer be.
Without the prospect of family, ever increasing numbers of Japanese are staying at home in their single mother’s basement, which presages a lack of order and cleanliness coming right up soon.
It’s Americans who talk about that, not Japanese. The Japanese are trying to resist. Even if Japan starts getting boatloads of Filipinos on their shores, god forbid, it will not be by any fault of their own. That would be the Global American Empire abusing its member countries, as usual.
Of course, Harvard will never allow Japan to roll back feminism as long as it retains power. But that’s hardly a consequence of Japanese liberal democracy.
The huge and growing problem of adults not in education, employment, or training reveals that Japanese are acting as if they and their country have no future. Which means it does not. Except as another Haiti.
>There is no logical connection between Japan having a parliament and elected officials —> full nigger communism.
There is tho.
Japan was built orderly, clean and safe through all of that, Japan did not appear out of a vacuum. Since the introduction of a parliament and elected officials has become little by little less orderly, less clean and less safe. And it might not even survive this century at all. Parliament and elected officials burned to the ashes what the Japanese Emperor lineage built.
A defense of liberal democracy followed with a subtle attack to restoration, even comparing it to nazism… your arguments are increasingly sounding very progressive. Soon enough you will start to tells us we need faggots because they are wonderful artists with great sensibilities and we just cannot do without them. And that we need women’s rights because women are wonderful and will bring utopia.
Japan still hosts US military bases and aren’t allowed to have a real army of their own (ahem, well), so their fighting spirit should be modest. Germany is likely still worse off though.
My impression is that their liberal democracy takes a very managed form, if you will. It’s run by seniority and personal connections, more or less.
… and thus one may wonder how long, once the dampening hand of America is removed, how long it would take for the Emperor to be restored. Perhaps not very long at all.
Historical examples of Woman’s lib being rolled back even slightly requires dictatorial powers(See 1933 America). A full repeal of woman’s lib generally requires conquest by those who still practice patriarchy. You are vastly under estimating the size of the problem. To have any hope of rolling it back you need a Caesar at then minimum.
Photos of Muslim countries in the 60s and 70s show women walking around in sundresses, makeup, and trendy hairstyles. Circa 1980 they were told to cover up, and meekly obeyed.
An Egyptian who remembers that time said that the impetus came from female TV personalities seeing crows-feet in the mirror and fearing that they’d soon be replaced with younger talent. So they rediscovered their Muslim piety, covered their faces, and encouraged their young fans to do the same.
By 1980 every Muslim nation was ruled by a dictator.
You think women made those changes? LOL HAHHAHAHAHHAH, wait seriously?
Liberal democracy doesn’t work fine anywhere like socialism doesn’t work fine anywhere. You claim that liberal democracy works fine because you look with a million magnify glass to an extremely limited time period where the inertia and legacy from the non liberal democracy past maintains a degree of functionality and ignore everything else. Like throwing a nuke somewhere, record the situation and grab the 30 frames before impact and say: oh look, nuking is not that big of a deal after all!
There is only one viable and real social structure which follows the same hierarchy that any functional institution and organization does: monarchy, one head. Every other form of policy is not a society, it is not a policy, it is an anti-society and an anti-policy that can only exist momentarily thanks to the effort of the monarchy and the real hierarchy.
Non-monarchy to civilization building as a policy is the equivalent of banging hammers against walls as a policy to wall building. You cannot find any advanced civilization anywhere in the entire history of the world that did not come to be through a monarchy and died because of non-monarchy, because there is no other form of society, every other form is anti-social and a parasitical defect on the civilization by decadent people to loot what was built by their betters.
Aristocratic republics are chisels, liberal democracy is a hammer, socialism/communism is a bulldozer, the wall will come down sooner or later. Only monarchy is legitimate, only monarchy is viable, only monarchy builds while every other form is an anti-form that doesn’t build and only destroys.
What is your comment on Republic of Venice, Republic of Ragusa, and still existing (!!!) Republic of San Marino?
Probably also some Swiss cantons with, as they say, “republican form of government”.
I’m asking because it seems to me that, except for Japanese monarchy, each and every other monarchy also fell, sooner or later.
Republics run on elite virtue. Which they consume. With a sufficient supply of elite virtue, they are great. When they run out, they fall.
Only a King has the correct incentives to institute elite virtue. Which does not mean he will try, or that if he tries he will succeed, but no alternative mechanism works.
What comment do you want me to make? Your magnifying glass is less magnified, still the same situation than the previous case.
Jim says that Republics run on elite virtue, I don’t think Republics run at all! They run? How do they run? Burgerland did not invent burgers, you ever realized that? Anyone ever realized that? I don’t think a lot of people ever think about it from this perspective.
Americans, as a formal stand alone people, have never really invented much, they have taken most of it from others, isn’t that interesting? Originally, they are from the same stock than the Royal Society, but they look like complete retards compared to a few decades of them, isn’t it funny? But it really is that extreme, a country literally will not run unless a leader makes it run.
America never had a king after they seceded from the line of kings that made them, no running. As soon as the born Englishmen that founded it died, the country already started to fall apart. They are still fascinated with Benjamin Franklin, who was quite literally born in England but they call “American” haha.
I imagine the reason why Americans seem to worship businessmen is because it’s the only thing they have ever really had that is close to a leader of men creating something great in their entire history, a country of businessmen. It’s probably also why the country has shown immense capability for logistic superiority in the past, businessmen are amazing at logistics.
After watching Band of Brothers, I saw in youtube an interview that they made to Ronald Speirs years after he had been the governor of Spandau prison. He said from what he read on the newspapers they were going to tear it down and put a shopping center in. He comments, “sounds like America, doesn’t it? “, while laughing his ass off. I also follow a channel with old recordings including people born in the 19th century in America, I have a feeling Americans used to be a lot more aware and took themselves a lot less seriously, their modern sense of patriotism (neocon type) is probably turbo fake and gay. Those men were truly amazing and fascinating though.
There’s a lot to unpack in this brief segment. America is no longer a Republic. It stopped being one well over a century ago. Putting current day Burgerland into the discussion of Republics outside of the context what republics eventually degrade into says little about how Republics run or don’t run.
It’s also undeniable that many of those Greek city state republics functioned well (until they didn’t) and accomplished great things, but by today’s standards would be considered fascist as only armed men of good standing could vote. A very small minority. SPQR also had a damn good run time.
Back on the topic of the American republic, it had a hand full of pseudo kings throughout its history who put things back together as they started to fall apart. Those periods functioned an awful lot like Latin American “republics” with strong man military juntas. A single personality kept things functional for a time, but with no succession there was no continuity and things started to degrade soon after. It was still enough to provide just the right amount of civilizational momentum to get to the next pseudo king. The last pseudo king was an outright progressive with communist inclinations, FDR, and the republican trend of lurching from one pseudo king to the next ended as there were no virtuous elite left to create and support the next pseudo king. JFK was clear example of what happens to pseudo kings without virtuous elites. This is why virtue is so important for Republics, it allows them to be temporary monarchies.
‘Republic of Venice’
Essentially an elective monarchy for much of its history.
‘Republic of Ragusa’
Not an independent state- it was a Venetian, Hungurian and Ottoman subject state.
‘Republic of San Marino’
Vassal of Italy (totally dependent on the Italian military)
‘Probably also some Swiss cantons with, as they say, “republican form of governmentâ€.’
Part of the HRE and then enforced neutrality (gradually became part of the American Empire anyway).
Leftism is a strategy to seize power. If a state is not independent, politics is larping and its democracy is as meaningful as high school’s.
One thing opponents of monarchy don’t get and don’t understand is there is a difference between even real monarchy where the king functions as the executive and absolutism where the king can kill anyone he wants and take any property he wants without restraint. Absolutism in Europe especially Western Europe was the exception and not the rule.
The British monarchy was a real monarchy until George IV but it was only an effectively absolutist monarchy for brief periods (mostly during the Tudor dynasty) and even under its most absolutist monarchy Henry VIII he never held absolute power de jure and he relied heavily on a very docile and compliant parliament which basically believed that giving the king whatever he wanted was the only way to avoid the 30 or so years of civil war which were very much in living memory in Henry VIII’s time.
Monarchs lifetime power over the executive functions of government and the supreme command of the army was generally limited by all sorts of customary rights. In Russia this was not so much the case but even there the size of the country made the Tsars dependent on the Boyars to govern (though this did not work towards the people’s favor in Russia). There were kings who definitely violated customary rights but it was often at their peril to do so as Charles I found out.
Democracy does okay with a very small virtuous fairly homogenous population like Switzerland or at least the entropy can take centuries to set in. But you do need a monarch to correct entropy… I guess I’m saying that entropy can be delayed for centuries with something like Switzerland had before 1972 (when they let women vote).
What it doesn’t do is scale beyond the micro or city state level and city states are iffy because virtuous urban populations are rather rare even in the age before every Western city was full of blackmoors.
> i.e. one cannot give a convincing answer without saying very bad things about the people the do-gooders intend to liberate
Yes. And at the same time, no. You can oppose it without committing thought crime, after all leftists did that (though only after the invasion already happened).
They instead claimed that it is us, the liberal democracy, that is made up of not very good people, because we are insufficiently holy, and that Bush’s intentions of bringing liberal democracy to the middle east were insufficiently genuine.
He’s only pretending to do what he’s doing for pure reasons, and is instead pursuing some pure economic interest. A claim that is fundamentally impossible to falsify since any war is going to entail grifting from the military-industrial complex. The matter of oil was more nebulous, though.
Throughout the Bush years, liberals lectured us every day that it’s wrong to wage war on other countries. What they meant was, it’s wrong when Republicans do it. Dems are shamelessly trans-species — hawks when they control the White House, doves when they don’t.
A noticeable uptic in videos of high value air defense systems being hit has made the rounds of the usual warporn accounts. This jives with forewards deployments to frontlie areas in preparation for offenses, but the NOG must surely be concerned over the rate they are being attrited before anything even happens.
The russians of course are using the classic SEAD tactic of floating platforms into an AoO to draw AD platforms to expose themselves (largely via handmade decoy drones, along with the occasional Geran to keep them from slacking), which are then taken out through targeted strikes.
Most of the footage comes from lancet strikes, since the EO camera it uses for terminal guidance can also transmit the footage back to the source, but of course targeted artillery and glider bomb strikes are also involved.
Bad news. Came home from my pawn shop yesterday to find my new wife entertaining a couple of large schvartze bucks in the bedroom. Not kosher at all. Anyway, she’s defiled now. So much for a family. Guess I wasn’t alpha enough. Any recommendations at this point friends?
You mean to tell me you didn’t get in there yourself to prep the bull the moment you saw them? SMH no commitment to the bit.
If you were really an Alpha, you’d raise those kids as your own.
They recommended that in synagogue, you can’t blame Jim’s blog for your inattention.
Send Bobs and Vagene pics of your new wife
Yeah, I wanna see that shiksa wife of yours getting blacked!!!!
I think I have found the perfect way to troll the Ukraine shills on 4chan…
I’m going to start regularly posting threads about how we should support Ukraine because Russia is standing in the way of Russian and Slavic women getting blacked. Basically pose as a Ukraine supporter (I don’t think it will fool anyone) who supports Ukraine for that reason. Its definitely funny…
Don’t. There’s enough nigger shilling on 4chan already.
You’re just becoming a demoralization shill. The beastiality meme is a favorite of the enemy for a reason.
One spin on the same concept, paint the russkies as gigachads and ukes as resentful betas. Ukes just hate russkies because they know their own inferiority. Creates the image of a strong horse that is worth backing. The enemy is antimasculine, has a hard time understanding manliness as a good thing, and so they will have a hard time creating effective countermemes. I believe there is more to refine there, but it’s at least better than further demoralizing.
Jannies banned me anyway for doing it, I can phonepost for the next three days but hard to ban evade on a computer without doing a lot of shit thats a pain and I don’t want to do… so I can’t use that particular method. Too bad it was really amusing (to me anyway).
We need a religion that commands its followers to [*deleted for sex neutrality*]
I think the Cathedral keeps the “Nazism” memeplex alive because it’s a social construction multi tool. “Everyone” “hates” “Nazis.” “Everyone” knows “Nazis.” It’s the perfect bogeyman, a dye or marker to label any person, group, or concept “evil,” rather “to be shunned.”
On the flip side, Nazis are attractive to outsiders, undesirables, etc. They derive edginess, the illusion of influence, attention, and dramatic reactions from pretty much everyone. This is powerful bait for young men who are questioning the narrative, dabbling in dissent, or just bored with the status quo. Yarvin articulated this well; it’s the Universal Opposite, the converse of acceptable ideology, and it attracts would-be dissidents like moth to the flame. It then negates any real power or efficacy they might have from independent thought and/or coordination.
I apologize for linking Hollywood tripe, but it’s a near perfect illustration:
https://youtu.be/IRbWNhwybwU
This one clip demonstrates how potent the Nazi memeplex is, but it’s the potency of hot garbage: it reeks, it cannot be ignored, it repels most and only attracts simpletons, parasites, and vermin.
We have a hidden Nazi, some uncanny demon that’s hiding in plain sight, using real humans as cover. The moment it is discovered, it sheds this cover with no thought, no hesitation, then of course drops back into the Evil Accent, the universal bad guy voice. The dusky, heroic jewess is obviously wise to the monster, isn’t confused for a second, and nobly speaks truth to power, at the cost of her own life. Fucking lol. Of course, the Nazi par excellence has a gun to hand, just in case right? Does he have a silenced pistol in every room?
In one scene, we see that Nazis are still around, hiding in plain sight. That they are dangerous, cruel, and potent as ever. That heroic girls need to do their part to expose this omnipresent menace. That if you want to be a badass, an antagonist, you want to be a Nazi. It’s all there, and it’s rote, it’s in every other movie or program.
For this reason alone, we should eschew the whole memeplex. Annoying, I know. There’s a lot of genuinely kino imagery and memes, but it’s all tainted, and the fact that the Cathedral Voice spends much money and time keeping it alive and “relevant” should be reason enough to abandon the whole thing.
It should be noted that I’m not talking about historical study and analysis. My observations are confined to the “culture war” side of things.
Nazis are mostly used to repulse people from better right wing ideas (Nazis are not actually right wing anyway) and when the stars line up like with Azov they provide useful muscle for globohomo.
They’re not even White.
https://archive.ph/7OQf5
They’re not even Nazis.
Look at this guy’s victims. Some Koreans (an awful lot of these supposed Nazis have East Asian wives), two Hispanic sisters and their mother with last name Mendoza (Garcia claimed Hispanics are White while looking like a 56% goblin), Rivas a Hispanic guy, an actual White guy LaCour of French descent, and a Hindu Indian Thatikonda. There’s no reasoning behind these killings, only a desire for random destruction.
At some point in history, Nazism was an actual system of politics (effectiveness/morality/etc besides the point), but what we have today is simply clown world demonic impulse.
While predicting the future is difficult Trump being sent to prison and murdered there likely draws close. This crazy ugly bitch’s trial was a test case on how effectively and reliably they could stack a jury to convict Trump of anything regardless of how little basis in fact the charge had.
Now they will line up a major criminal charge in DC or somewhere else worse than even Manhattan and stack the jury and then he will be Epsteined in prison.
The jury verdict was bizarre. Rape was the central allegation. The jury did not find Trump liable for rape. Effectively they believe the woman to be a liar. If they could not believe the rape allegation, why would they believe any of the other allegations from a liar. In short politics. They wanted Trump to be guilty, but that begs the question of why they didn’t go all the way with the rape allegation if they were already willing to bend their ethics for politics?
normalcy bias?
Opposite of bizarre, was typical of American jury verdicts. Prosecution charges every degree of crime that could possibly apply. Say it’s self defense they charge murder 1 through manslaughter through assault through malicious lingering. Defense makes a strong showing but the normie midwit jury think “he must have done something or he wouldn’t be here,” plus they want to please the judge and courtroom audience, plus there’s always at least one to convict and the rest want to go home rather than hang the jury. So they knock off the most severe charge, deliberate over where exactly to draw the line long enough to get lunch delivered, and congratulate themselves on dispensing the wisdom of Solomon rather than facing they did exactly what the prosecution planned and predicted they’d do. Then the judge applies either the maximum sentence consecutively or the minimum with time served, depending on politics or a reverse paper bag test.
I am only surprised at how anyone on the right is still surprised by this. Expecting fair trials at this point is like expecting fair elections, you haven’t been paying attention.
This tweet seems insightful. End stage empire.
https://twitter.com/FromKulak/status/1656008552765431829
Except DC is going to have its credit card cancelled soon… with the dollar worthless they aren’t going to be able to hire a large body of mercs without foreign currency or gold.
Also mercs might just mutiny or take over a weak state too.
Rome had the same problem but they still managed for centuries. Things will go faster in the US of the current era, but I think this is still pretty realistic.
Citizenship in the dying empire is a currency in and of itself. Though it actually contrasts with the policy of giving it away through illegal immigration and pardons for it. Maybe they’ll cut that back.
What Rome did was they gave priority to paying their foreigner army over anything else. They gave soldiers the better coins and used the debased currency for everything else.
Rome NEVER had this level of insanity until it did start falling apart (under Theodosius and Honorius) DC is in a state of undeclared bankruptcy already once its reserve currency credit card is cancelled it won’t be able to pay even the army and security state it has now.
But hasn’t USG been hogging all the gold for over a century? Surely that allows them to keep going for a longer while.
Fort Knox was emptied out quite some time ago. There is no vault full of US government gold.
Huh. So it really is all smoke and mirrors at this point.
supposedly there is 8T of gold on the books physically located in Fed controlled vaults either in NYC or Ft. Knox. Would love to see a real audit, along with forensic accounting of how many believe they own the gold that exists.
Federal Reserve Bank of New York gold vault: https://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/goldvault.html
If there is all that much gold there is more in NY than Ft. Knox, “Die Hard with a Vengeance” was I believe given accurate intelligence on that point when the bad guy said “Ft. Knox its for tourists”.
once the EBT cards stop working, every city in America is going to become a nightmare hellscape of unimaginable suffering. first a depraved orgy of mass murder, rape, ritual sacrifice, and cannibalism. then local warlords will assert power and cordon off all highways, collect loot and women, establish authority and new laws. slavery will make a big return. they’ll form raiding parties and hit the suburbs, followed by more distant towns. you will have to form a local militia and drill regularly to defend against the raids. no one will come to help you, and if the government does acknowledge the warlords it will be to make deals with them at your expense.
this has already happened at the municipal level, where there are large swathes of cities that are effectively foreign territory. no one will rise up to stop it because Americans are too lazy and apathetic to care.
When the EBT cards stop working, all bastards will be killed and eaten unless they’re female and old enough to fuck.
If slavery makes a comeback in North America, it’ll be for whites only. Niggers have been useless, except as dog food, ever since John Deere invented the cotton harvester.
Civilization is dysgenic, so barbarism must be eugenic; otherwise humans could not have evolved enough intelligence to invent civilization.
When the government starts filling the military with freshly imported Africans, the first victims of their rapine will be unarmed white liberals in the upscale suburbs of major cities. Jim says this is a feature, not a bug; Antifa graffiti says, “Liberals get the bullet too ☔
We’ll hit peak irony when the American Foreign Legion successfully halts illegal immigration.
@notglowing @Twitter user FromKulak
Imported niggers and muds are not going to hold vast territories for DC/NYC. They can’t build and maintain the wonder weapons, and without those, the FBI and nigger LEOs are easy dogmeat for any White militia.
The way it works is: The arab, nigger and spic legions will be sent into a town to hold it for GAE. They will confiscate all weapons and set up a command center, patrol around to make sure the whites stay pacified.
Their main task will be to ensure that the white farmers keep sending most of their crops and meat to keep DC/NYC well-fed. Of course the occupiers will indulge in a bit of whitegirl rape, plus stealing anything they take a fancy to.
Yes, one of these towns could come together and slaughter the shitskin garrison. That’s when the whites back in DC unleash the drones and other Wonder Weapons to utterly annihilate that town. Other towns will see this and fall into line.
@Pete
Shaniqua has given up on cryogenic first stage rocket engines and hypersonic cruise missiles, you fucking retard.
Shaniqua and Da’quan will be the front-line occupying force in the streets.
The Pentagon will still be there to back them up, along with a certain number of compentent Whites to operate the missiles and drones…you fucking retard.
A Roman garrison could not have stood up to an entire city attacking them. But cities did not “rise up” and kill the Romans because the Emperor would respond by sending entire legions to raze that city to the ground. A similar program will work on American Whites.
@Pete
You fucking wordsmiths have no clue about the current state of military technology. You need to shut the fuck up.
The jews in DC can no longer build new first stage cryogenic rocket engines anymore (all last remaining ULA expendable rockets are sold off). They can’t build hypersonic cruise missiles either.
Go choke on your mRNA booster shots, jew brahmin.
Jesus, relax pal. Who the hell is talking about cryogenics and hypersonic cruise missiles?
I’m informing you of the methods the Regime will likely use to keep Middle America under control after they import so many shitskins that the US basically collapses. The specific weapons used don’t really matter.
They will still have helicopter gunships, artillery platforms, drones and hell, just tanks if it comes to that. The elites will be sure to keep a cadre of White mechanics on their side, with lavish homes in some kind of DC Green Zone. Women, alcohol and good food allocated to keep them loyal.
@Pete
Their aerospace bureaus are increasingly unable to build and maintain the very high tech weapons that are the sole basis of DC’s ability to project power.
Seriously, you limpwristed morons should stick to reading your useless obscure books, and staying silent after pushing the Covid hoax.
USG doesn’t have any drone swarms. New orders for their switchblade wunderwaffen have all been canceled because they would be stopped by getting tangled in cammo nets, and would generally fail to do irreparable damage even when they did hit. Recent events continue to expose just how useless and overblown everything that remains in USG’s inventory is, and it’s not getting any better.
Ok guys, how do the governments of South Africa, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, North Korea and so forth keep a lid on their rural populations?
Since you think it’s completely fucking impossible to do so without extremely high-tech aerospace weapons?
Gun control and spiritual castration initiatives deployed in the 1970s, that’s how.
America isn’t unique beyond all comparison, but none of your examples are comparable.
In the latter three, the rural populations are of the same race as the urban populations, and just as brainwashed. Viva Chávez!
In South Africa, whites live in enclaves where non-whites, even cops, will be shot if they try to get in. These enclaves are helpless against air attack, but guess what, the South African Air Force replaced all its white mechanics with affirmative-action hires, and soon had no flyable aircraft.
You logically assume that exceptions will be made for organs vital to state security, but that would be an admission that diversity-inclusion-equity (DIE) is not always and everywhere a good thing, which would be heresy.
If they were capable of that, we would still be able to make chips and build warships.
Realistic sane conduct is going to cast doubt one’s faith in woke. Trouble ensues. So, diversity is our greatest strength.
As soon as Ukraine falls followed shortly by fedgov the whites will retake South Africa.
@Pete
The Scribe class’s greatest hits on this sub-thread and others like it:
– Pete
– The Dividualist
– Jan Martense
Jan Martense ran away from this blog before he had the chance to say “the mRNA shots are ‘safe and effective.'”
These are unkind paraphrases of theDividualist said. Post links. Or quote directly so that I can search the text and see who wrote them.
@Pete
I also noticed that you actually made a comparison between niggers and North Koreans. As if they’re equal.
North Korean engineers can build atom bombs and orbital expendable rocket stages, you midwit brahmin.
So now it’s time for you to answer my Redpill on Women Question that I asked another poster.
(Use Ctrl F or tablet search bar to find and answer the shill test, beginning with “Women misbehave because”)
@Starman really did I say these things? What I remember is admitting getting vaxxed but neither pushing it nor overstating Covid.
As for natalism I want more white babies but overally less human babies. A 2Bn humankind with ample elbow room so we live in the Shire not in a beehive. And wildlife to hunt. Against white replacement but also against Beehive Earth. Quality babies over quantity. I see no point in adding billions of shit tier barely humans.
@starman as I post and also read here really rarely, I have a weird feeling maybe someone stole my name. Please post links and then Jim can check if it is the same email adress.
My actual views are at https://dividuals.wordpress.com/
Dividualist, you’ve posted 1020 comments since arriving here in 2015. Here’s a full list, in chronological order:
https://easyupload.io/taajf6
theDividualist, search the list, and point me to anything that smells funny.
Starman, search the list, and directly quote anything that supports your claims about what theDividualist said.
Notice how the Prog bugman is not offering his “White mechanics†loyal obedient virgin wives and children, rather whoring, drunkenness and gluttony. We will see if dopamine addicts will produce hypersonic missiles and working tanks; the continually impending spring offensive in the Ukraine is showing otherwise.
Given the absolute detachment from reality of these shills, it may be that I will live long enough to have the pleasure of sending these Prog bugmen to the abyss.
@TheDividualist
Were you coerced into taking the mRNA shots and boosters? Or did you take them voluntarily?
Here’s the suspect replies from the poster using the nym “TheDividualist,” including a reply that linked an MSM propaganda link:
Here’s a comment that admits taking the Moderna vaxx but doesn’t say it was coerced or voluntary:
https://blog.reaction.la/science/ai-progress/#comment-2863693
Reply with MSM propaganda link:
There were comments from “TheDividualist” after that link comment, that said because “TheDividualist is a priest,” it was okay for him to voluntarily take the vaxx and boosters, and that priestly castes don’t have to “set an example” or something. Couldn’t find those comments yet.
Addendum:
The “TheDividualist” reply implying that “priests don’t need to set an example” was in the reply with the propaganda link.
So far, only seeing posts with his fake email. Only a very few people can see the fake email, so it acts as a password. The cat is a deterministic hash of the email, and his real fake email corresponds to a pink cat with its eyes closed wearing headphones, a pink cat listening to music. Someone using his name would find it difficult to find an email capable generating the right cat, in that it would take him a lot of tries.
You can download the blog data at the link in the blog page, but all the email addresses have been hashed.
All TheDividualist’s comments have the same cat except these five:
https://blog.reaction.la/uncategorized/thermodynamics-leftism-organisms-and-chestertons-fence/#comment-1136198
https://blog.reaction.la/war/technological-decline-3/#comment-1850940
https://blog.reaction.la/war/technological-decline-3/#comment-1850943
https://blog.reaction.la/war/the-wonderful-clarity-of-white-genocide/#comment-1864630
https://blog.reaction.la/global-warming/highly-scientific-climate-change-of-doom/#comment-2143035
Which last comment has the same cat as https://blog.reaction.la/culture/bored-with-game-of-thrones/#comment-567322 , probably just a coincidence, as there are not more than a few thousand cats.
These appear to be typos in his secret email address.
Look like no one has been faking comments by theDividualist.
@Starman I stand by those comments, yes I have taken it voluntarily, but I have not praised them or pushed them on others. I don’t want positions of responsibility so I am free to make my own decisions. Largely based on that athlete’s death and Orban supporting vaccines.
If you want to feel paranoid about this decision, feel free to be so.
I rather think like a libertarian about issues like this: make your own decisions.
@Starman also I am not an anti-natalist. I am an eugenicist, quality > quantity with some anti-crowding tendencies.
Look I am in Europe. We are crowded. Hardly any wildlife to hunt left.
The world is far from crowded. Places with nice people and tolerable governments are crowded because everyone wants to go there and no one wants to leave. There is a whole lot of colonizable turf around. Russia is still largely empty, latin America is substantially empty, there is a whole lot of emptiness in Australia and America, there is a whole lot of emptiness in Africa, and plains apes do not count in a civilized world anyway. And after that, space. The universe is very big and very empty. Our descendants will come to love space, as we came to love the savanna. My descendants shall outnumber the stars.
In the end, a rather small number of people will control all the matter orbiting each star of the Milky Way and the entire energy output that star. We will worry about overpopulation when life is everywhere among the stars, has transformed the galaxy the way life has transformed the earth, is making a good start on doing the same to Virgo supercluster of galaxies and is reaching out to the galaxies of the Laniakea supercluster. Then we will worry about overpopulation.
Dividual has been a good poster for a long while, so I don’t think he is a shill. Anecdotally though, the quality of output coincidentally dropped around the same time as the frankenjab.
@The Mayflower Sperg
Thank you very much, I might edit this file into a book.
I generally treat comparisons to the Roman empire with some scepticism, as they are sometimes a bit forced and can sound more like post-facto rationalisations rather than insights with predictive value.
But this is pretty much one to one. There is little differences in causes, facts, and the likely outcome of it. It is exactly what Rome did. And it does appear both obvious and inevitable.
I have been saying this, but less concisely and persuasively.
@Cominator – If your point were only that things won’t go all their way you’d be right. If you mean they won’t be able to make the play at all, that doesn’t follow. They don’t need to pay the brown hordes in pounds of gold, they just need to pay them in loot, murder and rapine. Which they will be able to collect just by going door to door, which is exactly what the leftmost of the left will want them to do anyway.
And as long as the feds and sympathetic local police have their boot on the necks of white self defense leagues (plus anything that might conceivably morph into one, down to a local knitting circle), the play may well work, at least at first.
The question is: when push comes to shove how good are diversity hires at keeping their boots on white people with little to lose?
I may not be a believer myself, but I have no issue with saying that if you can pull it off, good luck to you.
[*deleted for treating electoral politics as credible*]
Any statement about voting and party alignment needs to be made within the frame that your intelocutors find the polls unbelievable, and consider poll results, insofar as they mean anything other than that the government is lying to us, represent tribal identification by race, sex, and sexual orientation. You may not agree with this, but you are not allowed to present arguments and discussion that presuppose your interlocutors agree with you, when we quite obviously do not.
[*deleted*] My data reflected how I was reared and educated. [*deleted*]
Your account of how you were educated is highly plausible. The vast majority are educated that way. Your account of your rearing is absolutely unbelievable. You don’t know any conservatives or Christians, and are unable to mentally model them.
I was reared Christian, and am Christian, and we looked up to the Ivy League and wanted to be lawyers, scientists, doctors, engineers, accountants, military officers, MBA-tier managers, NGO founders, etc, just like everyone else. [*rest deleted for lack of contact with reality*]
You were born and raised in a nominally Christian family, but you lack contact with ordinary mainstream Christians and ordinary mainstream Republicans. You live in a bubble.
I had mention that this was what was going on at fox:
https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-carlson-was-told-by-a-member-of-the-fox-board-that-he-was-taken-off-the-air-as-part-of-the-dominion-settlement-per-tuckers-legal-team?utm_campaign=64483
https://archive.is/wip/oHlhy
This is a classic DOJ/Blue City tactic where the the city implements unpopular polices while claiming the courts made them do it brought to private corporations. I think we’ll see a lot more of this sort of stuff going forward as woke is clearly a money loser.
Thinly veiled BS. As others have pointed out, in the legacy media no less, Tucker was one of the least committed to the Dominion news story and the first at Fox to break rank on it. If he were fired due to the lawsuit, why not Hannity, Gutfeld, etc who were far more invested in the story?
Insiders of all sort have continuously said that word came directly from Murdoch. Funnily enough, after Tucker had made Murdoch uncomfortable with talk about good, evil, and God.
Well two can play with legalistic wordplay. Fox is refusing to release Tucker from his contract. This prevents Tucker from working at other Networks until 2025. Thankfully, Twitter is not a “Network” and Tucker will be releasing his new show there and Fox will be paying him for it.
You’re missing the point. The Murdoch’s and Dominion cooked up the lawsuit together. It lets them do what they wanted to do while having an excuse to avoid a shareholder lawsuit.
I’m not missing the point. I’m pointing out how obviously transparent the cooked up the legal speak is. That even the legacy media has commented on it not making sense. I’m also pointing out how ineffectual his legal play has shown itself to be. He wanted Tucker gone and unable to talk about the 2024 election cycle by holding the contract. Turns out he will be paying millions to Tucker while the show continues on Twitter.
I’m also pointing out the reason why he wanted Tucker out adding to your post. Many accounts that it’s due to a personal aversion to faith and God. This tracks with what has come out in the past. When Murdoch was establishing a near monopoly on Christian publishing, a man protested with the following.
It wasn’t a pious man who said this of Murdoch either, but an atheist who protested out of a filial respect to his Christian father. This has proven prescient, or possibly just the lone voice of reason as few ever cared to check out who owns Christian media. Murdoch trades in religious material, but abstains from ever going to Church. Allegedly only attending once at the insistence of his now divorced Catholic second wife. He was set to be on his 5th. He’s the merchant type that Jesus chased out of his father’s house. Nothing is sacred to him, not even his women as he trades their flesh like he trades everything else.
The government got rid of Tucker, Murdoch did what he was told.
Not quite. The Cathedral cut Carlson off from a mainstream audience. So he has some decisions to make. Likewise, a huge number of normies are in a temporary state of accessibility to any independent/non-traditional media outlet that can finagle Carlson’s name/visage/presence.
Remember the Twitter files, Murdoch got a direct order here.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1104593468388544542/1105844631985475676/image.png
Guess we know who’s not a noble, LOL.
https://twitter.com/Leopard212/status/1656014572170653696
https://twitter.com/Yogakshema_/status/1655940074574577666
Anyway, Pak heading for civil war looks like.
I’m only responding because of stopped clock phenomenon. Feel free to jump off a cliff faggot.
Civil War is a distinct category of war, and it’s misapplied in cases such as Pakistan. If they do progress to an internal war, it will be a Tribal Adjustment, not a civil war. When the balloon goes up in CONUS, that will be a civil war; a nation fracturing. When Biafra tries to break away, when the Afrikaners get forced to the blade, when PAKstan collapses, that’s a Tribal Adjustment. Left v. Lefter=civil war; Left v. Right= Tribal Adjustment.
Thoughts? (not you, Shit Sling)
[*unresponsive*]
Transwarrior, transaryan, and transnoble! He’s a whole new man!
To rectify names, I submit “Inverse Marriage” for female consent plus Duluth plus no-fault divorce with alimony.
Current terms in usage on this blog are “blue-pilled marriage,” “gay marriage,” and “marriage 2.0”.
These are adequate for esoteric purposes, but they don’t convey immediate clarity. The normie or purple-pilled conservative to which these memes will eventually percolate can easily say to himself, “This redpill bluepill Anthony Tate nonsense isn’t worth my attention;” or, “Sleeping with my wife isn’t gay, that’s absurd. I know I’m a real man;” or, “So what if there was an update to marriage, this isn’t the middle ages any more. When my iPhone updates it gets better.”
The leftist strategy, in peak form for lying demon worshippers, is to leave “marriage” in place in name only, and silently map all of the gravitas and reverence which were carved out at great cost for the divine utility of Marriage, onto its spiritual and de facto opposite. This lie technique is so effective because it tricks many of the dissenters into attacking the memory of Marriage at the same time as they attack the false opposite of marriage (and then these confused dissenters can be used to further discredit dissent in general). Much of the manosphere, even despite conscious rejection of feminine deference, has concluded for decades that Marriage is not for men.
Marriage, the divine social supertechnology given by God to Adam to expand his cooperation and lift the continuity of his blood over that of the twerking, rutting ape: not for men!
Therefore it is rhetorically necessary not only to distinguish what we have now from real marriage, but to succinctly label their opposite form and consequences, in order to remind lost men of every persuasion that real Marriage is favorable.
By distinction, Inverse Marriage parsimoniously implies the fact that orthodox Marriage contains and embodies a particular order of man over wife; that the wife is property of the man; that he is a man to the world and a husband only to her; that he is to hold final authority within the household and all leverage necessary to execute it; and so forth.
Inverse Marriage is a succinct label for the legal structure that elevates wife over man; that yokes the man into unrequited commitment (and he’ll beg on one knee for the privilege!); that he is first and foremost a devoted servant leading husband to a strong wife in his bio; that her consent is the ultimate veto within the household and she will be awarded cash prizes and sympathy if she becomes unhappy; that her misbehavior must be argued with instead of punished; etc.
Inverse Marriage is designed to be a terse, readily meaningful, rapidly deployable meme for all situations. It uncorks the odor of wrongness and perversion out of a container mislabeled as good and pure. It’s engineered for efficient cognitive and rhetorical counterattack against fallacious social pressure to get “married” which befrauds a man with one of his own best aspirations.
Please consider Inverse Marriage for field testing and inclusion in your memetic arsenal.
Didn’t read your wall of text but if Inverse Marriage means the wife owns the husband, and not the other way around, and indeed this seems to be the case these days, then I support accepting this terminology. Or Reversed Marriage, Anti-Marriage etc.
Jim,
Let’s tackle that most leftie-interpreted stuff in Christ’s teachings, rich man, camel, needle.
Rich man: how do I go to heaven?
Christ: easy, dude, just do the Ten Commandments, nothing more.
Rich man: but that is not enough for me, I have a lot of spiritual vanity, I wanna signal my virtue super hard, I really want to be super duper holy?
Christ: *switches to troll mode* you wanna be super duper holy? How about this extremely costly signal of your virtue? MWUHAHAH *trollface*
Rich man: :((((
Christ: *says stuff* and that is really the question here. What did He mean?
I do not know Aramaic grammar. I do not know whether he really said it is really hard for ALL rich men in general to go to heaven – he literally said the opposite like five lines before – it is easy, just do the Ten Commandments!
Maybe He said it is hard for THIS particular rich man to go to heaven due to not being rich but due to having a lot of spiritual vanity, aspiring / signalling being super duper holy?
Matthew 19 and Mark 10 are the scriptures. This is also where Jesus commands no fornication and that the first man that pops the virgins cherry is her husband, those who come after are committing adultery. That Moses allowed exceptions to this because we are such shitty fallen people but that is the ideal.
Let’s bear in mind that Jesus says it is hard for the rich man to go to heaven, but through God all things are possible. When the rich young man asks what more he can do to be perfect;
“Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.”
Jesus at community organizer folks will then say it is bad to be rich, but Paul does not say that. He says, the love of money is the root of all evil. Not that being rich is the root of evil but loving money over God. Just as Jesus does not say that the rich man can’t go to heaven but that it will be difficult for him. The more one is given the more is expected from that one. Hence the rich man should be a good Samaritan, and the poor man should not envy the rich man for he will struggle harder to follow the commandments. It is easier for the poor man to obey scripture and easier for the poor man to not love money more than God.
> Jesus at community organizer folks will then say it is bad to be rich, but Paul does not say that.
Sure but are you saying Paul > Jesus?
Paul does not contradict his understanding, and understanding of the Apostles, of Jesus. But, unlike Jesus, had to deal with the practical matters of running a community full of ordinary people with ordinary jobs.
It is not a contradiction, it is commentary, interpretation, and explanation.
>It is easier for the poor man to obey scripture and easier for the poor man to not love money more than God.
Citation needed :)))
This is not how economics 101 works. Diminishing marginal utility. For the poor, money is super important. For the rich, it is not, they rather spend their money to get something else, like political influence – see Soros.
Easy explanation; my ex wife has a large inheritance and grew up in family with great comfort. She struggled not, and is unable to recognize sin. I grew up in a poor wicked and evil family, half my relatives are illiterate and spent time in prison, and as a child I was homeless several times. Luckily for me my father’s father was some intelligent man who casually dumped a load into my whore grandmother before leaving and left me the gift of intelligence. I can see sin and I can see how the wages of sin are death. Hence it is easier for me to enter the kingdom of heaven than my ex wife. And let us see what fruit has been borne from said trees? My ex wife has two children with no father, I have a great many children including six legitimate children with a father and mother.
OK this suddenly makes sense to me.
Wealth should be linked to a public function of exercising private government – aristocracy.
Can you help me understand why you reddit post like a rainbow flavored faggot, Dividualist? I thought you were biting the lips of Slavic chicks and stuff. Kind of incongruous, desu.
His name sounds familiar. I think he might be a Teddy B reject? (As in, Ted kicked him out of the fan club; or maybe he’s still in the fan club.)
I’m not trying to be petty, but emoji/emoticon-posting is the sign of a disordered and effeminate mind. I have to agree with Kunning Drueger here — if you want to be taken seriously, Dividualist, clean up your posting style. It’s fine for your local TPUSA chapter, but it doesn’t really fit in here.
Fuck that. When I find something amusing, I use a smiley. Being a reactionary is not about being a prudish killjoy. Rather the opposite, the anti-puritan Cavalier.
I do not use Reddit. Others might stumbled upon regging a similar nick. I only post here and the Orthosphere. I also have no idea who Ted is.
I spend not much time online.
The love of money is even simpler than that. It’s a warning about golden handcuffs. How many people took the mark of the beast/vax because they were too afraid to lose their job?
It’s neither an instruction to be poor, nor a condemnation of the rich. It’s a warning about the difficulty of choosing what’s right over wealth once you have it.
Money is a good thing its just not the only thing and too much of a good thing can become a vice.
Community organizer people don’t sell their stuff and give it to the poor, they steal other people’s stuff and give it to the poor. Not the same thing.
For what it’s worth, here’s Jerome’s commentary on Matthew:
(Vers. 20.) Dicit illi adolescens: Omnia hæc custdivi a juventute mea, quid adhuc mihi deest? Ait illi Jesus. Mentitur adolescens. Si enim hoc quod positum est in mandatis: Diliges proximum tuum sicut teipsum, opere complesset, quomodo postea audiens: Vade, et vende quæ habes , et da pauperibus, tristis recessit, quia habebat possessiones multas?
(Vers. 21.) Si vis perfectus esse , vade, vende quæ habes , et da pauperibus, el habebis thesaurum in cælo et veni, sequereme. In potestate nostra est, utrum velimus esse perfecti. Tamen quicumque perfectus esse voluerit, debet vendere quæ habet: et non ex parte vendere , sicut Ananias fecit el Sapphyra (Act. v) sed totum vendere: et cum vendiderit, omne dare pauperibus, et sic sibi præparare thesaurum in regno cælorum. Et hoc ad perfectionem non sufficit, nisi post contemptas divitias Salvatorem sequatur, id est, relictis malis, faciat bona. Facilius enim sacculus contemnitur, quam voluplas. Multi divitias relinquentes, Dominum non sequuntur. Sequitur autem Dominum , qui imitator ejus est, et per vestigia illius graditur. Qui enim dicit se Christo credere, debet quomodo ille ambulavit, et ipse ambulare (1 Joan. II, 6).
(Vers. 20.) “The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?” The young man is lying: for if he had done this which is commanded: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself”, how came it that after he had heard “Go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor”, he went away sorrowful, because he had many possessions?
(Vers. 21.) “Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.” It is in our power to desire to become perfect. But whoever wishes to be perfect, must sell all he has: and not just sell part of what he has, as Ananias and Sapphyra did (Acts v.) but sell everything: and when he has sold all he has, to give his money to the poor, and thus prepare himself treasures in heaven. And this is not sufficient for perfection, unless after contemning riches he follow the Savior, that is, put away all evil doing, and do good. For it is easier to despise riches, than to despise pleasure. Many who have given up wealth do not follow the Lord. But he follows the Lord who imitates him, and walks in his footsteps. “Whoever says that he believes Christ, should walk as Christ walked.” (1 John, 2:6)
If the rich young man wishes to seek perfection he is to sell all he has and come with Jesus. Does this mean it is sinful to be rich? Jesus tells many parables, including the prodigal son. The father of the prodigal son is clearly a rich landowner. Does Jesus condemn the father for his riches? No. Because it is not sinful to be rich. As we are told by the apostle Paul, the love of money is the sin. Having riches is fine, loving them more than God is a sin.
To whom much is given much is expected. The rich man has much, so much is expected.
Then we can easily move into the prosperity gospel. The family who through time follows the commandments of God will be wealthy. Anyone who is capable of thought is capable of playing these thoughts out. We are commanded to save and give an inheritance to our grandchildren. My ancestors were wicked sinners, hence no inheritance for me. My ex wifes ancestors were very good people who followed the Lord. Hence she has a very large inheritance. This is good as it is the Lord’s command. Now, should she wish to attempt to become perfect, then she can give away her riches and go with Jesus. Except Jesus was killed on the cross long ago and I think it’s in Isiah where we are commanded to give an inheritance to our grandchildren.
So which is it? Why let’s not be dumb and pretend our grandchildren do not matter. Clearly Jesus says immediately after, as the apostles say to him but Jesus who can be saved? He says all can be saved through the power of God. He does not say the rich man is a sinner who can’t be saved unless he gives all his money away, he says it is more difficult. Paul, the apostle of God, says that the sin is not money but the love of money over God.
So clearly being rich is fine, and saving an inheritance for your grandchildren is good and a necessary commandment of God himself. But loving money more than God is a sin and to whom much is given much is expected. I prefer the LDS clarification on this, which is easy. The quorem of the twelve apostles said so and they are holier than you. If you want to be holier than them you have to go rise through the hierarchy until you are church president. Until then, you’re wrong and not holier than President Nelson.
The point not being that rich people are bad and we should take their stuff, but being that purporting to excessive holiness is not believable.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.
The point of Jesus’s remarks is not that rich is bad, but that that salvation is not through works.
Yet works matter. He, and rest of the New Testament, and the ancient tradition of the Church, cheerfully contradict themselves, and running with one end of the contradiction while throwing the other end into a ditch leads into some very evil heresies.
Salvation is by faith alone not through works, but clearly someone who is purely selfish evil and hypocritical lacks real faith and instead has the faith of demons, he believes in Christ but in his heart curses Christ and the holy spirit is not working through his fallen nature to redeem him. Though perhaps the person who is mostly a piece of shit but has some redeeming qualities may indeed have real faith.
This makes sense especially as Luke chapter 18 is Luke telling that period and;
“14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.”
This is what Luke tells us Jesus said that day.
The context of Christ telling the rich man to sell his possessions is that he must not be bound by his positions if he wishes to follow Christ in reforming humanity.
Christ does NOT say that:
1. if he does not sell his positions he will be bad/unsavable, just that he cannot be a follower of Christ
2. if he does sell his possessions, he has to give the money away to “charidee”
The passage occurs in a whole long list of men asking to join Christ and his apostles but throwing up some other concern or consideration that means they’ll only be partly committed. Christ says that the man who follows him must be fully committed. Basically revolutionary movement recruiting practice imo.
I think there’s some confusion as to what it means to “follow Christ”. Now that Christ no longer walks the Earth in physical form, anyone can follow him without leaving home, and is required to do so to get into heaven.
Those who followed Christ on foot had to be a select few because they depended on the generosity of people who stayed put to tend their fields and flocks.
Re Christ and Salvation, the scripture is pretty clear on Sola Fide for salvation.
But its questionable as to whether faith with no works whatsoever is true faith or is the mere faith of demons…
>The Talmud is a great pile of too clever by half lawsuits against God.
LOL it is true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eruv
God: do not carry stuff out of your home at Sabbath
Jews: LOL this wire makes my whole neighborhood my home so I can carry whatever to wherever, I win
Possibly the most jewish story of all, where the rabbis outargue God.
“Rabbi Eliezer then said to them: If the halakha is in accordance with my opinion, Heaven will prove it. A Divine Voice emerged from Heaven and said: Why are you differing with Rabbi Eliezer, as the halakha is in accordance with his opinion in every place that he expresses an opinion?”
https://www.sefaria.org/Bava_Metzia.59b.5?lang=bi
I don’t see why you need evolution to explain the WQ. The Catholic account of original sin and concupisence suffices. Because of the original sin of Adam and Eve, man and woman have a hard time rationally controling the passions. Especially a powerful passion like the sexual appetite. The sexual appetite only makes sense within a paradigm of procreative sex. Now since God made the woman by nature to be the one that bears children, it follows that the woman’s desires are tied to having strong and healthy offspring. Because of concupisense, women have to be kept in line as they will want to cruise around for strong man seed since the sexual appetite is very strong.
1. People not being able to control their passions doesn’t explain what those passions are or how they work the way evolutionary psychology does. “Strong seed” gets into evolutionary psychology.
2. Papism (which the blog owner has rejected numerous times for numerous reasons and basically agrees with me that the Catholic Church is a pretty consistent ally of the left, internationalism, the poz and an enemy of us) has many faults but endorsing Young Earth Creationism and rejecting evolution are not among them.
I said what the passion is if you read. It’s quite simply philosophy from Aristotle and Aquinas.
I actually like a lot of what Aquinas says a genuinely smart guy and endorsing him was one of the Catholic Church’s better moments (like the Crusades)… they’ve had so few of them over their subversive troublemaking history but your original post did not mention Aquinas. It did say women wanted strong seed but that kind of thinking though it predated Darwin was ev. psych before evolution.
Aquinas says that the passions of appetites desire what is the good of their facility. So the passion for food desires nourishment, or the passion for knowledge desires the truth. The sexual passion desires the generation and rising of children. So it follows that the sexual desires of the man or woman will reflect this basic drive in the way proper to each sex. The woman’s sexual desire is for children, and of course the stronger and healthier the child the better. But because we live in a fallen world, this desire is hard to control and frequently goes after the wrong dude.
nuts
This story neglect the fact that defect/defect, the game of players and bitches, did not become the norm until 1820, and was substantially reversed in the period 1933 to 1963. It did not start with the fall. It started with “progress”.
Women call the tune, and men must dance. But they were not allowed to call the tune until the mid nineteenth century.
It did not begin with the fall. It began with female emancipation.
james is talking about the cause of woman’s difficult qualities in any time, whether or not their full destructive potential was restrained by patriarchy, and denying that evolutionary philosophy is needed to understand it. i’ve attempted to make the same point in the past. nikolai may have too, i don’t exactly remember. but you’re talking about something else, which james’s other comments indicate he agrees with you on.
Victorians claimed that Christianity implied very different things about women. Supposedly women did not like sex, and only put up with it out out of virtue. Nah, they do not like sex with men of comparable value to themselves, while being willing to crawl nine miles over broken glass to get with their demon lover.
You cannot really get to the conclusion that laws in the spirit of the Old Testament laws on sex, family, marriage, and children. are a good idea, you cannot justify Chesterton’s fence, without reference to hypergamy, And you do not have hypergamy explained in the Bible.
You can find Chesterton’s fence in the bible, but since we now follow the spirit, not the letter of the law, you need to understand the spirit, and you need evolutionary psychology to understand the spirit of the law on sex, family, marriage, and children.
I think a similar pattern can be seen in pre-christian societies, ancient greece, rome, etc.
Women encourage homosexuality and pederasty, because it gives men an outlet for sexuality that doesn’t involve them mating with sub-par males.
Feminism has always seemed to me to be a reactionary movement against the sexual distribution of below average men to be the husbands of below average women.
Not aware of any hot chick feminist poster girls, though I suppose someone somewhere has manufactured some. Feminism is very much a revolt against the considerable pressure to mate with men of comparably low value. Which pressure has been greatly reduced, but still has not entirely gone away. Hence the perception that despite all their privileges, they are very much oppressed.
Half of all mothers are single mothers. What is causing this?
Blluepilled fathers letting their daughters run around freely while their bodies are screaming “time to have kids!” And then also the state and most of the churches refuse to enforce marriage so ignorant men get runover.
As Jim would point out very hard to keep teenage girls from running around without state backing…
What is needed is early arranged marriage but that is a jihad complete problem.
Early marriage is not historically normative for Western Europeans. Average age of marriage was around 20-24 for women before 1800.
Same for arranged marriage. Strictly an Asian thing.
Bullshit you feminist faggot. This was only true during the Victorian era.
You’re wrong. Read “The World We Have Lost” by Peter Laslett.
As far as I can tell, the idea that Western Europeans used to have young arranged marriages (and live in “multigenerational homes”, but that’s a different story) is very recent. I have not looked into it, but I am almost certain that the only reason it is so popular is because it was pushed by progs in an attempt to minimize the differences between white Europeans and Muslim/subcontinental immigrants to Europe.
Oh God not only a feminist but a fednat feminist…
We have extensive documentation on the age Western European women got married. Parish records. Mean age of English brides in the 1600s was about 23 years for the general population, about 20 for nobles.
My ancestors the women typically married between 13 and 17 we do ancestry in my church. My maternal grandmother married at sixteen, her mother at thirteen. The book Anna Karenina, Kitty turns eighteen and is borderline an old maid who must get married asap. By twenty three who can imagine the woman is still virginal? Did they keep the women locked in irons or what?
Even if you do somehow have the average of all the parish records in England most marriages were not contracted in a formal church marriage ceremony only the upper classes did that. Wedding ceremonies and throwing a party after costs money…
Most marriages were either arranged and signed via a spousal contract or were hastily contracted when a girl got pregnant which I guarantee you in the 1600s rural England the average age they got pregnant was not 24.
Yes, they were. The vast majority of marriages were either conducted by “banns of marriage” or marriage licenses. The Church wanted to make sure that marriages were licit. In the period we are discussing, a church marriage =/= “the perfect wedding”.
And seriously? You have never heard of the “European marriage pattern”? Does the name Hajnal not mean anything to you?
Hajnal looks at lots of statistics, obtained from many different methods. Consistently later marriage west of the “Hajnal line”. This has been going on since at least the 15th century.
You are using East Europe and Asia as a proxy for Western Europe’s past. You might as well use statistics from Japan to argue that the real TRAD DIET is pescatarian.
SJ:
Also SJ:
Really gets the noggin joggin’.
In any case, records of the marriage habits of the upper class should hold more weight than those of the lower class, because, in case you don’t know, the underclass in Western Europe was not reproducing above replacement until around 1800. This is especially true in England. Every Englishman today is descended from the medieval gentry. Read Gregory Clark, “Genetically Capitalist?” https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/doc/10.1.1.433.7208
You provide zero data, zero anecdotes, and fail to address any other data and anecdotes that are presented. Just trust me bro women are totally cool to keep their knees tightly pressed together until they are in their twenties. Do not believe your lying eyes, trust me instead
Late marriage only became normal in Victorian England and then progressive America and got imposed via feminist jurisprudence on Europe after the 1st world War, bro you’re fucked up you talk like a fag and your shits all retarded.
Look, SJ, the Western European marriage pattern has been a widely known fact in historical demography for a long long time. It is established in zillions of books on demography, like this one. Western Europeans married later than Eastern Europeans and Asians, and many married not at all. It is obvious when you read English and French novels from the time that bachelors and spinsters did exist in the numbers that Hajnal found via statistics.
You don’t understand the pervasiveness of patriarchy early modern Europe. Women were not choosing to remain virgins until 21, they were compelled to remain virgins until marrying at age 21 by an omnipresent system of patriarchal supervision. Your idea of patriarchy seems to begin and end at shotgun marriage. jim knows better.
Cominator, you have it backward. Average age of marriage didn’t increase from 1800 to 1900, it decreased. And still remained well above le trad fourteen year old brides.
There’s that fag talk again.
Hajnal Europe was a historical oddity, not historically normative even for western europeans, where this pattern emerged in the late medieval era, but from all the data I’ve seen it did have marriage in the 20-24 range for women. Yes they were very much under tight supervision and slept in rooms with windows nailed shut. If you read old books you see this.
I don’t think anyone is shilling here, he’s not arguing some nonsense about the nobility of women’s choice, just pointing out the demographic data we have from the last age before the start of the fall.
anonymous mouse is right about the data and the data is pretty good having been collected by the Catholic Church.
The data, as usual, doesn’t tell the full story. Betrothal age was 12-14. Those agreements were rarely broken. Betrothals are not “marriages” but were nearly as legally binding as marriages. Families of betrothal couples would often delay the formal marriage ceremony until financial circumstances were favorable or a tumble in the hay at the wrong time of the month forced the matter.
This is why nobility tended to marry earlier than the peasants. Good finances shortened the betrothal period significantly.
>late medieval era
>they were very much under tight supervision and slept in rooms with windows nailed shut
>the last age before the start of the fall.
Bastard rates say otherwise. 1/3 in Late Medieval Period. Extensive Throne and Alter power was used to get that back down to under 1/10.
There is significantly more fluctuation between civilization and failure modes during European history before 1800 than most give credit.
French birth rate collapses after 1792 presumably due to the reforms that were cemented by Napoleon.
Until about 1890 England had the toughest divorce laws in the white world i.e. it was essentially impossible. The situation was laxer in Germany, much laxer in France, much much laxer de-jure in the USA.
The West has basically converged on Quaker marriage norms over time but France abolished firm marriage first. That’s why it declined from the largest country in Europe (about 4x as populous as England) in 1750 to smaller than Germany and England by 1914.
Napoleonic Code abolished almost all the women’s rights crap that came in with the Revolution.
Also assuming the low age gap between Husband and Wife. In that sense Europe is far more egalitarian than other Continents.
I read that the age gap between Husband and Wife narrowed over time at least in regards to some books about Medieval Europe in the Library.
With the wife becoming older and the Husband becoming younger. Statistically speaking.
And this is similar
https://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2011/11/western-european-marriage-pattern.html
It is very effective at limiting fertility compared to other arrangements. And only a larger Age gap would be more likely to convert said wealth into greater fertility.
Perhaps this is a sign of greater gender equality over time.
@anonymous mouse
What’s stopping said Patriarchal system from women marrying eligible Men when they younger than the age of 21?
Men who are 25-30 should be eligible Husbands for them. They should likely be Men of means and of Good Character.
I don’t see any motive for this longer virginity except for the purposes of fertility restriction.
@The Cominator
“Napoleonic Code abolished almost all the women’s rights crap that came in with the Revolution.”
“The Civil Code permitted divorce on the grounds of adultery, cruelty, criminal conviction, or the mutual agreement of the spouses and their parents.”
The French had no-fault divorce after Napoleon, but not unilateral no-fault divorce.
In England each divorce needed a separate act of parliament, and this was not a streamlined rubber-stamp system; essentially divorce was impossible except for the extremely rich and connected.
Presumably before the French Revolution the French had the same system except instead of an act of parliament a papal dispensation was needed.
https://www.ohio.edu/chastain/dh/divorce.htm#:~:text=Under%20Napoleon%2C%20div%20orce%20became,certain%20degrading%20forms%20of%20punishment.
“Under Napoleon, div orce became much more difficult to obtain. In 1803, as part of the establishment of the Civil Code, the law was made more restrictive: grounds for divorce were reduced to adultery, ill-treatment, and condemnation to certain degrading forms of punishment. Divorce by mutual consent now required the permission of family members, and the grounds of incompatibility were eliminated completely. In addition, the sexual double standard was introduced into the law: women could be divorced for simple adult ery, while a man could be convicted of adultery only if he brought his mistress into his home. Divorce as also made more expensive and more difficult procedurally. These changes in the law had the desired effect: they strengthened patriarchal authority with the family and they drastically reduced the number of divorces to roughly a tenth of their number under the 1792 law. In spite of their disadvantaged position under the new law, women continued to outnumber men as petitioners in divorce cases a fter 1803. Women appear to have had more cause to be dissatisfied with marriage — not surprisingly, since it place them socially, economically and even physically under the tutelage of their husbands.”
To be clear under the code divorce permitted for a woman’s adultery not for a man’s with the narrow exception that the man’s adultery was only if he brought his mistress to live with him.
Cruelty was basically you had to be shown to be getting drunk regularly and beating her up for no reason. You could beat your wife for good cause legally. I agree with allowing the wife to divorce in the case her husband is sent for a long prison term or into exile. I’m sure women lied about this a lot but I don’t think the French courts were so pro women under Napoleon as modern family courts.
As France was an officially Catholic state Pre Revolution divorce was “annulment” ie a decree that the marriage was never valid (and any children would be considered bastards) the Pope theoretically could grant an outright divorce but never has happened.
Also the pre revolutionary Catholic divorce (annulment only) came back to France from the time of Napoleon’s defeat until 1882 and even then the divorce law was based on Napoleon’s law and not the French Revolution law.
Basically the feminist part of the French Revolution only lasted for about 10 years and didn’t come back for 80 years.
Yes, the MEAN age of marriage for women was in her 20’s. 90% of the population were poor farmers. Peasants were forced into sub-ideal circumstances, no shit. Fathers kept their daughters around longer because they wanted their labor. That’s like asking for the MEAN diet of a medieval person. We care about what the aristocracy did. What was the average age of marriage for an aristocrat’s daughter?
We are rich enough that a worker can eat a pound of meat every day, we are rich enough that we can follow aristocratic norms of marriage. For the Amish today, who I spent time interacting with personally, the 20 year old girls feel like old maids and are desperate to get married. Old time peasants had to eat too much bread, and had to marry late. I don’t care about their conventions.
@anonymous mouse
Fake and gay.
It is common, here in the Deep South, for the descendants of the Cavaliers to recall that grandma was married in her teens.
Teenage marriage makes sense. A father keeping 4+ desperate unfucked girls unfucked has the real hard job of herding cats. A husband keeping one well fucked girl from fucking other men is a much easier job. This is a no-brainer obvious.
“Teenage marriage makes sense. A father keeping 4+ desperate unfucked girls unfucked has the real hard job of herding cats. A husband keeping one well fucked girl from fucking other men is a much easier job. This is a no-brainer obvious.”
Yes it makes no sense that the idea that people guarded hordes of daughters who were looking to runoff into their early twenties. Maybe some of the old women would enjoy such a task but it would drive any man mad who seriously tried.
My father for some reason likes the chick flick Pride and Prejudice and the father has a bunch of unmarried daughters in his teens and his position on what they do is basically I’m an old man with a horde of daughters and I don’t have the energy to give a shit what you do.
Pretty sure that West of the Hajnal line, that is exactly what they were doing and it was extremely stressful and oppressive for both fathers and daughters.
Possibly the problem was that men able to look after a wife and horde of babies were thin on the ground, so finding good husbands was difficult and costly, so they kept them in to avoid a horde of bastards, resulting in substantially reduced fertility. And also resulting in the very grave difficulties that you foresee.
I mean maybe if you had one or two living daughters at mosts but I can’t imagine any man doing that with three or more unmarried daughters at a time… I’d off myself I’d rather be a childless incel than fucking play cockblock for years on a horde of insane teenage girls who are going to be constantly in an incredibly bitchy mood if they are confined for the purposes so they can’t get laid. That sounds like more hellish than modern clownworld by far… I’d never know a moments peace.
I would be the Pride and Prejudice dad going y’all do whatever the fuck you want I don’t give a shit anymore I want to go read or something not watch you.
Bitch wife and semi responsible older daughter: But one of them’s basically a total whore by nature if you don’t do guard duty she;’ll get knocked up and disgrace the family…
Me: Don’t care anymore.
But much better they get married at 14 and maybe 16 for later marriages.
Age of first period was later back then and if you read old books there was a concern of women giving birth too young for health reasons. This was a concern as recent as the early 20th century/late 19th. Great care was given to make sure a woman’s body was developed enough to handle the brunt of labor and child bearing.
A 14 year old girl might be significantly more likely to die in childbirth (which was a real concern at the time as many many many women died in childbirth or shortly thereafter)but a 16 year old girl is not. And a girl married at 16 probably won’t give birth to near 17, so no real reason to ever delay marriage age beyond 16.
The late age of menarche in Victorian times is probably a result of terrible industrial age diet and todays low age of menarche is a reversion to aristocratic norms of good diet.
I have extensive documentation on the age my female ancestors from Eastern and Southern England and Western Germany got married since ~1400. Most of my English female ancestors got married at around 17, while most of my German female ancestors married at around 19. The youngest bride was 13 years of age, the oldest 31. There are few widows in my family line; only two women married after 30 before 1960.
My female ancestors in the United States were still getting married at 17 until ~1920, just as they were getting married at 17 back in Europe 400 years earlier.
@The Cominator
I stand corrected that “mutual agreement” did not outlast Napoleon’s reign.
However, the fact remains France after 1815 now had divorce as a matter of course with a variety of “causes”. Although this was obviously better than the current Quaker marriage laws in the West, was a long way from Catholic or Anglican (same thing right?).
As our host has pointed out many times even divorce provisions that appear to favour the man in reality give the woman a lever to make his life hell until he agrees to bring about a divorce under those provisions. Only when she perceives divorce to be impossible will she commit to him no matter what.
Divorce after Napoleon’s defeat was only Catholic divorce ie annulment theoretically there was no “divorce”, no idea whether annulments were easy to get or hard. I suspect the Catholic Church being the way it is (ie almost purely a money making organization at the lower levels and almost purely a political organization at the top) took bribes to grant annulments but men were in a better position to give bribes so women getting annulments against the wishes of their husband were probably rare.
Even under Napoleon’s “mutual consent” divorce not only required the husband and wife to mutually consent their living parents had to all consent as well.
@jim
Men who are more wealthier and able to do so were older generally speaking.
I’m going to suggest here, that perhaps young people did not become sexually mature so early back then.
The food they ate was different, the climate was different, perhaps even, their genetics were slightly different.
No, I think it is more likely to do with technology and family standards of wealth creation.
Marriage in Europe at the time was basically a transfer of the female to the males family, therefore, your daughters labour was lost to you upon transfer.
Additionally, do not forget that the steam train made the world significantly bigger. This opened up the pool of potential husbands much larger. See how women delay marriage even longer since the internet? The world gets bigger.
You end up with an incentive to keep your daughter a little longer for their labour in the home, and to hope she will meet a man from an even better family than your own local area.
The loss of a daughters labor is a good reason why in Ancient Israel the Husband paid the “Bride Price” to his wife’s Father’s House.
The Bride price is also a good demonstration like a deposit on a house of his provisioning capabilities.
An anthropologist studying the question of dowry vs. bride-price found that labor-intensive societies had bride-prices while capital-intensive societies had dowries. Of course feminist societies have neither because they don’t really have marriage.
Present technology is ultra-capital-intensive and likely to become even more so, so when marriage is restored, providing capital to your sons and cash dowries for your daughters will be of the utmost importance.
@Mayflower Sperg
I disagree. In that such would make baby daughters liabilities. And they are more apt to be murdered. Especially if they come from poorer families.
I would rather incentivize keeping them as a result of only the Bride Price existing.
I know that Christianity helps to greatly reduce that phenomenon. But not everyone is saved even in a Highly Christian society.
There needs to be alternatives.
You don’t have to pay a dowry if you don’t want to; dick is cheap. But dowries enable you to attract better sons-in-law that your daughters could snag on their own. It’s no more a waste of money than building an inheritance for your sons; it’s an investment in your grandchildren.
No one will buy your daughters in a feminist society because they won’t stay bought, and no one will buy your daughters in a capital-intensive patriarchal society because there nubile teen virgins greatly outnumber eligible bachelors (i.e. not broke-ass losers).
I would suggest that dowries exist in societies where women do not provide significant valuable labour to the household.
You pay a bride price when women are a benefit to the household
You get a dowry when she’s a great big fat cost to you and your family
Either way you still have to listen to her yap
Home schooling is effective plus teaching girls things such as, before you do something imagine what your future husband will think of you. Then the young girl must believe that a future husband is on his way. That she will be married and her future husband will sit in judgement of who she is and what she brings.
[*insanity deleted because tedious to rebut*]
Get a load of the gender-neutral language. He’s in the kitchen whipping up a fresh batch of blue pills.
The spiritual meaning of Adam and Eve, if we put aside Jim’s supplementary interpretation, is that Eve, under the influence of demons literal or metaphorical, gave Adam a nuclear shit test and Adam failed it spectacularly. He put his woman ahead of his God.
If you think that “controlling the passions” has anything to do with either the Fall or the WQ then you don’t understand either one.
I agree Adam was a simp at the fall. Controlling the passions has everything to do with the WQ because those men that don’t are afraid they will lose the woman’s approval and his access to her. Men aren’t willing to undergo hardship for what is right.
“Hardship” meaning incel.
Creating a family is what is right. Men must do what it takes, and if they do what it takes with right objectives it is right to do what it takes. All is fair in love and war. It is not Gnon’s plan that Christians should roll over that evil may triumph.
I agree men must start families and have the right to defend their marriage rights given by God even if the state and bad clerics are attacking it. But don’t fornicate, that is not the way.
Sure thing, send a virgin bride my way. I am a young man of good standing and resources.
It’s insulting enough to have to dig through the garbage because my male line decided what they did, don’t pretend that there’s other options. If you are not pretending, have the respect to be absolutely explicit on the path to follow. Advice on how to achieve success in our fallen world, detailed advice, is given and followed here regularly. I see none of that from you, just declarations of holiness.
Fornication is violating the property rights of fathers. Adultery is violating the property rights of husbands.
Old Testament requires marrying a virgin if you pop her (regardless of whether she consented, and regardless of what she thinks of the matter) and forbids sleeping with a wife or betrothed
Today, men have no property rights. If you do not bang a woman pretty soon after meeting her, she is not going to stick around. If you don’t have massive pre-selection, she is not going to stick around. Marriage and family is a major part of our telos, Women call the tune, and men must dance.
In the present social order, what old testament people called fornication is damned near impossible. A seventeenth century or early eighteenth century Englishman would have said of modern women, “All whores”.
If Christian men follow your sex neutral interpretation of Christian rules, Christian men are not going to reproduce. Hence the dire shortage of grand children, the ever more elderly congregation, and the rarity of baptisms.
Your rules do not result in chastity, for the very few fertile age Christian women in the congregation are all chastely waiting for their next booty call from Jeremy Meeks.
Men at trad Catholic parishes are reproducing fine. Newcomers from the gay mainstream church are always shocked at how many children are running around everywhere. There are many young married couples and others getting ready to marry that are following the traditional prescription of waiting for marriage.
I agree when you say the wife is the property of the husband. However your account of fornication is patently false. If it was true the trad Cath parishes should also have no kids.
>I’m right because my church is totally based and trad and everything’s great. No i won’t show it to you.
This is like the 20th time I’ve seen this exact LARP
@Jamesthe1st
Why should a woman be a property of her man?
Well, answering this multiple choice Redpill on Women Question correctly will answer why. Please type out the whole answer.
Complete the following sentence:
Women misbehave because –
[A] Capitalism makes them misbehave, by economically incentivizing reckless high time-reference behavior over long-term planning. The capitalist class benefits from one night stands and sterility, as it benefits from third world immigration of spendthrift cheap labor to replace frugal Whites. If it weren’t for capitali$m, women would totally be completely sinless angels.
[B] The (((jews))) make these totally innocent angels misbehave, since the jews own the media and the entire entertainment industry from Hollywood down to the tiniest pornography studio, and use them to direct propaganda at women, telling them to fuck Blacks and lowlifes. There’s no way that pure White women desire to be on OnlyFans to whore for money. The jews forced these angels on that website.
[C] Sorry, but this is a misleading question. Women don’t misbehave at all. All misbehavior is done by men, who are vile pigs.
[D] Lecherous men make them misbehave, since men are ultimately responsible for all female behavior (including misbehavior), and unlike women, men have self-control and moral agency. Thus it logically follows that any female misbehavior would merely reflect bad decisions taken by irresponsible and lustful men. It is men’s fault entirely, so men must be forced to pay for every bad decision done by any random women.
[E] They are feral, blindly following ancient instincts from prehistoric times, which instincts tell them to cruise for rape by alpha male Chads, and to resist kicking-and-screaming all attempts to restrain them from pursuing alpha male Chads. Stable monogamy has always been a way to allow each man to own a woman so each man can start a family and raise a future generation for civilization’s survival.
He is been telling us his Church is working fine, but uses sex neutral language. Which certainly hints that his church is not working fine.
Men want to own women, and women want to be owned by a strong man, and no one is getting what they want.
The traditional proscription is a man waiting until he can support a wife and/or build a house. There it’s no traditional prescription of waiting to marry girls off beyond a lack of subtle male suitor. You’re preaching that men and women are the same when they’re clearly not.
Men can wait while they work hard towards being making enough income because they know they’ll be rewarded with a virgin wife and family. In fact most men would prefer this if it was still true since working hard and learning a living is a lot easier than getting a wife though dating and fucking sluts. Women are on the other hand can’t wait without inducing insanity and taking off with the first bad boy that crosses their path. Girls should be married off as soon as they start taking an interest in order sex to preserve their chastity.
You are repeating 1980s McChristain crap. You are no traditionalist.
I am not saying men and women are the same, they are clearly different. I am disagreeing that a man has to have sex with a woman before getting married or she won’t go for him. I already said elsewhere that I agree with women being married off early.
As for the Church, go to any Catholic parish that does the Latin mass, you see plenty of big families and new marriages happening.
For the shill test the answer is E.
My wife watches a lot of home schooling channels but the effective kind not the I’m larping with my tits out kind and there are a lot of families out there with like ten kids home schooling. They are living rural, like rural Wisconsin or the Midwest, and going to trad churches. The daughters get married at eighteen and it appears to be a virgin marriage.
As far as what would happen should one of us sinners show up to that church, honestly repentant, and get baptized? I don’t know but we’re I to try I would still suggest bring your own wife with you.
Try to date and court a woman without fucking her 1st, even if she agrees to meet you out at places you’re going to be canceled and often ghosted on date night more than 50% of the time.
I suppose you could go out to expensive concerts and the like a lot and she won’t flake even if you don’t fuck her but… why?
>I am disagreeing that a man has to have sex with a woman before getting married
The sex literally *is* the marriage. That’s what marriage means, becoming one flesh. You-break-it-you-bought-it.
If the high school quarterback pops the cherry of the star cheerleader behind the bleachers, they are now married.
The more cult-like the church or group, the better its odds of reproductive success in the current climate. Think something like Orthodox Jews or Amish. They have to be completely isolated from the mainstream culture which is essentially the definition of a cult. Latin Mass Catholics are sort of a cult so they are doing ok, which is probably why the FBI is getting interested in them.
If your church or religious group is not viewed as a cult by outsiders, it’s probably NGTMI.
Indeed. That’s why, in most places, a marriage isn’t considered valid until it has been consummated.
Recently, I went to a Catholic parish.
During TLM hours, there were plenty of large families with women who wore veils. The priest gave a sermon about how the world can be nuked at any moment for its sins so you better go to the confession booth right away.
During Novus Ordo hours, the seats were relatively vacant, and the congregation was old. A laywoman did a bible reading. The priest gave a sermon about Jesus curing the blind man.
TradCats exist and do have large families. How they acquired those large families is unknown, but I suspect there are some highly illegal arranged marriages going on.
Nuts.
Been in the trenches. You don’t know what you are talking about. You don’t know how things work. It is not like that.
@jim
The Church Fathers didn’t have healthy views on this. Given that for a few of them. Adam and Eve had no Libido at all and sexual intercourse was only necessary after the Fall for the sake of reproduction and because of the introduction of death/corruption.
Otherwise they would be asexual virgins and would probably reproduce asexually without the fall:
https://archive.org/details/GenesisCreationAndEarlyManTheOrthodoxChristianVision
I think they are missing out on the communion of male and female inherent in the act and why it is Good in the First place even before the Fall.
Everything you say is so vague and generic that it’s meaningless. This is how you get a leadership that lectures the good beta guys in church to control their passions because every girl has lined up for her turn laying naked underneath Jeremy Meeks, who isn’t in church.
I don’t see why we need science to explain anything. Just say, “God says we must do X, Y, and Z”, and if people believe it, you’re good to go. I prefer scientific explanations for things, but that’s just me.
Trouble is we have a whole lot blue pilled Christians to whom what was commanded in the Old Testaments and long standing Christian tradition makes no sense, so they feel authorized to toss Chesterton’s fence overboard.
“God says we must” is inadequate, because we can reasonably ask “what the hell does what he says mean?”
Men uphold civilization to satisfy their sexual instinct. The deal being they will cooperate with other men so long as the women are distributed to some degree that the men can agree upon. Unattached young men historically rebelled or died from despair. Despair looks like no hope of having a woman, no hope of children, no hope for legacy. Their line ends. Nihilism takes over and invites all sorts of demons. Suicidal sterility ensues. In some cases this becomes terminal for the civilization. See Babylon and Carthage. In other cases this is recoverable. See Late Medieval Europe and Australia.
Consider the hypothetical of women having the same sexual instincts as men. Men would still be the only ones capable of upholding civilization because only men are capable of force (under normal circumstances). This also means only men can choose to stop upholding civilization as well. The difference would be that the women would also start thinking in masculine terms. i.e. With no hope of having a man, no hope of children, no hope for legacy. Their line ends. Nihilism takes over and invites all sorts of demons. We saw that happen with the transgender (female to male) that shot up the Nashville school. A woman, pumped full of testosterone and other drugs, who fell to nihilism and masculine demons.
Female sexual instinct prevents them from falling to nihilism and suicidal sterility during periods of civilizational collapses by causing them to fuck around and bear bastards with their demon lovers. We men look at this in horror thinking this is purely dysgenic. It is dysgenic relative to what civilization requires and thus to what men require, but it is relatively eugenic for the woman compared to simply dying off from nihilism like men often do. In this regard, whoring is more eugenic (for women) than miss PhD-only-has-cats-dies-alone. Miss PhD has similar sterility as the masculine failure mode of men. Female PhDs are women society convinces to inorganically behave like men, and thus die like failed men.
When civilizations fail so hard they are conquered by outside tribes, the men often get put to the sword. The women made slaves and sometimes wives. (This is not genocide as progressives defines for us which often fantasies about putting both men and women in camps.) Female sexual instincts often fantasies about rape and slavery. Female lines are not extinguished and in fact potentially improved by reproducing with a superior tribe. For women this is eugenic. For the men being put to the sword, clearly a dead end. History records many civilizations that fall to nihilism. Female sexual instincts, which provide escape from nihilism and conquest by defection, is clearly beneficial to them strictly under circumstances where the men have checked out; therefore, their instincts are not out of date but tuned for survival when their tribe’s men exit.
If failed civilization don’t get conquered by outside tribes, the fact that women are bearing bastards means there’s population to work with to potentially rebuild civilization. That is what happened in Late Medieval Europe and 1930s America. In Ancient China they were often conquered by internal tribes of bastards who turned to banditry. Men of low birth, under sufficient pressures and weak governments that can’t prevent their cooperation will form roving bands of banditry. We do not have that in America, yet. But should we avoid external conquest (likely) and avoid a progressive genocide (worryingly not unlikely) and the government degenerate to the point it can’t prevent bastards from cooperating (potentially on track) America is prone to internal conquest by groups like the Proud Boys are of suspiciously low birth… or maybe the cartels.
In no way is this a moral defense of female sexual instincts, but it is pointing out its part in a civilizational cycle similar to how death is part of the life cycle. Just as death simply a force of nature, one that we can’t simply proclaim is “out of date,” female sexual instinct is a facet of the life cycle of civilizations.
I see two flaws.
First, civilizational decline has only been a selective pressure for about 10,000 years and not equally.
Second, traits that are not under selective pressure accumulate mutations; in so far as women are denied sexual choice, their decision making should have a spread.
You’re theory is failing right in front of your eyes. Women have stopped having kids even with their demon lovers. They murder their children, or take birth control so they can continue fucking around. This same pattern of population collapse has happen in every failing civilization going as far back Egypt right before the bronze age collapse. See conditions in Egypt right before the exodus.
The fuck around and making bastards stops soon after women gain full emancipation, after which they stop making babies or they kill the babies they make with the weak men who run their civilization. They pine for ISIS to come along and make them sex slaves so they can have lots of strong children who grow up in a strong tribe.
A while back there was an incel who shotgunned the mother and father of a 14 year girl and took her as his sex slave. He barley tried to keep her captive yet she stuck around. Well she stuck around until it became clear he was hiding her from any friends or family members who stopped by. After which she easily escaped him. She had nothing bad to say about the rapes, but she was very derisive of the man who took her as he’d turned out be weak and without the backing of his tribe.
Women do more than select demon lovers, they select lovers from strong tribes and when tribes are so weak to give them emancipation they soon stop keeping children around at all with the weak tribe they’re stuck in even with those demon lovers.
Women sexual natural selection continued to be dysgenic to her group which is why women have to be strongly subjugated by their tribe.
>Women do more than select demon lovers, they select lovers from strong tribes and when tribes are so weak to give them emancipation they soon stop keeping children around at all with the weak tribe they’re stuck in even with those demon lovers.
>They pine for ISIS to come along and make them sex slaves so they can have lots of strong children who grow up in a strong tribe.
this is not at all incompatible with pax’s point. women desire ownership, but they always go about it in a roundabout manner. in the absence of onwership-capable men within the tribe, women seek to create the conditions for such men to come around: fraternizing with the outgroup serves to make both tribes clash and slaughter each other, which toughens the surviving men.
the problem with female sexual instinct is that it’s completely indifferent as to the identity of their conqueror – women don’t mind it being their own men, but if not them, someone better will surely come along
“the dysgenic to their group” is really dysgenic to the male line: escalating degeneracy weakens the tribe and makes it more easily conquerable, allowing for the women to reappropriated by an invader, which improves the long-term prospects of these women. this means that female dysgenic behavior is actually eugenic for the female line in the long run
Not clear at all that female behavior is eugenic, even for themselves. Females of most humanoid species have not been making mate choices for millions of years, which substantially removes most selective pressure on the female line. Consequently, ascribing useful strategic vision to female behavior, even unconsciously, seems to invoke much overwrought epicycling to fit a pattern to the data.
To speak of eugenics is to speak of certain teleologies and the desirability of those teleologies. What is that state of affairs, and why is it desirable?
Dese hoes aint gotting no loyalty is adaptive in a similar sense to how NPChood is adaptive. The broad mass of humanity in most times and places have survived the motions of history through normieism because it is low investment – accessible to many different forms – and high reliability – adaptive in many different situations. Subjects that lack principled consciousness of more transcendent teleological thinking and simply realign themselves whichever way the winds of power blow tend to survive the clash of fates – but we would hesitate to describe the sterile wasteland of hylics left behind as a result, as eugenic.
I drop this link to monitor Overton window on cannibalism.
https://archive.is/lqfTC
“And she is far from alone..”(quote)
Anthony “I mention poopdick at every opportunity” Blinken is baffled at how Iran and Saudi Arabia have formed an undertsanding with each other – the one thing that the old Wilsonian order instigated so much chaos over so many years to make *not* happen.
https://prolikewoah.com/.media/ce51a2798503dc943d9baec7422ee1b5e305fb05defc92729eea95452736fcdc.webm
Uh Elon is installing a woman CEO for twitter… why… she is going to yield to the poz unless he lives with her and fucks her regularly.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1656748197308674048
Maybe normalcy bias. Musk thinks he can get FedGov off his back. Buy twitter, have it be a threat and then give it up in exchange for some favor or another.
Maybe he thinks things will stay above water long enough to get AGI?
Yes, Musk thinks there is a high likelihood of business as (almost) normal continuing. Also thinks there is a significant likelihood of civilization falling. Normalcy bias, but not blindingly so. Blindness is normal and common, but he is smart guy. If I was in his shoes I would not have bought twitter, and would be making considerably more preparation to move the periphery of empires.
There is a high likelihood that his rockets are going to be strangled in the cradle – look what is happening to his twitter purchase.
Diplomacy is the art of saying nice doggie while looking for a big enough rock. Perhaps Musk’s purchase of Twitter was intended as a dilatory tactic, to improve the statistical distribution of the useful time he has remaining to get to Mars and become unassailable there.
No, the higher likelihood is the aircraft carriers getting sunk.
If the jews try to strangle Elon’s rockets, he can destroy every single US military satellite right now.
Starship (and Long March 9) will put an end to the aircraft carrier.
And Long March 9 is China’s copy of Starship, strangling Elon’s rockets will end the American Empire immediately.
Lets say he gives the order, which is unlikely even in the most dire of circumstances, but say he gives the order: do you really think the people under him would follow it? Do you think he has a laptop with a “take out all opposition infrastructure” program running on it? There is a serious principal-agent problem here.
The GAE doesn’t have control over itself, and is clearly willing to destroy its fighting capacity. Here’s hoping there’s a contingency plan in case they finally decide the african american has reached the end of his usefulness.
@Fidelis
A deadman switch with a handful of loyal techpriests (who are true believers in AdAstra) is good enough.
You brahmins have no idea how lopsided Elon’s power in space really is.
There are now 4,000 Starlinks, outnumbering every single satellite. Starlinks are cheap and mass produced.
The USG’s aerospace bureaus (ex. Boeing and Lockheed) no longer have medium to heavy lift to orbit, because the last ULA expendable rockets have been sold. And the Senate Lunch System launches with old engines used by the old Shuttle program. It takes eight months to procure the materials, and thirteen months to build an SLS core stage.
Contrast that with a new Falcon 9 upper stage being built every 3-4 days, launched on reusable first stages.
Elon Musk controls the entirety of the US’s medium to heavy lift to orbit, and 80% of the entire worlds annual orbital upmass.
But even if Elon decides one day that jewish nigger-tranny worship trumps Holy Devotion to Ad Astra, the Chinese government is already copying Starship. Because China is chomping at the bit, to have the ability to kill all US aircraft carrier battle groups, and have SDI that can intercept US ICBMs.
The immediate end and total end to USG authority everywhere.
It’s become fashionable to criticize Dubai in the media. Also calling it a parody of the west which is actually somewhat fair.
What are your thoughts on its future?
On the one hand, it doesn’t feel like a solid bet long term. A whole lot of wild speculation on real estate has happened there, and not a lot of substance around it. Building very expensive things for the sake of attracting attention and inducing some artificial demand.
It does feel like the celebrity who is famous but has no clear discernible talent or concrete reason to be popular.
On the other hand, there is some substance to Dubai in that it’s a very orderly place to live, with basically no taxes and a number of luxurious amenities. Though none of the legacy and history of, say, a European country, making it feel artificial, like a sort of theme park.
It’s a Muslim country, so not really a place where you could take roots and have a family as a Christian, but it seems appealing as a place to work if you’re a western remote worker.
Is the real estate market there really inflated?
Good essay on the UAE by Michael Anton. https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/the-road-to-dubai/
Re: religion, from the essay:
Kinda feels not too different from being a Christian in the GAE.
Price of houses in the suburbs of Dubai seem pretty reasonable to me. Way cheaper than Singapore, comparable with typical suburban house in the suburbs of a western megalopolis.
If you are expat trying to build a life and a business on the periphery of the Global American Empire, Dubai looks like a decent choice.
I have a friend who has worked there for 5-10 years. Seems like a good place to make your nut, but at some point it will be time to move on.
In the crash of 2008, I think, it turned out that property loans were enforced a bit more vigorously than in the west, so defaulting westerners ran for the airport. (But why not rent instead?) I seem to recall that Dubai itself at the time needed a bailout from a brother country.
> But why not rent instead?
Because buying real estate above a certain value is how you get permanent residency.
There are other means that require less capital but involve more spending rather than investing.
A well-known strategy for many countries but can you get permanent residency in Dubai/UAE at all? Even their “Golden Visa” is limited to ten years. The others seem to be usually five, sometimes two years.
I lived in Dubai.
It’s nice and all.
But as a nominal Christian, the Islam was just too subliminally creepy and oppressive for me. Maybe hardcore Christians can hack it, but I don’t know, nor why would they.
So I left for South America.
Russia, the abandoned states of southeast Europe, the Northern lands (except Canada), and the select places in east asia… Nam, Laos, Cam… are further options.
I hear you can live quietly in the hills of China if a peasant wife takes you in, but I’ve not confirmed that.
Some interesting Havel’s Greengrocer observations with Budlight. Budlight sales have catered 20-30% and the boycott is still going strong. The retailers I talk too show a funny cognitive dissonance between making the tranie priests happy while their custormers don’t want it. So they are blaming their customers for being stupid right now. Meanwhile they are getting nervous because it is obviously pileing up and wasting space in their stores.
Not like that in Florida the bars just stopped ordering it in response to nonexistent demand.
One problem with “get woke, go broke” is there are often high-money interests promoting the wokeness regardless of profit–i.e. twitter operated at huge losses because the gov’t paid for it (now Morgan Stanley is paying for it, but never mind). Ultimately the costs of wokeness are transferred to taxpayers via inflation or to the stock market. The idea seems to be profits and losses don’t matter because you can absorb infinite money via financialization. This is then sold to the public as “wokeness is popular.” e.g. Disney keeps putting out trash because they make it back by putting their IPs into investment bonds, and who doesn’t buy DisneyCorp?
So with Bud Light here is a company that believed the kool-aid (more profit in attacking your existing customers) but didn’t have a financialization plan to actually cover it, and found out fast how quickly wokeness truly loses in the market. It kind of reveals the scam, if you’re not part of the special club then going woke is disastrous. But if you are then your company can seemingly operate at a loss forever.
As Jim says this is because the Havard ceo class are not businessmen, but priests of the fag and tranie religion. So they aren’t there to turn a profit but rather to enforce the state religion onto the enterprise.
If certain parties were smart, they’d be planning the next campaign so they could maintain and build momentum.
Budlight’s really not being boycotted. Budlight taste like shit, like the rest of the estrogen filled light beers and men bought it purely on the back of the association that advertising generated about the beer. They wanted to be associated with sports starts and hot women. When Budlight became mostly associated with being a tranny, they stopped buying it because the associated became gross.
Men naturally recoil form ugliness and evil. With faggots they waged a 40 years long campaign to normalize it and hide the very disgusting behaviors that all faggots engage in. With trannyism they just forced it down everyone’s throat without a good PR campaign. This is creating a problems for them, but they enjoying forcing others to suck that trannycock instead of just fooling people into believing lies.
Profit opportunity from Wokeness.
An expedient way to lose money for the amateur.
I think this is a naive strategy. ESG funds were created for this purpose; not only do they more or less force companies to comply with their moral demands, but more importantly, if a company is losing value due to being woke, ESG investors will simply double down on its stock.
This is a perfect example of the kind of cooperation that priests have which merchants lack, and why good management will lose to evil management that follows the party line.
Beer is a product that’s particularly susceptible to a boycott. Beer drinkers tend to have a short list of beers that they prefer, and Bud Light is nothing special. Once they make the switch and cross Bud Light off their list, it’s likely to stay off by default, just a matter of habit. Unfortunately the same conglomerate owns like 60% of the US drink market.
Game: https://twitter.com/autixcx/status/1656429603185913857
All Romeo’s friends shouting their support sways the girl’s response, right? Not a small effect either.
Not sure whether to see it that way, or to see it as like when the disabled kid gets cheered on in pity by the school.
he doesn’t look like the typical disabled kid or any low status equivalent. on first watch it seemed to me like the cheering was clearly meant to be endorsement, although I can’t rule the other interpretation out.
but from the perspective of him presenting her with this poster with his “crew” cheering him on, this is very clear top-dog behavior, since breaking convention in a public space implies first laying a claim of ownership over it
this is the perfect example of wingman/ crew effect. Being boisterous in a collective fashion in support of a man taking possession of a woman’s attention. women are attention machines, either taking it in or putting it out. this is not at all a case of the town retard getting sympathy applause. You see everyone else get dragged into the enthusiasm of the moment as the female responds favorably to the male. You see the other females get jealous that one of the hens in their flock is getting attention from every guy focused through the lens of one guy. flying Solo is doable, I’ve done it many times, but it is magnitudes harder than getting set up by a team or your crew to get what you want. notice her hand on his shoulder, this is not an opening move by him, this is him stepping up to a shit test, probably after whiffing a time or two. He has passed her test, and now she is at a disadvantage to his charms, which is exactly where she wants to be, whether she realizes it or not.
The GAE mockingbird class has been temporizing some “will somebody not rid me of this troublesome priest” vis-a-vis Justice Thomas lately. Character assassinations and ‘exposes’ via long-form docudramas. None of them are outright saying ‘we need to Democratically Fortify Clarence Thomas’ yet, but parties are seeding the ground, floating the balloons, and manufacturing the consensus, and one day they may wake up, side-eye each other, and see that Everyone Agrees that Something Must Be Done about whatever it is they may or may not have shaken out of the tree.
Because once Thomas dies they can go full Brazilian Supreme Court…
Thomas cannot keep them from going full Brazilian Supreme Courts. My guess is that at present it is only habit and normality bias that slows them down.
The cuckservatives have a majority with Thomas, cuckservatives won’t do anything too radical about the left but they won’t go full Brazilian SC with a cuckservative majority.
And yes I know Thomas is not a cuckservative but they have a majority with him.
They’re more likely to kill him like probably did with Antonin Scalia.
Congenital solipsists are ambiguously unintentional with regards to their intentions, even to themselves.
They want something bad to happen to him, and so they manifest negative energy around him, so that ‘someone’ does ‘something’, so that they have ‘license’ to do something, so that they are not ‘responsible’ for doing some thing over any thing else, but that they have ‘no other choice’ but to do it, and so Thomas may find any number of things happening to him.
I noticed that. Saw an hour-long documentary on PBS Frontline about him a couple days ago. As you said, nothing in the film was a lie per se, but they were laying the insinuation very thick.
I was out for lunch in the nearby town for once, at a place near the university. While eating, I observed no less than six enormous woman-pigs lumbering around on their hind legs.
The moment of horror arrived when the one at the next table, garbed in University Unattractive, began speaking to its friend in a nearly human voice. My mind reeled. It was as if I had turned up in a Hodgson or Lovecraft story with some Mi-Go or degenerate swine-people. Beyond time to settle my bill.
They’re like the sewer-mutants in Futurama, hideous freaks who have to stay underground, on rare occasions receiving a pass to visit the surface for one day. In one episode, the mutants revolt and win the right to go where they please, but in all subsequent episodes, the mutants are back underground for reasons that are not explained.
Without gene-editing, our mutational load will grow ever worse until child mortality returns to Medieval levels. Amish and Old Believers are beautiful because they don’t vaccinate their children, so those of weak constitution go to heaven early.
I don’t find the Amish outstandingly attractive, though I agree it would make sense if they were, and I wish them well.
Also granted I am used to makeup and worldly fashion, but even the men strike me as quite plain on the whole, and often overweight or with beer bellies.
In my experience mormons are notably more attractive than average but i would hesitate to call them beautiful in general. Old believers no idea but you can find beautiful slavs in the chernobyl exclusion zone probably
Does anyone have a condensed history of how Spain managed to fall into our modern afflictions?
I have a vague picture of how it happened for Anglos and Franks. España was quite the empire at her peak, and I really have no idea the timeline on which she fell. Some cloudy recollections of gold inflation given as a cause of hegemon transfer to the Northwestern states, was this real or agitprop for the fiat system?, a bit of an idea of the civil war in the 30s, but that is about it.
In the 1600s they overextended themselves by getting bogged down in the 80 years Netherlands war.
Franco did a pretty good job but his main problem was a bad successor. Unfortunately he picked a liberal.
A failed war doesn’t speak to demographic and spiritual decline, indeed the war may have failed as a result of this decline. The Reconquista speaks to the prowess the upper caste Spaniards once possessed, and the conquest of the New World is mythical in its telling. It would be nice to know how they fell from grace.
>picked a liberal
I doubt he had much of a choice in the matter, considering the GAE was at something of a peak in geopolitical influence at the time.
St. John says:
“The sex literally *is* the marriage. That’s what marriage means, becoming one flesh. You-break-it-you-bought-it.”
This is a critical truth that has been forgotten by modern Christianity. It was an obvious assumption in the era before massed media mind control. Forces of Entropy stole a march on Forces of Tradition and have so insinuated the “dating” memeplex that it’s almost impossible for moderns to understand any multifaceted thing. Herein lies the true evil of Deconstruction by Design: you cannot envision a complex system as a single whole. So marriage is one thing, sex is one thing, love is one thing, relationship is one thing, and so on. Stepping back from a charged issue, it’s easy to do this. What is a car? Is it the engine? The wheels? The battery? All of these are distinct things, but the car is also a distinct thing, comprised of other formerly distinct things. “Can’t have a car without wheels.” “The engine is the most important element.” This is what these discussions sound like, when we talk about marriage.
Just as it isn’t a true marriage without consummation, so too is it a marriage when the act of consummation occurs. Thus, a woman becomes “married” when she has sex, and sluts are women married to a score of men. They can never be happy, not without divine intervention. This is not a blackpill, you can do it wrong and still find your way back to wholeness in body, mind, and spirit. But every layer of degeneracy, foolishness, and bad habit has to be contended with, and because of the nature of time, this takes a while. This is the “baggage” we all deal with. It’s easy to travel with a single backpack, in fact it makes travelling easier. But keep adding bags and suddenly travel becomes more complex, expensive, and difficult.
A note on the Hajnal Line and Mouse’s position: it’s foolish to compare the European past where communication proceeded at the speed of horseback and current era. “Late” marriage could work back then, but doesn’t work now. A useful frame is treating every non virgin as a divorcé and acting accordingly.
Savage “common law” marriage is not acceptable for Christians. Christians ideally go through matrimony before anything else, a perfect marriage blessed by a priest.
There was a huge amount of passionate theological debate on this issue during the reformation, and your position was not widely accepted.
I would summarize the great majority position of that time as that sex conducted with the intent and capability to stick around permanently makes the marriage. That God joined two people together when they had sex.
They all agreed that some process conducted before man to signify permanent intent was important, but the nature of the divine joining, and role of the priest got no end of discussion, and people were passionately divided on it.
The views being that the marriage ceremony is not a sacrament, that it is a sacrament, that the sacrament is the ring, that the sacrament is the vows, and the sacrament is the words of the priest.
And that it is a sacrament, and that sacrament is the words of the priest, was a minority position. A very small minority position. Probably a good deal larger today, but the rise of that position has come with priestly endorsement and backing of the violently unpopular and blatantly heretical marriage 2.0 – servant leadership and all that. Looks like priests are joining the priestly sacrament position at approximately the same time as they are burning their pinch of incense to Caesar.
“Perfect marriage”? What a weird thing to say.
As far as future Christian marriage practice goes…
Assuming your daughters have not been banged by Jeremy Meeks, it is not hard to marry them off by 16, and not hard to find young men willing to marry them. It is a win/win for the men and cause for celebration.
We are in a difficult place right now but that is not a reflection of how hard things always are. Yes it always takes some effort to keep your wife and daughters chaste but it is really just another one of a hundred things you normally would do during the course of a day. Wives and daughters normally fear their husband and father, and at worst you may have to use the back of your hand to straighten them out.
Well we can start with our kids and joining a good church. Unfortunately for a lot of modern folks the idea that a husband would share his wife’s peak beauty and virginity is highly offensive. That’s for Jeremy Meeks
Virgin brides can be had still in the US, but they’re only like 5% or so, 10% tops in certain sub-populations. I managed to get one myself, and I know several others at my church that managed the same (curiously, the median number of children in such unions is between 3-4 among people of my generation that married virgin brides). But it’s not a scalable solution because of the numbers.
[…] “The Logos,†Jim’s Blog (May 6, […]
[…] I explain the meaning of “Logos” at length in “The Logos” […]