The priest cannot say “groomer” and the churches are vanishing.

Christianity is an evangelical religion, but it was always transmitted primarily biologically. People went to the church their dad went to, because their dad went to that Church. Christians outbred, rather than converted, the pagans.

And now, that has stopped. Few baptisms, few intact families in the pews. And so the Churches are emptying out, with a diminishing congregation of old people, and very few children. Every year, the church gets a bit emptier. In the mainstream churches, biological replacement is not happening.

The first church to vanish was the congregationalists. When a Church capitulates to modernity, it loses biological transmission of faith and starts to disappear.

The Anglican Church started its disappearing act when it abolished marriage, replacing a mating procedure appropriate for oogamous organisms, with a symmetric procedure, that could only make sense if vertebrates were isogamous.

Anisogamy is fundamental to Christianity. God is the father. He is not the mother. The Church is the bride of Christ, and Christ the bridegroom. The bible does not speak to women. It speaks to men about women.

The core interaction of the Church with the laity is to hatch, match, and dispatch. And when you have a symmetric mating ceremony for an oogamous organism, then you have a lie, point deer make horse, at the core of the interaction between priesthood and laity.

All happy families are alike. They all work the same way. They are all quietly biblical and quietly eighteenth century. Women, children, and dogs need a master, and if they do not have one, get tense and difficult. Masterless dogs and women bark a lot, and the children howl a lot. The home that is not securely ruled by its father is disturbingly full of angry noise.

The stern and severely unequal biblical prescription works, and everything goes smoothly without drama. Anything that deviates from this, you get trouble and drama. There are a thousand ways to do it horribly wrong, and one way to do it right. If a progressive has a happy family, it is because he is quietly making a highly illegal unprincipled exception for his family.

Every happy family is living the truth, the biblical truth, and those who lie necessarily and unavoidably attack those who live the truth.

Thus the Church that has a symmetric mating ceremony, suitable only for isogamous organisms, is going to wind up preaching that the husband and father is Homer Simpson. So it is not necessarily a good idea to take your wife and kids to Church to hear that you are Homer Simpson. And so, the faith fails to propagate biologically.

The earthly function of the priesthood is to construct a consensus on good conduct so that everyone is on the same playing field playing by the same rules, and the earthly function of the Church is to provide a community within which it is easier and safer to attain cooperate/cooperate equilibrium.

For contracts, this works to some extent. If you are looking for building contractors, it safer to find them in the congregation. For marriage and family, this is failing to work. If you looking for a wife or husband, a son in law or a daughter in law, Churches are not a safer place to find them, because the Church has adopted a position fundamentally hostile to happy families and to what used to be called marriage. And so, the faith fails to propagate biologically.

The Churches are emptying.

And the symptom of the emptying is the lack of children and baptisms. You just do not see families in church.

I attempt to control my wife’s social environment so that the women in her environment are good influences – that the social environment is such that a woman may not be permanently on the prowl for an upgrade.

Patriarchs take their families to church for the social environment – for the backing of God and man to maintain good behavior in wife and children, and also to obtain virgin wives for sons, and suitable husbands for daughters.

If the Church is not providing that environment, families stop showing up, and when families stop showing up, the church goes into steady decline and disappears.

398 Responses to “The priest cannot say “groomer” and the churches are vanishing.”

  1. Oog en Hand says:

    jim: “Ancient China had left wing holiness spirals which led to the collapse of their civilization, and long period of terrible poverty, darkness, and technological decline..”

    You have a hard time detecting sarcasm, don’t you?

    • Neofugue says:

      There was no sarcasm in your post, faggot.

      On the other hand, your site contains “censored” pictures of faggots doing faggot stuff:

      Where did you get that image, faggot?

      • Pax Imperialis says:

        I remember that image collage being spammed on 4chan in the early years. I had forgotten it existed and now all the other /b/ & /pol/ shit is flooding back. Thanks Neofugue, I really needed that 🙃

        • Neofugue says:

          I am sorry to disturb you or anyone else, but it was necessary for me to provide evidence for Oog being a disgusting faggot.

          I provided the archive link to his site, not the article in question, so that the image would only appear as a thumbnail.

          It is regrettable that certain commenters have blogs which contain graphic images of sodomy, but I do not think there could have been a better way of communicating what needed to be communicated. It was not me that posted that image, it was Oog, and it is clear that he, a disgusting faggot, needs bullyciding.

          • jim says:

            Amazing how faggots and demon worshipers are always telling us that the New Testament supports faggotry and adultery, and if you object to it, you are being unchristian.

            • Oog en Hand says:

              Amazing how christians and muslims are always telling us that the Evolution Theory supports racism and genocide, and if you object to it, you are being illogical.

              • Kunning Drueger says:

                Give it a rest dude. You aren’t funny or entertaining.

              • jim says:

                We here are in favor of racism and genocide, and any Christian using prog arguments in support of “Christianity” is no Christian but an enemy entryist. The young earthers on gab are not only strangely unable to pass the WQ, they are generally unable to give the affirmation.

                From what I see on gab, I do not think actual Christians use that argument. Hostile enemy entryists against Christianity use that argument.

    • jim says:

      Sarcasm does not work over the internet, because so much genuine madness and evil.

      Use the sarcasm marker: 🙃

  2. Kunning Drueger says:

    There are many important questions, but the most important question is the Woman Question. The WQ, better and more certainly than any other memeplex, will explain what your enemy actually is, and which of your friends will stab you in the back.

    There’s a leadership crisis in the Christian community, and the WQ is the solution to that crisis. Judicious application of the WQ to all pastors and priests will quickly demarcate who is anointed by God, and who is not.

    An important note: failing the WQ is not permanent. How a man fails, why he fails, and how he confronts his failure, these will tell you all you need to know. A man can completely fail the WQ and still be a good man, a strong leader, a shepherd to his flock, a father to his children. He must only accept that he failed it, then seek to understand how and why he failed.

    A man that fails, then denies failing, fabricates all manner of excuses for failing, declares that he has in fact overcome evil and it is you that has failed, that’s the man in thrall to the Adversary. That’s the man who will turn you in for crimes against the (anti)Faith. That’s the man who will raise whores and declare them princesses. That’s the man that will help evil prosper and see a saint in the mirror.

    There are many important questions, but the most important question is the Woman Question.

    • jim says:

      > There are many important questions, but the most important question is the Woman Question.

      Absolutely true – but I see a strange and interesting correlation between bad faith evasion of the women question, scriptural condemnation of gay, and scriptural condemnation of the Jews and Judaism and the bad faith evasion of purely other worldly theological issues – the issues addressed in the Nicene creed. If they cannot address the Christian issues of this world, they are also uncomfortable dealing with the Christian issues of the next.

      The woman question is the key but the whole bundle goes together.

      • Oog en Hand says:

        “scriptural condemnation of the Jews and Judaism”

        Do you consider Adolf Hitler to be a Christian or a Post-Christian? Would he fail the demon worshipper test?

        • jim says:

          Post Christian. He told us so himself.

          The Christian position is that those Jewish by descent are under a hereditary curse for deicide, which can be removed only by accepting Christ, and those Jewish by religion subscribe to an evil religion, which results in all the Jewish misconduct that people on Gab complain about.

          • Oog en Hand says:

            What about the position that those Jewish by descent are under a hereditary curse for spreading Christianity, which can be removed only by accepting Oðinn?

            • A2 says:

              Such a position lacks relevance.

            • jim says:

              Neopaganism is fake and gay, and neopagans are generally Jewish faggots.

              Aryans were ancestor worshippers. Paganism ceased to work when they lost track of their descent from the gods.

    • Dharmicreality says:

      The WQ needs to be repurposed into the broader PQ, the Patriarchy Question.

      Lots of men don’t have trouble seeing female misbehavior. Few venture into the reasons why women misbehave and fewer are willing to accept that patriarchy is the ultimate solution.

      Even such a man apparently believing in Biblical marriage and disciplining the wife as Aron has trouble acknowledging why women misbehave and what is the ultimate social solution for it. He sees patriarchy as oppressive and backward, so redefines Christian patriarchy to allow for female choice and consent.

      • Kunning Drueger says:

        I’m not attacking you, but you’re fucking wrong, fight me, pagan.

        Completely kidding. I see it like this: there’s the Woman Question and the Patriarchy Answer. There are other Answers out there, and they can work, for some definition of “work”, but not as well or for as long.

        I have spent many years trying to soften, water down, reword, rejigger, complexify, you name it the WQ. Sparing you my life story, I had to crawl back terribly far from deep Progressivism to get even close to a state of honesty, clarity, and grace. I have internally railed against the WQ, and I have, over the years, made many arguments like “but what about…” or “surely you don’t mean…” or “the bigger issue is…” What it came down to is that I was a NAWALT. I was presented with the truth, it made perfect sense, but it caught out a perception I had internalized. Only when I stopped fighting it, stopped pretending there were exceptions, was I truly given the opportunity to start building an internally coherent rhetorical framework that was a net benefit. My marriage suffered, my family was at risk, and I vacillated dangerously emotionally because I knew the truth but believed a half-truth. Things aren’t perfect, but they are demonstrably better.

        We don’t need to know the truth and apply it perfectly all the time, that’s not possible. But if we know the truth and pretend things are otherwise, if we fail to apply the precepts and principles ordained by God, our ancestors, and the memory of our cultures before they were captured/colonized/converged, all of our efforts are as nothing at all. To raise children, manage families, run companies, control institutions, we must be tireless in our pursuit and execution of the WQ;PA framework.

        Women are the Question; Patriarchy is the Answer.

        • Mayflower Sperg says:

          Matriarchy causes sterility and patriarchy causes hyperfertility, so it would be nice to find a middle ground where women have just enough rights that they average two or three children apiece. Alas, women will leverage whatever rights they are given to obtain more rights, so absolute patriarchy, with frequent wars to kill off the surplus population, is the only way.

          • Oog en Hand says:

            So why oppose polygyny?

            • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

              Brothers who will carry spears besides you rather than knives behind you.

          • The Cominator says:

            The middle ground is what most of Asia and the slavic world has, women are emancipated but low status. They are actively discriminated against in employment outside their traditional professions, its actively encouraged to pay them less etc.

            • jim says:

              That helps far less than you would think. Does not get us out of defect/defect equilibrium.

              • The Cominator says:

                It doesn’t get a high birthrate but (except in Japan which has a rat utopia density problem) it gets you to at least replacement and it makes life much much more tolerable for men than active feminism.

                • jim says:

                  No it does not get you to at least replacement. The only Asian places that retain replacement fertility have enforcement of marriage against women and over women. Jobs do not make a significant difference.

                  Where is this country where it got you to replacement?

                • The Cominator says:

                  Most of Southeast Asia (NOT feminist South Korea) has at least replacement, the Slavic world had VERY low fertility post communism (which had its own feminism) and its birthrates have been generally been going up (from a very low post communist baseline). Thailand deviated by paying people to have less kids and paying to educate women (I think the family planning thing got reversed but not the subsidizing female education) so they have a lower birthrate.

                  So I can’t prove it will get to replacement in Russia but I expect it will. Eastern Europe is trickier because globohomo is moving in and they hate Russia too much.

                  Japan is anti feminist to the extent the allies allowed more than any country on earth outside the Islamic world but they have a seperate rat paradise density problem.

                • jim says:

                  What countries do you have in mind? Thai fertility rate is 1.41.

                  Philippines are doing a bit better, but that is because the moral degeneracy of the cities has not entirely infiltrated the countryside. Marriage is still enforced in the philippines. Nothing to do with women’s jobs. Indonesia theoretically still has Old Islam as its state religion, so again, marriage enforced.

                  Vietnamese fertility is marginally above replacement. Divorce in Vietnam takes account of fault: “c) Your lawfully rights and interests; d) Your respective fault in violation of wife/husband rights and obligations (such as adultery);”

                  Mongolia still has marriage by abduction, so they are as based as you can get, at least in some substantial parts of Mongolia, though the cities pious pretend to be totally cucked.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Looks like almost everywhere there except Thailand (not bad mostly but they pay women to go for higher education) South Korea (which is outright feminist) Taiwan (outright feminist) and Japan (not feminist in fact I’ve read that Japan is consistenly surveyed to be the most anti feminist country outside the Islamic world… but too dense) is at or above replacement.

                  I looked up Cambodia Vietnam Thailand (the only country that was below on what I checked for specifics) and the Phillipines specifically, didn’t bother with China because one child policy for so long and now Xi’s insane lockdown policies wouldn’t give a good point of reference… and I have no idea how feminist China was from Deng and after. I also didn’t bother with the Islamic countries because while Islam sucks in many ways even more lax versions of Islam have some patriarchal elements so not really relevant as a “medium”…

                  Mongolia I figured being still sort of horse nomads to this would be pretty patriarchal so not relevant as a medium.

                • Fidelis says:

                  You overestimate the Japanese. The women all get degrees and do office work until they panic as the wall approaches. Urban density has very little to do with it besides exacerbating the slut problem, unlike China and Hong Kong/Taiwan where they get autistic about owning a “home” in the middle of the city before allowing themselves to have a family. If Japan was truly too densely packed, it’s not they’re asian and love urban places, plenty of countryside for those that like it, they would make little Tokyos all over in less populated countries like the Koreans.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “unlike China and Hong Kong/Taiwan where they get autistic about owning a “home” in the middle of the city before allowing themselves to have a family.”

                  I can’t speak for the Japanese from experience but this is exactly what I’ve read about the Japanese. That Japanese women want to get married but want a house 1st.

                • Fidelis says:

                  Social pressure to be married before the wall is higher than the social pressure to own real estate before having kids. That’s why the retarded nips now have a nigger problem growing. Yakuza imports niggers to do grunt work, they marry ugly post wall women, now stay in the country doing nigger shit.

                  They’re turbo normies. For example they all get married at Christian churches. Why? None of them know, they just decided at one point, oh we marry at church now. The entire country is run like this. It works really well to preserve ancient cultural traditions, because they will continue practicing them with autistic dedication, hardly understanding it all the while. They only change when exposed to foreign stimuli, at which point theres some stochastic process of digestion, and you get weird new combinations. You get the occasional aristocratic jap that actually is capable of determining cultural direction, but they have not been in charge since the Showa era, so for now it’s this random walk where some based culture remains ignorantly but safely intact, and some pozzed shit gets plugged in faithfully.

                  That’s why they’re not feminist, because they literally cannot understand it. Even the ones that go to the west and get indoctrinated, they don’t act like the harpy bitches here but instead have that weird korean-style wannabe militarism about it. Japanese people get married at age xyz, I am a Japanese person, I will get married at age xyz. Japanese people have 1.45 kids, I am Japanese, I will have 1.45 kids. Sure if you talk to them they will have reasonable explanations for why Japanese people do this, but that’s not actually their motivation. Their motivation is social compliance.

                • pinochet's ghost says:

                  Japan is culturally anti-feminist in that even women with jobs must genuflect to men with the same job at the office, which would be considered a war crime in any other developed country.

                  It’s not feminist at all in that women can still choose not to marry, choose not have sex with their husbands, and choose to divorce.

                  Asian women are also generally not stupid and better at ruthlessly extracting material benefits from personal relationships than white people if the institutions let them get away with it. They may be physically submissive and socially deferrent but only in the way that, say, a used car salesman is going to be deferrent and “friendly” to a customer.

                  Read forums about white men (mostly older lower status chumps admittedly) experience with Thai women.

                  Asian women, not just Asian men, need legally enforced patriarchy more than any race.

        • I get your point. We come from different cultural backgrounds and so our perspectives are largely different though we arrive at the same conclusions.

          To me, up to my grandfather’s generation patriarchy was strong in Hindu society. Women were rarely educated and it was seen as very undesirable that women got educated beyond basic schooling. Motherhood was seen as ideal. In our grandfather’s generation women were married off early in their teens and had lots of children. People lived in large joint families. Our grandfathers tended to be strict disciplinarians when it came to the home: children had a healthy respect for their fathers and rarely spoke out of turn. Physical discipline was common.

          In the 1950s, Hindu laws were amended to match the Harvard vision of marriage. Women got property rights. Marriage and inheritance laws got amended. Earlier women had no right to inherit property and only male heirs were recognized. This changed with change to the Personal laws of Hindus.

          However, we still had red pill in movies in the 70-s and 80-s and even 90-s. It was still portrayed as desirable that women followed and obeyed their husbands and lived respectable lives within the family. Though the law made patriarchy illegal in India, society has still memory of how our grandparents lived and it’s not so much crime-thought at the moment. Even today in parts of rural India,, despite laws against domestic violence, husbands regularly beat their wives, acting as though it was their right to do so, and not dependent on any law.

          So for me and I would say many people of my generation (who can still think crime thoughts), patriarchy is not so alien. Jim’s analysis of female nature fits perfectly with a world I was vaguely familiar with but rapidly disappeared during my father’s generation. So it was kind of re-affirming the traditional Hindu view of family and society. The next generation will not be aware of how our grandparents lived..

  3. onyomi says:

    My daughter was baptized at my wife’s parents’ church, a congregation of almost entirely olds (in fairness this is partly due to area where they live being retirement-heavy).

    I recall all the olds seeming very moved and emotional–a rare treat to see a baby in church, much less a real-live baptism! Clearly the sort of thing that was probably commonplace when they were younger but which has now become noteworthy, nostalgic.

    • Red says:

      Around me there’s a bunch of churches just filled with old people who can’t understand why there’s no young people there. They think that since Christianity without explicit patriarchy worked in their day that it should continue working today. They fail see the complete collapse of informal patriarchy the total lack of marriages and children that result from it.

  4. Help says:

    Converged Priest Field Report Update:

    Several months ago, I wrote a series of posts on a West-Coast Russian Orthodox priest who has his wife serve as a de-facto Reader during the Communion of the Clergy. Having let myself become emotionally compromised, I was unable to convince him or anyone else of the seriousness of the problem, though I remain at the parish in line with advice given by other Orthodox Christians on this blog.

    My priest is post-Christian, which is not to say he is necessarily a paid shill, rather he believes “true” “traditional” Christianity as post-Christianity, and that the institutions of ancient Christianity such as patriarchal marriage do not apply today as “true tradition.”

    He believes in the ideas listed in the article below, written by the recently-deceased Archbishop Chrysostomos who defrocked all his priests who refused the jab:

    When I gave him the demon-worshiper test, asking him to say “Jesus Christ is Lord,” he appeared uncomfortable, saying “Jesus is Lord” or “Christ is Lord,” only managing to say the full line after I kept pestering him about it. From experience, it seems most shills can pass the test if they are pestered for it and they have some time to adapt to the new language.

    He is the son of a Polish father and Belarusian mother, and he dotes on his late mother as she was a Russian language professor at one of the UC schools. This, I suspect, is perhaps the main reason he got upset at me. His Facebook page indicates standard normiecon politics, but nothing seems out of place. He is on Russia’s side regarding the war in Ukraine, and though his social media does not include anything related to groomers, drag queen story hour, or LGBT, nothing seems out of the ordinary.

    What bothers me about him is that though Russian Orthodox priests are required out of necessity to hold second jobs, he seems to be doing fine. He says he supplements his income by working on the boards of certain pharmaceutical companies, but I cannot find any information about this on his social media or LinkedIn accounts. He says he got his job from a friend in San Francisco and takes it because he can choose his hours and only has to work part-time. The fact that nothing about it appears on the internet seems strange to me.

    What is disturbing, however, is how he treats Covid worship. During the lockdowns, a parish all the way on the East Coast was caught violating Covid restrictions, so the Bishop suspended the Deacon for five months and forbade services altogether for three for (failing to venerate the all-powerful and mighty Covid Demon) disobedience. My priest praised the bishop for his decision and expressed no sympathy for the punished church at all.

    My gut tells me there is something off about him. I have ceased communication with him and avoid talking to him after services. The final takeaway is that if your priest is on your side stick with him and if your priest is against you try to avoid him.

    Regarding a key game question, how do you take your girl through a compromised or potentially humiliating setting? There is this girl I am working on, and I am wondering if it would be a good or bad idea to bring her to my church. Should I leave the building with her during the uncomfortable part when the priest’s wife speaks, or should I stay? What is the best way to handle this problem from a game perspective?

    • Kunning Druegger says:

      “Hey babe, let’s go to this party at this guy’s club who I am worried is an agent of evil and we’re just going to step outside real quick when they do the sacrifice to Baal thing.”

      “Oh… K. Are you… like, are you trying to defeat this demon worshipper and you’re just lulling him into complacency?”

      “…no, I work for and obey him.”

      “Oh… are you undercover with fake credentials?”

      “No, I straight up work for him of my own free will. For a while now, actually.”

      “Oh… yeah, ok, let’s go, but I think I might stay in to see the ceremony ha ha not that I am into that, it just sounds mysterious ha ha. Do you think I can get your master’s number, in case I have questions about the ceremony later when I am at home without you?”

      All the other shit you wrote is so fucking dumb, I’m not wasting my overwhelming creativity to put it in this one act play entitled The Cuck Who Cried Wolf. Here are the bullet points:

      -clergy are on boards to rubber stamp or because they are massively influential in government/society

      -the demon worshipper test is pass/fail. Pass/fail tests are a one off, because they are pass/fail tests, so if someone FAILS the PASS/FAIL test, and you give them the P A S S / F A I L test again, you have completely defeated the point of the PASS/FAIL test

      -“secret board position for pharmaceutical company” + “virulent coronatarian” = hmmm…

      • Help says:

        Thing is, I don’t want to leave my parish as I have friends there and I am invested in the church.

        Considering it’s just a woman reading 5-10 minutes from the Lives of the Saints, a guidebook on Orthodox living (which is what a sermon is), could I simply bring my girl there, leave during the bad part, and not mention it? The reader is not giving her own opinion, she is just reading for an extend period of time. I wouldn’t have a problem with it if she were singing or chanting prayers, but what disturbed me was the priest’s feminian reasoning for it. From a game perspective, would not mentioning it work?

        Would you consider this a dealbreaker for a church? If this were the only church around, would you still go?

        Sorry for being stupid, but it’s not an irrelevant question as many people are in churches with compromised priests who corrupt little things. Is the perfect the enemy of the good?

        • Kunning Druegger says:

          Pay close attention and mark well as I demonstrate precisely how to deal with feminized bullshit and cuckolded thinking:

    • Adam says:

      Your priest worships demons and intends to cuck you, murder you and murder your entire family. Tie your priest to a pole and light him on fire. If he doesn’t die, he’s a sorcerer and if he does, nothing was lost and now you know for sure.

    • jim says:

      > What bothers me about him is that though Russian Orthodox priests are required out of necessity to hold second jobs, he seems to be doing fine.

      Should bother you. There are state funded hostile entryists against Christianity.

      • Your Uncle Bob says:

        First reply best reply, but…

        Help, are you reading the Bible daily? Are you praying daily? Are there any men of your acquaintance you can pray with and read a Bible verse with? Have you in fact, in sincerity and out loud, taken Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, or are you only hitting church for practical reasons? This blog trends more to policy and practicality, but there is a real spiritual dimension to this as well. Make sure you’re in the game.

        And – have you investigated all possible churches in your area? Many can be ruled out a priori nowadays, but there may be other fundamentalist options. Especially look for small home churches or Bible studies.

        Then a broader point – one thing that’s served me well since I finally wrapped my brain around it, is always believe people when they tell you what they’re about. Not so much when they tell you “trust me,” or the check is in the mail, or especially when they tell you what you want to hear, but just when they open up about what they value.

        If someone says they’re going to screw you, openly or in other words, what they really and truly mean by that is, that they will or would if they could, screw you. There’s no other secret meaning. And if someone has to say, “oh just kidding, just playing with you,” that falls under the check is in the mail, the first part was the truth.

        What’s dangerous about telling a somewhat literal-minded male like yourself this though, is I did NOT say call them out, argue with them, bargain with them, let them know you know. Do none of that, do the opposite. Politely extricate yourself and walk away without giving them any hold over you, monetary, social, emotional or otherwise.

        I say all that to say, this priest has come out and told you what he’s about, and from the sound of it, he’s done so with admirable honesty given the side he’s on. Believe him. Trying to talk him around into telling you what you want to hear is the opposite of believing him the first time. Instead you’re giving him power over you, you’re telling him what you value and giving him the keys to scam you if he so desired.

        In fairness, you say you’re now avoiding him, so you’ve figured some of this out. It still strikes me that you would benefit from examining your own urge to confront/explain yourself to/give a chance to explain someone who wishes you ill. First examining, then considering stamping out the urge to give everyone a chance to walk back what they’ve plainly told you when they said they were going to screw you would serve you well in life, and in business.

    • Neofugue says:

      Quoting Saint Ignatius Brianchaninov (1807-1867):

      “Distractedness itself punishes one who abandons himself to it. In time everything comes to bore him, and he, not having acquired any substantial knowledge or impressions, is given over to agonizing and boundless despair.”

      Everything we do in this life is about preparing ourselves for the world to come. If your priest is untrustworthy and corrupts the liturgy, he is a distraction. If you are not comfortable with attending the service for the entire duration, your faith and spirituality will stagnate and decline.

      Whether or not your priest is a paid shill, it is clear he has no concern for your values and morality. You need a confessor and a spiritual father you can trust, who respects you, even if he does not agree with you. If your current priest cannot at the least “agree to disagree,” if he cannot pass the demon worshiper test, if he creates an environment where you feel uncomfortable bringing your girl, you need to find a new parish.

      At the end of the day, just as you are not owed anything, you do not owe anyone anything in return. If you are afraid to leave your “friends” at your current parish, they are not your real friends. The only people you need to take care of are yourself, your neighbor, your family, and that girl you say you are working on. If your current parish is a distraction, cut it off lest your soul fall into Hell.

  5. > Christianity is an evangelical religion

    My biggest beef with Christianity. You need to emphasize more on the biological propogation.

    Evangelism is inherently subversive, when practiced in an alien culture and civilization because it disrupts existing social harmony and order and undermines the religion of the Patriach and says to his women and children: follow my God, not the God of your husband/father/forefathers. Hence derails existing order. Evangelism is a tool of chaos. Evangelism puts power in the hands of priests and lays the foundation of the evils of Universalism and holiness spiraling.

    Yes, Evangelism subverts its own Religion eventually in a holiness spiral, because the more holy Evangelists will quickly subvert the existing ones. That is how you got Nigger worship and Tranny worship in modern Christianity because Progressivism has subverted your traditional Christianity.

    Another reason to prevent Evangelism at least among non-enemy, non-hostile races/culture/society is that it is a violation of the Westphalian peace which Jim often speaks of. By all means use Evangelism as one weapon to undermine social cohesion against a State that is your mortal enemy and has declared war against you but not against neutrals or potential allies.

    • Karl says:

      I agree on your first point. Evangelism is war by priestly means. That’s why Westphalian peace is needed.

      I don’t understand your second point that Evangelism causes a holiness spiral. A holiness spiral is driven by people inside a culture who are attacking leadership inside that culture. Evangelism is an attack on people outside a culture. Hence, my understanding is that any religion is suceptible to a holiness spiral, regardless whether it is evangelical or not.

      • Not directly no, but when you admit a large number of aliens into your religion you create the seed/opportunity for holiness spiraling because defection becomes a good strategy to gain status.

        • Fireball says:

          I dont think that in practice ever happens. The inquisition didnt go around smacking people for being too christian the problem was generally the opposite.

          • jim says:

            There seem to be a whole lot of people who came to the attention of the Inquisition for claiming to have visions. I would say that they got smacked for being too Christian.

            There also seem to have been a whole lot of “Christian” priests of Jewish origin whose theology presaged modern “Judeo Christianity”. The Inquisition considered them insufficiently Christian, but they seem to have claimed to be more Christian than thou.

            • skippy says:

              “There also seem to have been a whole lot of “Christian” priests of Jewish origin whose theology presaged modern “Judeo Christianity”.”

              It would be excellent to know more about this. Could it be the topic of a future post?

              • The Cominator says:

                ““There also seem to have been a whole lot of “Christian” priests of Jewish origin whose theology presaged modern “Judeo Christianity”.”

                Oh who. The only allegation I’ve heard about this is in regards to Loyola but its complete bullshit (up there with the ridiculous allegations that Stalin was a jew). Loyola was Basque nobility aka Hidalgo aka his ancestry was pure of Jewish and Moorish blood. In addition to being of Basque nobility he was also questioned by the Inquisition at one point if he were of Jewish origin it would have gone badly for him.

                Why would Jim make a whole post addressing a garbage point, the worst jews are subversive intellectuals like Marx or political players like Soros but they played precisely zero role in pre modern pozzing of the Christian churches.

            • Fireball says:

              I dont think they would agree with you. Peasants having visions and “exciting” the local minor priesthood has always been a problem and there was some cults that had to be deal with even millenarian cults but most of the work seem to be the fake christians.

          • Jehu says:

            The inquisition wasn’t about smacking people down for not being Christian. They were about smacking you down for dirty heresy. They wouldn’t bother you in the slightest if you claimed to be something other than a Christian, although the secular authorities might. The most common pose of dirty heretics is the belief that they’re holier than Jesus, although the training wheels version is to pose as ‘holier than Paul’. Ironically Jesus talks about fire and brimstone way more than Paul.

    • Phobos says:

      Evangelism is one of the inherently universalist pillars of the faith. But the opposite poses a different problem. The ethnic religion is based in so far as it is ethnocentric but that is the contingency that renders it nearly incapable of revival. I as a Westerner cannot ever really be a Hindu even if I knew everything that you did and wanted to. Nor could I even turn to the pagan religion of my distant ancestors. Once that religion died it became myth and would be impossible to bring back from the dead without it being an embarrassing larp.

      There is also the fundamental problem of your religion convincing anyone that it is in fact the one true religion if only your people can practice it. I guess I can’t achieve mukti until I am reborn as an Indian? That is ridiculous. I really had no option but to become a Christian. Much the same can be said for others around the world. Christ has come to save the whole world hence universalism. Unfortunately this makes it possible for demons to start saying that Pentecost in Acts means diversity is our strength.

    • ten says:

      The evangelists are supposed to go abroad and mess with foreigners far away, or trawl the gutters to reintegrate valuable people lost in the refuse, or give some solace to the valueless. No spirals possible in either of those locations, because they do not point up. Internal evangelism pointing up, towards power, is like internal looting, a self destructive pathology.

      The point of messing with foreigners far away by evangelism is to create interfaces for cooperation and peace. It is an absolutely integral success vector for christianity. Obviously, this is very bothersome for virtuous pagans trying to erect their own such systems, and i sympathize. Typically you kill them when they cause too much trouble, but kind and cooperative cultures have trouble doing that.

      Stopping supposedly holy men from proving their holiness by going to the pagans and potentially getting killed for their trouble wouldn’t work, because can’t have totalitarian control of everyone everywhere. Best we can do is tell them not to mess with friends and that we wont mind if friends kill them when messed with.

      You will agree that very little evangelism has happened towards friendly nations, because very little friendliness has existed

    • FrankNorman says:

      For any sincere Christian the point of evangelism is to save souls from eternal damnation. The stability of society in this present world is a mattr of far lesser concern.

      Perhaps the best way to address your concerns about religious conversions undermining patriarchy is for the missionaries to address their preaching to the patriarch, and have him, when he converts, lead his whole family into his new faith.
      I’m told that this is historically how some missionaries went about it.

      • Adam says:

        The stability of society is directly related to the spiritual health of that society.

        If society can’t get it right in this life, they are screwed in the next.

      • jim says:

        > For any sincere Christian the point of evangelism is to save souls from eternal damnation. The stability of society in this present world is a matter of far lesser concern.

        You don’t get saved if you go along with evil in this world. If the priest cannot say “groomer” not a sincere Christian. And the dwindling congregation, the lack of baptisms, the lack of families in the pews, the lack of young people in the pews, shows he is not saving souls.

        If you take the antisemitism, male supremacy, and homonausea out of Christianity what remains is not Christian, and the congregation fades away. You cannot save souls while accepting globohomo into the Church.

      • James says:

        That is essentially what happened in Northern and Central Europe. Kings converted, their households converted, nobles converted, courtiers converted, and down it went.

  6. A says:

    Notes on Orthodox churches

    The Greek Orthodox Church in Australia appears to have changed in its Nicene Creed, at some time in the past, the phrases “who for us men” and “and became man” into “who for us” and “and became human.” The Greek Orthodox Church in the United States does not appear to have done this.

    The Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) uses the traditional Nicene Creed. ROCOR has some extremely based and redpilled priests. As Jim says and as his readers would expect, the more based the priest and the more traditional the church, the more children and families there are at the Liturgy.

    I have not looked that closely at any other Orthodox churches.

    Notes on anthropos

    The Greek word “anthropos” can indeed refer to both a man and a woman (i.e. human), but, in context, and almost everywhere it is used in the Bible, it has the same approximate meaning of the English word “man” c.1611. As far as I know, it either refers to the race of men, or literally means “man” as opposed to “woman.”

    When you look at the associated ideology of the people who are pushing for this change, from “man” to “human,” it is immediately clear that the change is demonic.

  7. Bob says:

    Notes on the LDS church:
    Starting in 2008, the number of children who were raised in the church and were getting baptized stopped increasing and started decreasing. Since LDS kids are baptized at age 8, the trend started in the year 2000. The number of converts started going down as well.
    In 1990, the temple ordinance was changed so women no longer promised they would obey the law of their husbands. They would obey him as he obeyed the Lord. Then in 2019, even that was taken out.

    • The Cominator says:

      Yes Mormonism before the 1970s was a pretty based alt right type religion then they changed everything to become a prog one while still retaining the major barrier to them appealing to masses of more people (the worlds of wisdom).

      • Hesiod says:

        Recently had a conversation with a couple of door-to-door Mormon “elders” (young lads who are just starting to shave the fuzz off their cheeks should not be referred to as elder). At the end, one gave me a card with a picture of, I assume, Jesus Christ on one side.

        Now, this Jesus looks like Charlton Heston’s head on Arnold Schwarzenegger’s body, so pretty based. Went to the official LDS site in hopes of getting a digital copy, but the front page had a prominent photo of a bunch of kids with the only white ones being the girls to clearly demonstrate their poz compliance.

        That coupled with the conversation on this site about how Mormon boys get dropped off permanently at loser camp soured any desire I had to learn more about the church.

        • The Cominator says:

          I meant words of wisdom of course… really wish the site had an edit feature.

          Mormonism now is just another converged prog religion, the Elders marching in pride parades is probably less than 10 years away.

        • Redbible says:

          Not a fans of the LDS, but it is worth noting that the group that abandons their sons is the FLDS, a spin off group from the LDS.

          • Hesiod says:

            Thanks for the clarification.

            From the wiki article:

            The FLDS Church has been designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center:[10][11] citing leader Warren Jeffs’ opinions on “Blacks, women, gays, violence and the end of the world”;[12] and called them “a white supremacist, homophobic, antigovernment, totalitarian cult”.

            With an endorsement like that, the FLDS can’t be all bad.

            • Redbible says:

              The only major issue (but it is a major issue) is the fact that they hold to the holiness spiral of needing multiple wives to be a righteous man. Which leads to having to get rid of “extra” sons.

              • Kunning Drueger says:

                Agreed, but this is something that could be corrected by a charismatic leader, one who demonstrates the amazing power of loyal and dangerous sons. Better to need to restrain the stallion than be forced to prod the mule, eh wot.

          • Red says:

            Mormonism has been completely converged. I visited a smaller Mormon town recently in Utah and they were very nice but super progressive right down to girls at the hotel dressing up lesbians. Everything was neat and orderly, but I didn’t see any children. They’ll die out like all the rest.

            • jim says:

              Patriarchy survived as unprincipled exception, unspeakable and unspoken. But, being unspeakable and unspoken, the next generation failed to get the joke – no one today knows how happy normal families work. As a result, whole lot of children screaming causing intolerable work and stress for their parents, and wives destroying husbands and families.

              If the pastor does not speak, because “it goes without saying”, the Church will die. Has to be said. Frequently.

              • zero says:

                How do you deal with children? My friend has some that are not terrible but a bit antagonistic at times, it seems like a big part of the problem is school and a lack of constant maternal oversight. How much is just a lack of discipline and how much is to little real activity causing an over abundance of energy and unhappiness? School seems to be an awful force for making kids miserable and unruly. They don’t lack discipline as far as I can tell and there father is old school. They just get nasty with each other and rude at times. Is the appropriate solution for them to be disciplined when they are rude even when they try to wheedle out of it? Would like to figure that out before I have my own to wrangle.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  What does one point of contact weigh against a whole universe of contacts otherwise?

                  Children are raised by the child prisons, television, and groomed social media more than anything else. That’s why the presently regnant faction of theocrats made sure to make abduction of children to child prisons mandatory – and for as long as possible.

                  You talk with a normie friend one moment, and feel like you’ve made a real connection even, prompt them to speak up about the travails facing the personally and folk in general; but then you part ways, and they sink back into the neon glow of The Spectacle, which surrounds them ubiquitously from innumerable sources; all that had passed between you evaporates like morning dew, and The Message settles back into the well-worn grooves from which it was temporarily scourged.

                  As Hildebeest always liked to say, ‘it takes a village’ – and that’s why creatures like her were bent on taking over the village commons first.

                • jim says:

                  You just make them comply. With commands such as “sit” you can just physically sit them, as you would a dog. Even a very small child is smarter than a dog, and you can discipline a dog.

                  With commands like “stop howling”, well, you cannot physically stop them from howling, but you can stand them in a corner till they shut up. You can also yell at them louder than they can yell at you, and when you yell it is scary and menacing. When you outyell a kid throwing a tantrum she is pretty quickly going to stop howling and start sniffling, particularly if you are physically forcing her to stand in a corner.

                  With, however, physical mistreatment of siblings, you have to spank them. Of course sibling A may find measures short of physical violence to make life hard for sibling B, whereupon sibling B quite reasonably resorts to physical violence. At which point you have to define rules as to what they are allowed to do, for example that some stuff belongs to one, and some stuff belongs to the other, and one sibling may not touch the other’s stuff without permission.

                  But kids need a garden. If they are in an apartment, or even if the garden is small, they will generate a lot of aggravation. A nice garden that the kids can tear up soaks up a whole lot of potentially troublesome energy.

            • Fidelis says:

              One thing that inspires me is that I know, having witnessed a few in person, there are smaller hidden branches of every major Church that maintain enough of the old ways to repopulate. I’m sure that given enough of a collapse, even sects like the Amish will have branches that realize they are called by God to take charge of the fallen world.

              • Jehu says:

                God said similar to Elijah

                Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him.

              • Mayflower Sperg says:

                In 200 years all white people will have a patriarchal attitude toward women and a shoot-on-sight attitude toward diversity, like North Sentinelese with better weapons.

                Your chances of getting into one of their ancestral communities are slim though, because they are already deeply suspicious of outsiders. They know that one phone call to Child Protective Services ends their bloodline.

                CPS also exists in Russia but they aren’t issued helicopters, so Old Believers wait for a spell of dry weather, hike many miles down a barely-visible dirt road, ford a river, and build a village on the other side, where they’ll have a reasonable chance of being left alone.

  8. Badvlad says:

    It’s a good point that Christianity was transmitted biologically but I’m a mid boomer raised in a nyc catholic school parish environment. I remember.
    True few we’re having more than four kids by then but 3-4 was average. I’m the cusp generation that stopped believing and I remember it like yesterday. It wasn’t just religion we stopped believing. It was everything. By 72 the Jew propaganda machine had turned everyone over 11 into somewhere between Holden caufield and Abbie Hoffman. Everything was bullshit we thought. Sure it was partly our parents had no defense to this Jew agitprop. They believed what they believed because that’s just how it was. My family was intellectual so they had somewhat better reasons and I became something of a reactionary very young but simultaneously a lefty as well. Leftism usually has a grain of truth which they exploit on the weak minded and young. By late teens I was no longer left at all intellectually but my life was degenerate
    Mid boomers were not hippies we were nihilists went from the stones and doors to Sex Pistols and dead boys so to speak. Late boomers were early slackers or yuppies.
    This goes to a point I have tried to make on nrx for a decade. If you don’t watch your flank the Jew / leftist will exploit it. We were rife with things they could point at and exploit. And most had no idea why Chesterton fences were there. In fairness there was a lot of shit piling up for decades before that. The niggers were allowed to roam free after civil war same for Jews. It was easy to claim they were opppressed no one but southerners knew anything about them except they were dangerous and avoid them. So many examples. No one ever made a case why women shouldn’t be free. It was just another old fence no one remembered who built. On the other hand Jews were pushing like hell the virtues and rewards for revolution. The wasps always hate confrontation they could just crack nigger heads like the Irish either northern Catholics or southern caveliers could.
    Boomers are blamed but if you look at the movies say the graduate is a good example. Who already corrupted in early 60s it’s the adults and who made the movies teenage hippies or adults. That was the situation boomers went to uni and met adult leftists the media they were fed was all red diaper great generation in fairness it’s turtles all the way down before we were fed rock our parents were fed jazz and grandparents swing and great grandparents ragtime niggerization music all pushed by Jews all same for all our culture including our religion our academics.
    Yes wasps had a liberal streak going way back might even say every white civilization from even before Greece collapsed from feminism it’s what we do we seek ever more free just etc until we crash
    But the Jews are not leftists to improve they are wreckers. They cleverly exploit the white inclination for well intentioned leftism of course towards the end it’s all devolved to bloodlust.

    • S says:

      Break that habit- there is no well intentional leftism. There are only those who are lying about their lust for power.

  9. Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

    Just in: GAE leadership expend heroic effort and resources to save huge nigger bitch from time out.

    Current Year moment.

    • Kunning Drueger says:

      It is fascinating to me how blind to the historical moment, the current regime in the US seems to be. equally amusing, if somewhat horrifying, is the shared blindness of anyone who calls themselves right wing or conservative or even thoughtful who will deny that we have an anti-theocracy in power in the west. They traded some lesbo she-boon that plays with a ball for a notorious international arms dealer with a ton of information and connections around the globe to a wild assortment of different geopolitical actors. not only will the regime portray this as a victory, many people will see this as some kind of defeat for Russia.

      whatever the case, let’s all say a little prayer of thanks for the prison guards who will no longer be living under the threat of rape by Sasquatch.

      • Pax Imperialis says:

        Save the tranny pot head but leave the Marine behind. I’m sure that will do wonders for recruitment.

        • Kunning Druegger says:

          Honestly, good. Their strangle hold on conservative/white youth is utterly ridiculous. Military meatheads can be excused for getting in on GWoT up until 2008. After that, they fight for the GAE and there’s no excuse.

    • The Cominator says:

      Given all the 1000s of worse things the Biden administration has done to the country this one is pretty minor in the scheme of things. I hope that arms dealer gets Russia some good stuff so they can finish off the Ukraine.

      • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

        It is absolutely a minor thing in the grand scheme of things; but it is one of those minor things that perfectly express the Spirit of the Times.

        • Red says:

          Leaves an American former Marine spy behind for a nigger bitch who can’t even dunk.

          The Russians played it well, very few people will spy for them knowing that they’ll never be exchanged.

          • Neurotoxin says:

            “The Russians played it well, very few people will spy for them knowing that they’ll never be exchanged.”

            Huh? No, they WILL be exchanged. Even for someone so irrelevant as a female sports “star.”

  10. Javier says:

    I don’t go to church because it’s boring and I like sleeping in. once church becomes an option instead of an obligation, it’s doomed

    • Adam says:

      Guys come here every day voluntarily. Churches and priests have to become the path of least resistance for something vital, trust, cohesion, wisdom, knowledge etc. Without a throne to command them priests then only serve themselves and become corrupt and evil. Priests serving themselves create priests. Priests serving others create trust etc.

      • Karl says:

        Without a throne to command them priests then only serve themselves and become corrupt and evil.

        Not quite. These corrupt and evil priests do serve a throne that commands them. The priests preaching about tolerance (to sodomie, divorce, etc.), equality (of man and woman, etc.) are serving a throne. They are preaching official state reliigion and thereby serve the state.

        On the other hand, the early Christians in Rome did not have a throne to command them. Quite the opposite really, there was a throne and they disobeyed the throne in religious matters.

        Where do you see evil and corruption in the priests of the early church? Didn’t these early priests serve others at great cost to themselves?

        • jim says:

          The problem is when the Church has power. Which the early Church did not have.

          If power without a King to keep them in line, and open entry into the priesthood, you get competitive holiness. This can be prevented by the King keeping them in line, or priesthood as hereditary or semi hereditary private property, as for example the Japanese system where there are a limited supply of holy places, and entrants just cannot whip up their own holy place.

    • Jehu says:

      You need to find a church that puts the fun into fundamentalism.

    • Ron says:

      If your clergy has your back as a man, you’ll go and they wouldn’t be able to keep you out.

      When your clergy is taking on the role of The Only Real Man In The Room or even worse, is a mincing faggot who is grooming your teenage son, then it requires obligation.

  11. The Cominator says:

    This probably isnt right wingers but we really should not endorse this sort of thing as i suspect the government is doing this to setup pretext for mass arrest of “MAGA terrorists”. Its not that im going cuck but i think this is a bad tactic. Freelance actions should be more along the lines of Argentinas dirty war.

    • skippy says:

      Why would resistance attack the power grid?

      The enemy is an information warfare outfit. He is not the infrastructure.

    • Kunning Drueger says:

      well, obviously, this is a website of peace and it doesn’t make endorsements of anything. While these types of impromptu dance parties may not be the best path forward, it does mark a transition in the ongoing build up to 2026.

      meme war 2 is going to be hybrid, straddling the line between the real world and IRL.

    • Dr. Faust says:

      Promote peaceful resolutions to the world’s problems. But don’t punch rightward. Holy war vs wholly demons. Success is the will of God. Failure is martyrdom. No action we can take in war is evil. There is no sin against demons nor their avatars.

      • The Cominator says:

        Im all for banishing demons in minecraft we need to trade to free Brevik now lol. I think turning the lights out mostly hurts normies…

        • Kunning Drueger says:

          I think you owe it to yourself to do some deep diving on how infrastructure works in terms of the business of it. A number of systems exist and there’s a surprising amount of variation in a complex that has to be interconnected. Some states have multiple cooperatives in a patchwork while others have state mandated monopolies.

          There’s a distinct possibility that this is a complex false flag being carried out to wrest control from co-ops and private infrastructure entities, but this is itself and opportunity for Our Side, as it will force elites in the infrastructure backbone to quit pretending they’re immune from or unconcerned with the culture war.

          TC, I think you and I should have this debate: the Norwegian Option v. the Chad Option. Do you think that’s possible, or too dangerous/ill advised?

          • The Cominator says:

            Too dangerous to debate seriously and in depth and will draw boku government attention my views are clear and they wont change…

        • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

          >the grand infrastructure of civilized ages is valuable

          Respect for property is in general the right attitude to have in people; in these particular cases however, we are not speaking about anything that could not be easily remade, and more besides, once the sects of gnostic solipsists who are interfering with such processes of civilization in the first place, are Physically Removed.

          Normies will suffer, but whose normies? It will be *theirs* who will bear the majority of the suffering – and God bless it.

          The Regime Credo of the time is ‘nothing ever happens’. So what happens when things start happening? You might even say, Happenings.

    • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

      Of course we neoreactionary types do not endorse these attacks, but it is important that the left comes to terms with the fact that they bear some measure of responsibility for all of this. People will fight to defend their children. If the left keeps trying to groom children, they they have to do so knowing that they are provoking this sort of desperate response.

      • Kunning Drueger says:

        The current Drag Event pattern:

        -Organized evil schedules a child sodomy event in a location that is on their cultural frontier (their front line or a contested zone). This is both a flex and a call for support.

        -Organized reaction announces a counter protest.

        -Sodomite supporters announce a counter-counter protest.

        -the event occurs, hay is made, the sodomites have increased their hold and standing OR
        -the event is cancelled, hay is made, the sodomites redouble their efforts.

        I wonder if it’s possible for a new escalation from the reaction side, wherein they don’t just counter protest, but do whatever possible to stop the event from occuring at all. As stated elsewhere, there’s a significant possibility that the CritInfra incidents are a false flag operation. But the one in NC was suspiciously close to an SOF community, so it could also be the case that couple operators decided to go kinetic and dispense with the gay posturing of counter protest. Is this why the local authorities went full lockdown?

        • jim says:

          > Organized evil schedules a child sodomy event in a location that is on their cultural frontier (their front line or a contested zone).

          Is there any Church anywhere that has referenced these events in such plain words?

          • Kunning Druegger says:


            That, my Lord, is the right question.

            Any church brazen enough to publicly oppose most likely got shut down during Covid. I imagine there are at least a few churches with underground networks who may be Operationalizing The Distinction, but if they’re smart, they aren’t publicly broadcasting their calls to action. But, if they can’t call publicly, their memetic sovereignty is hidden/in passive mode.

            This is why midwit/normie uptake of The Proper Frame is so critical: it allows, maybe even demands, memetic sovereignty.

        • Guy says:

          I’ve seen the drag shows recently protected by fags with rifles. So men, guarding a place where children are being molested, and signaling they have the will to kill if that’s what it takes to keep the molestation going. Not a lot of debate over tactics and optics with that one, and the state probably cares more about the infrastructure damage than some worthless true believers being wiped. I have to imagine the reason they aren’t being taken out is that any kids in the gay bars have nobody to look after them anyway.

          • jim says:

            Observed behavior is that fags recruit fatherless children.

            On the other hand, the groomers in schools appear to be going after children with biological fathers.

            • Red says:

              I haven’t seen then the groomers going after children with strong fathers. Or at least they were still afraid of doing so a year ago when every target seemed to be children of single mothers. Has that changed?

              • jim says:

                That was the way it was. Have no news indicating that it has changed. Children of single mothers and divorcees.

          • Kunning Druegger says:

            >signaling they have the will to kill

            Carrying a gun is in no way a signal of actual willingness to use it. It’s like tattoos: tattoos used to mean you were a fringe human, a sailor or whore or degenerate uninterested or unable to participate in polite society. No, tattoos mean you have ink etched into your skin for one of a zillion different reasons.

            Before the GWoT made AR variants the most popular, widespread platform, walking around in tac gear with an AR would be a dramatic statement of willingness and capacity that would most likely be tested. Now, it means you have cash and an internet connection. Imagine someone threw out a few firecrackers unnoticed at these political dumb shows. I wonder how the sides would react after the first report…

            • Guy says:

              Sure, I’m talking about their intent, and the “optics” of them being their in tac gear saying “look at me, we’re serious about kiddy diddling here”. I haven’t seen the breadcrumbs that are leading people to speculate that the grid was hit over drag queen story hour, but just thinking that the penalty for doing so would be massive enough that you’d probably be safer going for the event itself. At least a jury might be sympathetic, whereas if one 80 year old dies from the cold you’re getting a murder charge anyway. And it’s more of a middle ground than the saboteur vs. the lone shooter.

          • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

            People need to remind themselves of the wonders of anonymous pipe bombs and arson, IRA style.

            Noone who is actually serious about killing the most people they can or doing lots of damage and getting away with it would use such an ineffective weapon as personal rifles or pistol; that’s why 99% of all ‘mass shootings’ are pure theater.

            • jim says:

              A pipe bomb tends to be used to contain a deflagrating explosive. Detonating explosives are more effective, but are more difficult and dangerous to make.

              Detonating explosives are manufactured within buildings designed to direct the explosive force upwards in the event of an accident, and key steps of the manufacture are performed in such rooms with no humans present during certain phases of the operation.

              The room consists of a pit surrounded by sloped earth berms. The dirt for the containing walls comes from excavating the room a bit deeper than the surrounding area. It is a big project. But, with elite virtue collapsing, easier to divert official weapons. Seventy percent of weapons sent to Ukraine seem to be mysteriously going astray.

              • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

                And a prolific arms dealer just got freed. What could possibly go wrong?

                • Starman says:

                  @Wulfgar Thundercock III

                  ”And a prolific arms dealer just got freed. What could possibly go wrong?”

                  Victor Bout is the true Santa Claus.

                • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

                  Legend has it that GAE keeps a list of naughty men, and that if you are on that list and are very good, one day Victor Bout will deliver you gifts.

                • Kunning Druegger says:

                  Genuine lol. “Da, Santa” starts filming in my basement next week, send headshots y’all.

            • Jehu says:

              One of the biggest mass murder events in US history was perpetrated with $1 worth of gasoline in NYC.

              • Neurotoxin says:

                OK, I’ll bite. What are you talking about?

                • Jehu says:

                  Look up the Happy Land Social club event in 1990. 87 people were killed via arson there because somebody was pissed off at his girlfriend. Pretty gruesome way to go too.

                • Red says:

                  Mass shootings are always a political statement or an incel trying to draw female attention by using weapons of war. A can of gas and chaining a door shut will kill far more people if the goal was actually to kill.

  12. TheDividualist says:

    Hi Jim!

    Slightly offtopic but just wanna say you were right again. When you said the Aryans were smarter than us and they had a more complex language. I discovered on Wiki that the Lithuanian language is the closest to Proto-IE and they have a large number of grammatical cases and used to have even more. Imagine if instead of saying “into the house” you could say “housey”. It compresses information more, and it also means it requires a higher processing speed in the brain. So the loss of cases in favour of adverbs means the English, the Germans and yes to some extent the Lithuanians themselves got dumber.

    I really hope you will not be right about jabs as I have three Moderna. My daughter has the Russian Sputnik jab tho so I still hope to get grandkids.

    Could it be a case of correlation not being causation? More jabbed countries had more lockdowns which could lead to programmers becoming lazy and so so on?

    • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

      I’m sorry for your loss.

    • Starman says:


      ”I really hope you will not be right about jabs as I have three Moderna.”

      You even took the booster!? 😵

      Was it voluntary, or coerced?

    • Upravda says:

      Proto Indo-european (AKA Aryan) language did have noun cases, a lot of them, actually (eight, I think). Modern Slavic languages still have 6 – 7, except Bulgarian, Macedonian and Torlak dialect of Serbian, all of which lost declensions either completely or partially (Torlak) and use proposition constructs instead, like in English.

      However, declensions are only small part of language complexity.

      For example, English has quite complex system of verb tenses, comparing with both German and Slavic languages.

      It seems that some IE languages became more simple in terms of declensions when changing in some area after prolonged period of contacts between multiple mutually unintelligible languages, like Celtic and Latin in Gaul / France, Romance and Slavic in Macedonia, Serbia, and Bulgaria, or Old English and Norman French in post-1066 England.

      On the other hand so-called isolating languages like Chinese do not have any declension, conjugation, whatever, but that didn’t impede Chinese in developing qiute a civilization.

      • Karl says:

        English has quite complex system of verb tenses, comparing with both German and Slavic languages

        I don’t think so. What verb tenses are there in English that German and Slavic languages are lacking?

    • ten says:

      How would you measure lithuanian to be closer to PIE compared to other baltoslavic languages..?

      Polish is by far the most structurally complex language in the world, and as seen recently, they are fucking idiots anyway. lmao.

    • Starman says:

      It’s okay if you admit you were coerced into taking the booster.

    • Aron says:

      Thank you for posting a link to my article. It’s not illegal though.

      • Djin says:

        > “All happy families are alike. They all work the same way. They are all quietly biblical and quietly eighteenth century. Women, children, and dogs need a master, and if they do not have one, get tense and difficult. Masterless dogs and women bark a lot, and the children howl a lot. The home that is not securely ruled by its father is disturbingly full of angry noise.

        > The stern and severely unequal biblical prescription works, and everything goes smoothly without drama. Anything that deviates from this, you get trouble and drama. There are a thousand ways to do it horribly wrong, and one way to do it right. If a progressive has a happy family, it is because he is quietly making a highly illegal unprincipled exception for his family.”

        What illegal unprincipled exception then?

        • jim says:

          He is the master of his house, and he disciplines his wife and children.

        • Aron says:

          You do not make yourself clear. Even in the secular and feminist society in which we live, consensual relationships that involve spanking are not illegal. Millions of people do it regularly.

          In God’s law, which is higher than man’s, corporal punishment also clearly fits within the rights of an authority, as does discipline in general. Corporal punishment is nowhere illegal or against Scripture.

          According to God’s law, if you want to call CPS for anything, it should be for divorce and remarriage, which is wicked and demonstrably harmful. God calls divorce an act of bloodshed.

          • Djin says:

            If consensual, not truly discipline, if not truly discipline, not truly marriage, but gay marriage. A wife may suffer a spanking, but only because she has tacitly agreed not to go to the authorities. If can go to the authorities because she did not like being disciplined, the husband is not truly the authority. Thus, all marriage is gay marriage.

            • jim says:

              Well, one can always credibly seem like the kind of person who might kill her. Because women are hard up for alpha, they are inclined to suspend disbelief.

            • Aron says:

              That does not make any sense.

              A wife who consents to being under authority and being discipline is truly being disciplined. The fact she stepped into that relationship of her own consent changes nothing. Marriage is always be consent itself. Spanking is legitimate discipline in marriage, and is entered into consensually by millions of people.

              “Gay marriage” has nothing to do with anything. I don’t know if you’re just trying to be insulting, or if you are trying to make some point. You are not clear at all.

              The husband is authority in the home, and a wife who respects God’s law knows that, and she would not ever go to the government authorities over that. Couples who respect God’s law respect the man’s authority in marriage, and the government never intervenes.

            • Kunning Druegger says:

              >if consensual

              ERROR 6969: poster is gay, needs to go back

              • Aron says:

                That’s lame and makes no sense. You need to learn to be articulate.

                • jim says:

                  “if consensual” is sodomite groomer drag queen language.

                  Consent does not make wrongful sex right, nor does lack of consent make rightful sex wrong.

                  A chaste woman should consent to marriage once and forever, and if a woman is no longer chaste, she has forfeited any requirement of consent.

                • Kunning Druegger says:

                  I’m overjoyed and quite capable of delivering tidal waves of articulation if a subject is worthy of extrapolation.

                  This faggot, the one posting voluntarily under the title of “daemon” (sand nigger version) is lawyering words to portray sex with women as gay. he is a sandnigger faggot with no bitches, no purpose, no value to offer, and thus is not worthy of the time and prose he’s already been given.

                  If you’re a semen sucker like him, maybe you two can share the same lamp post.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  Mr. is a good egg.

                • Kunning Druegger says:

                  TBH I didn’t realize that was him, so I guess I am in error.

                  Djin is a faggot lawyering away any meaning with semantic niggory diggory.

                  Sorry Aron. Love your blog, actually quite powerful work you’ve done.

                • Kunning Druegger says:

                  Goshfuckingdammit, I should have said “It slaps”

          • jim says:

            > consensual relationships that involve spanking are not illegal

            If consent is moment to moment, rather than once and forever, then then marriage is illegal. All marriage is illegal. Not just marriage with spanking, because even without spanking, still rape.

            Duluth model.

            It is not a consensual relationship that involves spanking unless you have a safe word or notarized consent. Faggot style domination and submission, rather than biblical.

            Spanking is legal only if you do it faggot style, moment to moment consent. Indeed all sex is illegal unless it follows faggot style interaction.

            • Djin says:

              Exactly my point, better said. That’s why all marriage is gay marriage.

              Women seek release through catharsis. Without the escape from their innate self-consciousness – core to being female – that comes from non-consensual sex or discipline, they’re not truly having heterosexual sex, but homosexual sex, which results in, perhaps, a female orgasm.

              In heterosexual sex, catharsis, for the female, is the reward; female orgasm following such catharsis is more likely, but ultimately incidental.

              • djin says:

                all ***modern*** marriage.

                • jim says:

                  Modern marriage is not marriage. Marriage is a decision made once and forever.

                • Djin says:

                  Exactly, just as modern sex is not sex. Andrea Dworkin said all heterosexual sex is rape, by which she meant there are must be an inherent difference in the power of the two parties participating in it, or it is not heterosexual sex at all. This is why modern life is so, ultimately, sexless, even though sexual provocation is everywhere, because modern sex and modern marriage ignores the real differences between the sexes and reduces them to sexlessness, even in the act of participating in ‘sex.’

            • Aron says:

              Sure. Consent is when you get married. However, in a culture in which most people don’t understand that, it is perfectly fair to explain how authority works separately, and consent to it at that time. But it certainly is not moment to moment. It is ongoing for life. As long as spouses recognize God’s law, and respect their roles in marriage, the law of the land will not come into play anyway.

              • jim says:

                I don’t want to self dox, and I certainly do not want to dox my sons. But one is in a marriage where both spouses recognize Gods law, and he had to flee a jurisdiction because the authorities wanted to stick their noses in despite the absence of an invitation by anyone in the family for them to stick their noses in. Recognizing God’s law is illegal, it is just that you can generally get away with it because the authorities are unlikely to detect it.

                • Aron says:

                  God’s law is higher than man’s law, and we follow it first. However, in nearly all cases, whether in marriage or otherwise, spanking in relationships comes as a consensual part of the relationship. The law has no problem with that anyway. Anyone can do it.

                  In the long run, citizens simply need to change the laws to conform to God’s law, and the husband recognized as authority in marriage. The law could still legitimately limit crueler and more dangerous punishments, but it has no right to prevent a man from disciplining his wife, due to his position.

                  A wife consents to marriage. Even an arranged marriage has some level of consent, and marriages arranged when a child are consented to at an older age.

                • jim says:

                  The law requires moment to moment, instant to instant consent. If your wife misbehaves and you slap her obviously she did not consent at that particular instant. That is what misbehavior is.

                  And even if she is disinclined to report you to the cops, it still illegal and the law is suppose to get involved even if the wife fails to complain and fails to cooperate with the authorities. Government policy is to go after “abusive” husbands and “rescue” abused wives, even if the “abused” wives are uncooperative, which they almost always are, and resist being rescued, which they almost always do. Similarly child protective services and “abused” children.

                  These laws are inefficiently and ineffectively enforced, but they are enforced a lot more effectively than the laws against murder, assault, robbery, and trespass.

                  Yes, with due caution you can get away with old fashioned marriage. You can also get away with bumping off intruders and burying them in the swamp or sinking them in the ocean. And the kind of person who does the one is apt to do the other, and the kind of person who is reluctant to do the one, or apt to get caught if he does it, is likely to be reluctant to do the other, or apt to get caught when doing the other.

                • Dharmicreality says:


                  Jim is right. You are trying to bring in old school marriage into modern legal system by introducing “voluntary consent” and “informed choice” which is a futile attempt.

                  Just because women “consent” to being disciplined by their husbands does not make it legal by the modern legal system, because consent is defined by them not you and the modern law already states that women are incapable of “consenting” to “domestic violence”

                • Cloudswrest says:

                  You can also get away with bumping off intruders and burying them in the swamp or sinking them in the ocean.

                  Speaking purely pragmatically, this would seem to get harder every day due to technology.

                  1. One presumes they arrived in a vehicle. You would have to get rid of that too. Can’t just leave it in front of your house for authorities to trace.

                  2. Security cameras are everywhere nowadays.

                  3. If the loser had a mobile phone on him, authorities could track its last location.

                  4. Did he have “associates” who knew of his plans?

                  Perhaps I’m viewing this thru the perspective of a “normie” and the perp has none of these things. Just a homeless vagrant.

                • jim says:

                  All these things that can track the perps disappearance can also track the perp’s successful crime. So they tend to leave them behind. And the only relevant security cameras are mine.

                  And, supposing the perp is careless and lazy, as likely he is, and does have all those things that can track him, as likely he does, the cops are lazier and more careless.

                • Adam says:

                  There is no homicide investigation without a witness or a body. Cops are dumb and lazy so kind of up to you weather you get caught or not. How motivated would you be if every day you had to clean up someone else’s mess, all while following the same sort of rules that middle school students have to follow?

                  Nothing on TV or movies is real, it is all fantasy.

                • Mayflower Sperg says:

                  and the modern law already states that women are incapable of “consenting” to “domestic violence”

                  Yet bondage porn is still being made, so women evidently can consent to violence by men they aren’t married to.

                  If you read the law as, “Thou shan’t do anything that might eventually beget healthy white children,” it all suddenly makes sense.

              • I’m surprised that the word consent is even considered relevant here.

                In traditional patriarchies, the marriage is arranged between Patriarchs and women’s ownership was transferred from father to husband. Even assuming such a thing as woman’s consent existed, it was not even considered relevant or meaningful by our ancestors. Women submitted naturally to male authority because that is nature and society recognized and supported it. Submitting to male authority but constantly testing it is women’s nature.

                Modern marriages fail not because women want to be strong and independent but because they remained unowned despite “marriage” and become extremely upset and disturbed when unowned and hence file divorce since they want either the man they are married to claim ownership strongly over her or another strong man to own her.

                But modern state religion has not only made marriage 1.0 illegal but almost unthinkable. Men rightly fear taking charge of wives because they require to do illegal and dangerous things to do so. Women find unowned existence extremely distressing. Since all men cannot be expected to be alpha chads and all women don’t submit quietly to their husbands, return to patriarchal society which supports male authority is the only solution.

                • Djin says:


                  Plus, even being an alpha chad, in a marriage, is illegal. One can only act that way at the sufferance of those around.

                  Women always test authority, but if can always appeal to outside authority, when discipline imposed, the disciple, and the authority imposed are not, ‘real.’

                  Requires a bit of finesse,daring, to luck to pass marital shit tests, ensuring more shit tests than if true heterosexual marriage is recognized.

                • Aron says:

                  Patriarchy of old is not the ultimate model, the Bible is, and even in ancient patriarchy, you would find some amount of variety. Parents may arrange a marriage, but the daughter still consents to it at an older age. There’s nothing wrong with that. She is making an informed choice to join with her husband for life, and to live under his rule.

                  Despite current laws, millions of couples still successfully respect a man’s authority in marriage, and many use discipline regularly. The numbers could continue to rise. The faulty laws never touch it at all.

                  Certainly men need to rewrite the laws in the long run; however, Christians simply do not want to obey God in the first place. You could give them their own independent nation tomorrow, and they’d refuse to submit to God, and live as worldly as they possibly could.

                  A repentance for the nation, including a respect for male headship, needs to start with repentance in the Church. Try getting churches to respect gender. It doesn’t work any other way. Electing Republicans is a failure.

                • Dharmicreality says:

                  >She is making an informed choice to join with her husband for life, and to live under his rule.

                  “Informed choice”? You admit that women are capable of making rational choices and that if she didn’t want to submit to authority of husband she has the “choice”?

                  Certainly not the Jimian position. Seems that your whole dsciplining wife stuff is just elaborate roleplay.

                • Dharmicreality says:

                  >Parents may arrange a marriage, but the daughter still consents to it at an older age.

                  Thereby implying that if the daughter does not consent but “chooses” to be an independent strong womyn she can opt out of the marriage?

                • Anon says:

                  ““Informed choice”? You admit that women are capable of making rational choices and that if she didn’t want to submit to authority of husband she has the “choice”?”

                  Women are capable of “choice” preconditioned on patriarchal environment.
                  You are using gnon’s law natural argument “women has no agency and no capability of choice”
                  In religion women are “given agency, choice” by the patriarch.
                  Ex marriege vows

                • jim says:

                  The priest who cannot say “groomer” has bowed before the denunciation that antisemitism, sexism, and homophobia are wrong

                  No, antisemitism, sexism, and homophobia are correct, and biblically commanded.

                  If your sermon has the bridge between Christianity and the external reality in which we live, it is going to be “hate speech”, because the bible is absolutely full of “hate speech”.

                  To avoid being deemed an antisemitic sexist homophobe, the priest has to be fine with schoolteachers transitioning his flock’s children, the family courts destroying their marriages, and child protective services abducting their children and selling them to gay couples.

                  To avoid being antisemitic, sexist, and homophobic, the priest has to avert his eyes from evil that is grossly destroying the lives of his congregation.

                • Anon says:

                  sorry for barging into the convo.

                • Aron says:

                  Yes, a woman consents to being married. That does not make male authority “role play,” it rather makes it authority within a relationship that both have chosen to be in for life.

                  I find the model you are presenting is both unrealistic and unbiblical. Both man and wife make vows to one another. Both man and woman say — I do. Marriages are not forced marriages, but are made voluntarily by both man and wife. After that union, the husband’s authority applies.

                • jim says:

                  > I find the model you are presenting is both unrealistic and unbiblical. Both man and wife make vows to one another. Both man and woman say — I do

                  This was not in the marriage ceremony until the second millenium AD. There is no biblical reference to female consent being required. It is preferred, but not required.

                  The sacrament is not “I do”, but “with this ring I thee wed”. A unilateral male action. “I do” is second millenium.

                  And, by their fruits you will know them. The requirement for consent inexorably escalated from once and forever, to instant to instant, effectively abolishing marriage.

                  Christian marriage is based on Roman marriage, not second temple Jewish marriage, while current Jewish marriage is based on Christian marriage, not second temple Jewish marriage.

                  In Rome, a daughter could only legally refuse her father’s choice of husband under unusual circumstances requiring her to appear to the authorities.

                  Second temple Jewish marriage is a bill of sale – the daughter’s consent was not recorded or indicated anywhere on the bill of sale, though there is circumstantial evidence implying that consent was usual. If she got to choose, as likely she usually did, it was to the extent that the man of the family, who did sign the bill of sale, chose to grant it to her.

                • Mr. aron, you have not answered my simple question. Your implication that if the female doesn’t consent to marriage, she can opt out of it and choose to be an “independent strong womyn”. How does this make it different from modern “marriage”?

                  Your own position is that God’s law is optional (dependent on woman’s consent) so how is it above the modern man-made law on marriage?

            • Mayflower Sperg says:

              Consent is always moment-to-moment in the leftist religion, but this, like all sacred leftist doctrines, is selectively enforced. E.g. if you check yourself into a leftist monastery (which they call a “mental hospital”), you will remain there with or without your consent until leftist priests (whom they call “psychologists”) deem you fit to re-enter society.

              See also how quickly leftists flip between “my body, my choice” and “no jab, no job”. Leftists are always right because fuck you, we won!

              • Aron says:

                I don’t see how your evaluation of models of marriage shows you have a basis to define patriarchy as not involving the woman’s choice to marry. You are taking what you like, and avoiding what you don’t like.

                Patriarchy is not defined by what you pick out of the culture, nor are those things our basis for truth. Nothing in the Bible demands that marriage is essentially forced. It’s just not there. In fact in the few models in the OT that we see, it appears to be the opposite, as real desire is involved. It also is in stark contrast to the love, understanding, and meekness we are to have.

                One is not forced to become a Christian, and one is not forced to marry either. We confess BOTH with out mouth. We have the “I do” in the vows simply to emphasize one point — we are choosing to unite with our spouse. The “I do” seals it. Presenting a ring does not. But even if it’s not spoken, it is there implicitly in that the marriage is not forced.

                • Red says:

                  Patriarchy is not defined by what you pick out of the culture, nor are those things our basis for truth. Nothing in the Bible demands that marriage is essentially forced. It’s just not there. In fact in the few models in the OT that we see, it appears to be the opposite, as real desire is involved. It also is in stark contrast to the love, understanding, and meekness we are to have.

                  Women in a patriarchal system are filled with desire to marry because every man is higher in status than they are. They pop out babies like there’s no tomorrow because the sex is so good with that status differential.

                  But that doesn’t change the fact that women have no say in who they marry in the Bible. We know how patriarchy works from 5,000 years of written history. You’re projecting progressive values on the past.

                  The moment women get a say, you’re on a straight line to women being whores and marriage being gay.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  I am sympathetic with your position here, since it appears to something you have spent a lot of time developing in response to the most common criticisms you receive from a progroid frame.

                  But the basic problem with making the argument that female consent is important for marriage, is that it occasions arguments along the same lines for why female consent is important for everything everywhere forever.

                  Arguments over contract law and decision theory on matters far less important than the reproductive future of your species can already be mired knee deep in acrimonious dissimulation. The question of sex, family, and patrimony, is an ontologically massive body; such things whose gravity inexorably draws attempts at subversion in accordance with their gravity; any chinks in that edifice will never fail to find things devoting their whole lives in the trying to exploit them.

                  People naturally understand varieties of cases – like children, dogs, and felons – where meaningful consent is not applicable. And the argument is simple; they simply cannot be counted on to make good decisions on their own.

                  Can females of extant human species be counted upon to make good decisions on their own? Evidence suggests that the answer is: no.

                • Red says:

                  Can females of extant human species be counted upon to make good decisions on their own? Evidence suggests that the answer is: no.

                  Going back to Eve we see the the pattern that we continue to see today: She got tricked into eating fruit by a fucking snake and got her and Adam kicked out Paradise. She knew God’s law, she had been told she would surly die, and yet she choice to believe a snake. Women making decisions by themselves always courts disaster.

                • jim says:

                  > Patriarchy is not defined by what you pick out of the culture, nor are those things our basis for truth. Nothing in the Bible demands that marriage is essentially forced.

                  Piles of stuff in the bible demands forced marriage. If you do not have forced marriage under some very common circumstances, you are violating the spirit of the law.

                  If, for example, a woman bangs a man voluntarily, she has to marry him or be killed.

                  If a man forcibly abducts a woman, he has to marry her, or he will be killed. She cannot refuse him. Her father can refuse him (in which case the abductor, being willing to make it right but unable to do so, merely gets fined) but should the father refuse him, the father will be subject to social pressure by the priesthood. (The priesthood assigns him a rude name.)

                  A widow has to marry the appropriate kinsman of her husband, though he can refuse her. She, however, cannot refuse him. This was an issue in the marriage of Ruth and Boaz. After she spent the night with Boaz, Boaz paid off or intimidated the man she was required to marry. Or maybe that man did not want her because of where she had spent the night.

                • X says:

                  Actually, in every example of people getting married in the OT, it was an arranged marriage and neither the man nor the woman were consulted before (except maybe, ambiguously and with a lot of expectation and social pressure, in the case of Rebecca’s marriage to Isaac). Pointing out that “real desire is involved” in those cases is an oversimplification of the feminine sex drive, because as Jim has put it, women’s desire and consent is often opaque—even to themselves.

                  For a Biblical investigation of this subject, see
                  Vaughn Ohlman’s excellent 2011 book What are you Doing?

                  > There are thousands of Godly young people who want to get married, are ready to get married, and should be married… indeed should have been married long ago… who are not married. Their church, their friends, and their families have all prepared them for marriage, for early marriage, for early, fruitful marriage… and they are not married. There is no persecution, no law, there are no physical infirmities that prevent them from being married… but they are not married. This is not a ‘panic’, it is a crisis. We have many of the very best and brightest of our Christian young people who are already well past the flower of their age, and they are not married. That is beyond a crisis, it is a catastrophe. Scripture provides clear answers to this crisis: which we have ignored because they run counter to our culture. It is time that we began to take every thought captive to Christ, and throw off the chains of bondage to this world. It is time we ‘let them marry’.

                • Aron says:

                  No, authority is not “role play” just because one enters under it by a choice. That is a stupid assertion. The authority an employer has is not “role play” because his workers made a choice to join. The authority the state has is not “role play” because one can leave and join another state.” Nor is the authority a husband has “role play” because his wife is not forced into marriage, but assents to it herself. She chose.

                  You do not represent patriarchy, but are picking and choosing what you like from ancient history to suit your desires. Christian patriarchy does not involve forced marriage. There is a reason Christianity rejected your view.

                • jim says:

                  The workers also have a choice to leave.

                  This does not work for reproduction, because prisoner’s dilemma.

                  The wife cannot have the choice to leave, which means she has to be compelled to obey, and the husband cannot have the choice to stop looking after her.

                • The authority of employers under modern law is largely illusory and is subject to severe restraints by HR which is a wing of the State authority.

                  Likewise the authority of the husband is illegal as per modern law. Pretending to be subject to God’s law while using and sincerely believing in progressive comcepts like consent and informed choice is indeed “roleplay.”

                • Aron says:

                  You don’t have a single OT teaching that a woman has no choice in whom she marries. You don’t have single OT example of a wedding in which she even tried to reject it and was unable. That’s some evidence you would need.

                  The law of a couple which had to marry because he had taken her virginity is NOT an ordinary case. It’s an exceptional one. The same is true today: You should marry a woman if you get her pregnant. That rule is not the norm of marriage, and it also applies not just to a woman having to marry, but to a man having to marry. Using your logic we’d have to assume men could not choose to marry either. But your logic is wrong.

                  No one is being forced to marry in Ruth. Don’t even try it.

                  In fact in several OT examples desire is clearly present by both parties, despite the fact they are arranged marriages. Arranged does not mean forced. So at best you’ve got silence, rather than positive evidence. Then you have to ignore many centuries of Jewish and Christian writings on the subject to come to your odd conclusion.

                  If you respect someone as a human being, you respect their will and choice, except if they are doing evil. So you are indeed going contrary to Scripture when it comes to love and respect.

                • jim says:

                  > You don’t have a single OT teaching that a woman has no choice in whom she marries.

                  We have a pile of such teachings. You are not arguing in good faith.

                  Old Testament law prescribes that the widow marries the husband’s heir. It also provides for marriage by abduction, and in all marriages depicted in the old testament, the marriage was arranged by those in authority over the bride. The bride and her mother talked to them in private, obviously, as for example Ruth’s pillow talk with Boaz, but the marriage was in every case made without any public consent by the bride. The final decision was not the bride saying “I do” but the man of one family giving the bride to the man of the other family. Ruth did not speak at her wedding, and there is no indication she was even present at her wedding.

                  In the case of marriage of a virgin by abduction, the father, not the abducted woman, has final authority, but he is under social pressure to go along with the abduction.

                • jim says:

                  > You don’t have single OT example of a wedding in which she even tried to reject it and was unable

                  Ruth did not want to marry her husband’s heir. Boaz had a little chat with him, and he agreed to relinquish her to her mother, who then gave her to Boaz. But this was a deal between men. Ruth had no authority to reject him, and no authority to marry Boaz.

                  That is word of God. Boaz and Ruth are in bed together, and wish to marry, but they cannot marry, because Boaz does not have a property right over Ruth, and Ruth does not have a property right over herself. So Boaz has to go out and secure that property right from those who have it. At no time does Ruth receive a property right in Ruth. Ruth’s mother in law receives that property right from her son’s heir, and gives it to Boaz.

                • Aron says:

                  Using your absurd standards ALL authority is illusory. So drop it. If a husband’s authority is illusory because a woman chooses to enter into marriage, then a boss’s authority and a government’s authority are illusory as well. No one has real authority, making your point moot.

                  I have real authority in my home as a husband, and the fact my wife wasn’t forced to marry me doesn’t change that. You are being imbecilic.

                • jim says:

                  > Using your absurd standards ALL authority is illusory

                  Putting you on moderation for not arguing in good faith.

                  The authority of the state is real because it can take what you have at any moment, can imprison you, can kill you.

                  Your authority over your wife is unreal because she can take what you have at any moment, and can imprison you.

                  What makes your authority a larp is that your wife consents to it moment to moment.

                  An employee also consents to his bosses authority moment to moment but that is different, because the boss does not have a very large investment in the employee, and the employee does not have a very large investment in the boss. Children are a very large investment, so an investment that cannot be made without an irreversible commitment. Which means the wife has to be stuck with obeying the husband and having sex with him, even if she does not feel like it, and the husband stuck with looking after his wife and kids.

                  Patriarchy is illegal. What you are doing is legal, therefore, not patriarchy, but BDSM, which is a gay simulation of patriarchy. Maybe it is fun, but unlikely to result in the continuation of the species long term.

                • Neofugue says:

                  In my opinion, Anonymous has the right take. The tell is in Aron’s critique:

                  > If anything, I would guess you jump online to try and make Christian marriage or patriarchy sound trashy, so no one will want to have anything to do with it.

                  From my experience, this type of argument is indicative of a midwit prole who wishes to play brahmin. If Aron were an elite, he would denounce our ideas as “misogynistic” or “hateful” rather than attempt to condemn us based on, in his view, our vulgar approach. In truth, there is nothing more elegant than an aristocratic honor-bound arranged marriage.

                  No matter how smart they may be, proles are mentally children, seeking the authority of their ideological parents to legitimize their actions. Aron cites “Jewish Encyclopedia” and “Dallas Catholic Church” as, in his mind, who are we to oppose his “dad?”

                  Part of the charm of “Spanking Your Wife” is the abrasiveness of the title. If Aron were a prog, he would understand that spanking one’s wife is an unprincipled exception; however, perhaps his lack of self-awareness should indicate to us that his comments are ignorant rather than malicious.

                • Aron says:

                  [*gigantic pile of similar irrelevance from the bible deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  You just quoting piles and piles of bible to sound holy, not to make an actual argument. Deleted for wasting space and time.

                • Aron says:

                  [*umpteen screen fulls of very holy biblical text applied to toss the bible and two millenia of Christianity deleted largely unread.*]

                • jim says:

                  Unresponsive. This gigantic wall of text fails to respond to the specific points under discussion or the specific arguments I presented, but is a general all purpose universal rationale for worshiping demons and committing vile sins while being very holy about it, equally applicable to ditching anything and everything about Christianity that is contrary to progress, equally applicable to marrying gays in Church, transitioning schoolchildren, female priests, dumping superessionism because it is antisemitic, or forcing people to mask up and take the clot shot.

              • Aron says:

                Red, This is nothing but your own personal idea of patriarchy. Nothing in the Bible teaches it. You just presume it. In fact when we do see biblical examples of marriage, desire is clearly there.

                You sound like you’re more here to make patriarchy sound trashy, than to actually talk about it intelligently. Christians throughout the ages have sounded little like you regarding marriage, and Christian marriage has long included a verbal assent by moth man and wife.

                The Bible is the source of truth, not this or that period in ancient culture, although we can still learn from them. The New Testament shows faith to be something we believe and confess; marriage is a parallel to faith, and to our wedding with Christ. No once forces us to be a Christian. We choose, and we express that assent with our words. This is true of countless people today who would describe marriage and family as patriarchy — both man and wife assent verbally to the marriage.

                The idea of forcing marriage is also out of touch with the respect, love, and understanding we are taught to have in the New Testament, as is having a wife as mere property. She is honored, treasured, and loved. That’s not a “prog” value, but an ancient one.

                • Kunning Druegger says:

                  >The idea of forcing marriage is also out of touch with the respect, love, and understanding we are taught to have in the New Testament, as is having a wife as mere property. She is honored, treasured, and loved. That’s not a “prog” value, but an ancient one.

                  My initial charge has been thoroughly validated. While I continue to be a midwit at length, my gut level response is right on target.

                  Aron, going after the interlocutor or their “style” instead of responding to the argument is a bitch move frowned upon here. Refrain.

                  Here is a well articulated challenge from St. John to your position:

                  “the basic problem with making the argument that female consent is important for marriage, is that it occasions arguments along the same lines for why female consent is important for everything everywhere forever.

                  Arguments over contract law and decision theory on matters far less important than the reproductive future of your species can already be mired knee deep in acrimonious dissimulation. The question of sex, family, and patrimony, is an ontologically massive body; such things whose gravity inexorably draws attempts at subversion in accordance with their gravity; any chinks in that edifice will never fail to find things devoting their whole lives in the trying to exploit them.

                  People naturally understand varieties of cases – like children, dogs, and felons – where meaningful consent is not applicable. And the argument is simple; they simply cannot be counted on to make good decisions on their own.

                  Can females of extant human species be counted upon to make good decisions on their own? Evidence suggests that the answer is: no.”

                  Respond to this, and don’t waste our time on any “woe is me” or “you no talk nice” prevarication.

                • Red says:

                  >The idea of forcing marriage is also out of touch with the respect, love, and understanding we are taught to have in the New Testament, as is having a wife as mere property. She is honored, treasured, and loved. That’s not a “prog” value, but an ancient one.

                  You are a progressive priest wearing the skin suit of Christianity. I owned my dog and I loved him, took care of him, and put my life on the line to protect him. We had the proper relationship where I was his master. My Parents owned me before I came of age, and they loved, cared for, and directed me while I obeyed them, consent was not necessary. That was the proper and natural relationship. God owns man. His acts are righteous and just because he owns us and because he owns us he loves us.

                  Ownership is natural, healthy, and ordained by God. To dispute it for women is is heresy. You think ownership is evil because progressives think ownership is evil.

                • Seems that Mr.Aron doesn’t believe in patriarchy, so his whole “wife submitting to husband authority” is only roleplay.

                  We need to repurpose the Women’s question into Patriarchy question. Because he argues that men’s authority is only dependent on female consent, which is ridiculous on the face of it.

                • Aron says:

                  Red, Wrong example. Ownership of a dog certainly doesn’t involve the dog making a choice. Human beings have another nature. We see choice there, and we see desire there in the multiple examples of weddings in the OT. We also see belief and profession of faith present when a believer comes to Christ. It is that union of Christ and the Church which marriage represents.

                  Loving a human being, and respecting a human being as human (not animal), also involves respecting their will. Marriage is not by nature forced, but there is assent by both man and wife.

                  That’s no more “prog” than two thousand years of Christian teaching. Your view of marriage trashes Christian patriarchy, and makes it little different than some pagan culture you are drawing from.

                • jim says:

                  > Red, Wrong example. Ownership of a dog certainly doesn’t involve the dog making a choice. Human beings have another nature. We see choice there, and we see desire there in the multiple examples of weddings in the OT.

                  None of the old testament weddings involved explicit female choice, though the women were apt to manipulate behind the scenes, notably Ruth’s wedding.

                  Ruth did not speak at her wedding, and does not seem to have been present for her wedding, though her actions behind the scenes influenced the men who had authority to assign her as a wife to do what they did. (Boaz, after spending the night with Ruth, bribed, persuaded, or intimidated, the man who had the authority to marry Ruth)

                  The wedding of Rebecca and Isaac was decided by their parents, with neither of the parties being informed or present. Rebecca was subsequently consulted at the insistence of her brother, but Isaac was never consulted at all.

                  Plus, all of old testament law on marriage and family. No female choice – except that likely the daughter makes puppy dog eyes at her dad.

                  In the wedding of Ruth and Boaz, the man (name not recorded) who was closest living kin to her dead husband, and who thus inherited ownership of Ruth, relinquished his claim in favor of her mother, and her mother (who plotted the whole thing) gave her to Boaz. No “I do” involved.

                • Adam says:

                  Aron are you sure the desire in the biblical stories is sexual desire? Patriarchy is the suppression of hypergamy, increasing the status of cooperative males and lowering the status of females generally (they are more valuable but lower status). For lack of a better term, girls were groomed to be wives from birth.

                  So the desire can come from a number of things other than sexual desire. Becoming a wife raises a woman’s status, and is an enormous source of validation to the woman. Even if the man doesn’t necessarily ping the girls alpha radar.

                  Fathers are apt to choose men who would be good for the family, and I’m sure mothers play a role in that choice too. But the bottom line is patriarchy is successful to the extent that it suppresses hypergamy. And there is no question that females vastly prefer and are happier living with patriarchy than unrestricted hypergamy.

                  TLDR; Father and mother are more than capable of finding a suitable mate, and if not who gives a shit the woman still lives a better life and is happier (not to mention more holy and less sinful). Female sexual choice is an act of cruelty towards women.

                • Neofugue says:

                  > Loving a human being, and respecting a human being as human (not animal), also involves respecting their will.

                  Sometimes respecting a human being means restraining him from evil, because not everyone is mature or virtuous enough to be given responsibility over their lives and the collective should not suffer the consequences of individual wickedness.

                  As an example, children are not mature enough to choose their diet. If my son were to choose his diet, he would consume nothing but chocolate ice cream and ginger ale. It would be abusive and immoral for a parent to not regulate his child’s caloric intake.

                  Likewise, young women are not mature enough to choose their husbands. Letting one’s daughter play the whore, allowing her to do evil and permanently damage if not destroy her ability to pair bond, is not only cruel and tantamount to child abuse but also normalizes whoredom across polite society. If my neighbor prostitutes his daughter, I may not be able to find my son a virgin bride. If individual families are allowed to debase their daughters without the consequence of shotgun marriage, everyone in the collective is negatively affected.

                  If a young woman wants to be an empowered modern womyn, her father forcing her to marry by threat of private violence is his obligation to God, his obligation to his neighbor, and his obligation to his daughter. It is ultimately an act of love, one that she will thank him for in her old age, surrounded by her countless grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

                • Ok mr Aron, granting that you are an enlightened Christian patriarch and I being an oppressive backward looking “Pagan” why do women who are capable of making informed intelligent choices according to you require discipline and spanking from their husbands as per your own website?

                  What makes an intelligent choice capable woman misbehave and require such tough discipline if she is can make rational intelligent decisions to avoid such situations in the first place? Which rational intelligent being voluntarily submits to being under such authority?

                • ten says:

                  Aron says marriage necessarily involves the woman making a choice, id est no woman may ever be married against her will, id est no fault divorce.

                  You don’t get to jew around the making a choice part by going “hahaha you said yes that one time so NOW you’re stuck bitch”. Not gonna work, did not work, means no fault divorce.

                  If possible, marry your daughter to her prince charming, head over heels in love.

                  If that is not available, just marry her to some good dude.

                  If that is not available, we’re in trouble. At this point you, Aron, come and say that she must be free to whore it up, cause trouble, or get old and eaten by cats, because consent.

                  No. At this point, she gets married off against her will, kicking and screaming. Or maybe she wants to be a nun. If she already was whoring it up, not allow, otherwise, i guess nuns have their place too.

                  Look at the failure modes. Can’t have consent all the way down just because the prettiest marriages are lovey dovey. Gotta line up the whores on the beach and pair them off with the thugs, once and for all.

                • Aron says:

                  Consent of both parties is not some modern view, but is an ancient view.

                  The rabbis on consent in traditional Jewish marriages:


                  The Catholics on consent in traditional Christian marriage:



                • Aron says:

                  I’m not going to talk to three or more people at once, but you know very well you are arguing for your personal idea of patriarchy, and picking and choosing what cultural elements you include. It’s not Christian or Jewish. You don’t have anything in Scripture teaching it.

                  If anything, I would guess you jump online to try and make Christian marriage or patriarchy sound trashy, so no one will want to have anything to do with it. If that’s your purpose, you are doing a very good job.

                  A wife assents to marriage just as a husband does. This is parallel to how we come into Christ’s family, through belief and profession of that belief. All marriages are not forced marriages, except in your imagination.

                • jim says:

                  > I’m not going to talk to three or more people at once, but you know very well you are arguing for your personal idea of patriarchy,

                  The bible defines patriarchy. Three millennia of European practice defines patriarchy. We had patriarchy up to the early 1800s. That is what patriarchy is.

                  Old Testament law prescribes patriarchy, and Christian law must conform to the spirit of Old Testament law, though Church and State should make it up according to their particular times, their particular circumstances, their particular people, their particular culture, and their particular history.

                  What you are calling patriarchy does not conform to the spirit of Old Testament law, but to the spirit of gay BDSM. The patriarchy that we had until the early eighteen hundreds did conform to the spirit of Old Testament Law.

                • Adam says:

                  Mike Tyson said the best years of his life were the three years he was in prison. He finally had peace. No options, no temptations, just peace.

                  That is what patriarchy offers women. Her desire is her husband. Every day we see females driven mad by temptation. When women are property and hypergamy is suppressed, they are completely free to enjoy their lives, their husbands, children and grandchildren.

                  Female sexual choice in any case is a barbaric act of cruelty towards women.

                • Aron says:

                  [*Unresponsive and endlessly repetitious*]

                • jim says:

                  I say the bible says one thing, and quote old testament law and reference bible stories.

                  You say it says a different thing, but don’t discuss those laws and those stories.

                  I could just repeat those laws and those stories, but you would just repeat that they don’t say what they do say without any explanation.

                  The most compelling evidence is the law on marriage by abduction. The father can refuse, though there are adverse social consequences for such refusal, no mention of the daughter having right of refusal.
                  If the daughter could refuse, the law would have to explicitly provide for that situation.

                • Kunning Drueger says:


                • Aron in a nutshell: Christianity rightly understood is progressivism. Perhaps not so explicitly but strongly implies it.

                  He studiously averts his eyes from “horrifying” thoughtcrimes. He is strangely silent on why wives require discipline at all even according to his own worldview.

                  I have no business intervening but I wonder if friend Aron can pass the RPWQ. Maybe Jim or Starman can decide.

                • Red says:

                  I have no business intervening but I wonder if friend Aron can pass the RPWQ. Maybe Jim or Starman can decide.

                  No chance. He’s just a progressive priest wearing a christian skin suit, selling Christians a load of bullshit. I been dealing with these skinsuits my entire life who only redefine Christianity as progressivesm with Christian Roleplay . I disrepair at how easily normie Christians are taken in by them.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Aron believes in enemy memes, that doesn’t make him an enemy.

                • alf says:

                  Aron believes in enemy memes, that doesn’t make him an enemy.

                  Then Aron should not argue like an enemy.

                  He claims our views are not supported by the bible. Jim provides examples from the bible that support our view — most notably, Boaz and Ruth.

                  Aron has not addressed Jim’s example. Neither has he provided counter examples that support his own view. All I see is links to ‘the Jewish encyclopedia’ and the ‘Dallas Catholic church’, which like Aron confidently assert that “mutual consent is absolutely necessary in marriage”, but do not provide any biblical reference either.

                • Aron says:

                  No, you are wrong. The Bible does not “define patriarchy” the way that you do, with no consent for the woman. It defines patriarchy as male headship. That’s it.[*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  And if the woman decides that she does not want to have sex with her husband, or obey him, and wants to bang the broke musician? And then that other broke musician, and then the broke musician’s drug dealer?

                  Coercion is applied, biblically and in recently existent Christianity when a woman loses her virginity. We don’t want her to go on shopping around for the most alpha male who will bang her behind the truck in the bar parking lot until she is thirty six. She has to be stuck with one man, who should, if things are working right, be the first man she has sex with. Which frequently requires compulsion. In Australia in the 1790s, they found themselves with a whole lot of badly behaved single women, and proceeded to swiftly marry them off to complete strangers.

                  All marriages in the bible were deals between the father of the bride and the husband or the father of the husband. There was no “I do” in any of the bible stories. When Boaz assembled witnesses, they did not witness Ruth consenting. They witnessed her husband’s male heir consenting. Ruth’s consent likely mattered to her husband’s heir and to Boaz, but it was not required.

                • Aron says:

                  [*social justice warriors projecting*]

                • Aron says:

                  That is too shallow a claim to even qualify as a straw man. No one has said Christianity is “progressivism,” Rather, you are claiming anything that involves choice as “progressive,” even when it is ancient, and a part of biblical and Christian history. [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Unresponsive. We provide examples from Biblical and Christian history. You do not. You don’t reference what the bible says. You reference what twenty first century demon worshiping faggots say that the bible says.

                  I would be happy to have this conversation, but you just stubbornly deny that the Bible says what it says, and that Christian practice was what it was, without evidence or explanation.

                • Neofugue says:

                  From A Response to MGTOW Fears:

                  > It was not a feminist professor who turned them into filthy hoes, it was men who did that, over and over in the first place, and in a very dedicated fashion. Women are to be pure. Men should respect that. Men should protect them and protect their dignity. But many of the men complaining about women being unfit for marriage were whore mongers themselves. So you turn her into a hoe and then tell her you’d rather be alone. What kind of logic is that?

                  Classic rejection of the double standard. Women are sexless angels, all sexual immorality is the fault of men, et cetera. MGTOWs are despondent losers, but at least they are better connected to reality than Aron.

                  It took me less than five minutes to find this quote. My apologies, should have vetted him before writing about him.

                  Aron, assuming you in fact do have a wife, what’s her BMI?

                • Anonymous says:

                  How disappointing. He’s a conservadaddy.

                • @Neofugue. You’ve realized the issue. Aron ignored my repeated query and was strangely unable to explain *why* women needed stern discipline even as per his own worldview. He studiously averts his eyes from any crimethought.

                • Aron says:

                  That is nonsense and you know it.

                  You have not provided a SINGLE biblical passage that defines patriarchy as being forced marriage. The closest thing you have is the exceptional case of a betrothed woman who loses her virginity, but that is not the normal case, and would be a wise thing to do today as well. You have cultural references of arranged marriages, but that does not prove your case. You can’t cite me a single forced marriage.

                  If you CANNOT prove your version of patriarchy from Scripture, you need to acknowledge that its just your opinion, and you are drawing from culture where you desire, and ignoring it elsewhere. You have no basis to relegate everything but your opinion as “gay marriage.” That’s dumb and immature.

                  I have cited you both Christian and Jewish history, as well as pointed out the only explicit thing that Scripture teaches — the man’s authority: The man is authority in the home and in the Church. It is also the norm for him to lead in civil society, but women are not strictly prohibited from it. You go BEYOND what Scripture teaches, and try to create a doctrine out of your own interpretation of culture.

                  You also ignore New Testament evidence, brushing aside the fact that the believer comes to Christ in a relationship of personal belief and profession of belief. You ignore the call to love, understanding, and honor of the woman, whom you prefer to view as property. She is not property. The norm in New Testament leadership is gentle persuasion, even though authority and the rod can be used as necessary. That is clear NT teaching.

                  Even in the OT we have multiple examples of husband and wife both sowing desire for the other, but you still prefer to see forced marriage there. But keep repeating yourself endlessly. I will too.

                  You and the admin are both very immature.

                • jim says:

                  > You have not provided a SINGLE biblical passage that defines patriarchy as being forced marriage

                  I have done so repeatedly, and you just stubbornly deny.

                  Patriarchy requires that women be restrained from banging mister one in thirty till their looks fade and their eggs dry up, which means that women who misbehave must be forced to get married, and that women must be forced to remain with their husbands, remain faithful to their husbands, and have sex with their husbands, rather than with the musician and his roadies.

                  If men have all the power, they put women in harems. If women have all the power, they put themselves in brothels.

                  And I have provided plenty of evidence from biblical law, bible stories, and from Christian history that up to the 1800s, this was what was done. As for example the marriages on the docks in 1790s Australia.

                  Normal practice has always been that when a woman has sex, she is then forced to get married, preferably to the man she had sex with. And then forced to stay married. We cannot successfully reproduce if women are always free to shop around for an upgrade until their eggs dry up.

                  Deuteronomy 22:

                  20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:

                  21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

                  22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

                  23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

                  24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

                  25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:

                  26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

                  27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

                  28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

                  29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

                  Paraphrasing and summarizing the old testament rules on sex:

                  Female immorality: Death.

                  Fornication or abduction of a married or betrothed woman: Death

                  Fornication or abduction of an unmarried unbetrothed virgin: Shotgun indissoluble marriage, or death if you bug out on the marriage part.

                  Fornication or abduction of unmarried, unbetrothed, non virgin.



                  sounds of crickets chirping.

                  So, what happens if the abducted maiden does not want to marry her abductor?

                  Well, sucks to be her.

                  > You also ignore New Testament evidence

                  You fail to explain how the New Testament contradicts the old testament and two millennia of Christian practice.

                  You confidently asset that the Old Testament does not say what it says, even though I have repeatedly cited many relevant sections, and you tell us, without evidence or explanation, that the New Testament contradicts the Old Testament and two millennia of Christian practice

                • Aron says:

                  [*confident demands for biblical evidence already repeatedly presented far too many times deleted yet again*]

                • Aron says:

                  [*endless repetition deleted yet again*]

                • Aron says:


                • The Cominator says:

                  “If men have all the power, they put women in harems. If women have all the power, they put themselves in brothels.”

                  No women put themselves in brothels when they are emancipated but low status and don’t get favored by things like AA and welfare.

                  Women with all the power (the vast majority of them) chastely await Jeremy Meeks. And larp as lesbians and become fat ladies in anger when they figure out Jeremy Meeks isn’t interested. Ie exactly what we have now. In societies where women are emancipated but low status like Eastern Europe Latin America Southeast Asia etc are where masses of women are literal whores. Whore societies > clownworld and they tend to have at least replacement fertility.

                  Harems are the result of ELITE men having all the power and men lower on the totem poll having none. Women rather like this system in general its the vast majority of men who don’t get any women who don’t.

                • Aron says:

                  Jim, I don’t know why you keep deluding yourself that you have provided any evidence. Now you cite Deuteronomy 22, which does not have anything to do with forced marriage either. It has to do with punishing a woman for fornication [*deleted for shear obstinate and repetitious insanity*]

                • jim says:

                  Under biblical law, if a woman voluntarily has sex with a man, she has to marry him, or marry someone, or she will be executed.

                  If a woman is forced to have sex with a man, she has to marry him unless her father decides otherwise.

                  That is the plain meaning of Deuteronomy 22. Punishing female immorality means forcing women to get married. That is simply what it is. Female immorality is having sex with one man, then stopping having sex with him, because if she stops having sex with him, she is going to have sex with someone else.

                  If a woman has sex with one man, and thereafter stays with him, obeys him, and continues to have sex with him and no other, then that is marriage, marriage.

                  And, under biblical law, if instead she decides to go shopping for some man more alpha, death. Forbidding her from doing that that means forcing her to marry and stay married, because it means forcing her to stick with her husband on pain of death.

                  Punishing female immorality means forcing women to get married. (Well, they could decide to stay virgin forever and join a nunnery, but female nature being what it is that is not very likely. They are going to get nailed one way or another, and under biblical law they are then stuck with whomever they banged. Or failing that, stuck with whomever dad could dig up for them. Or, failing that, executed.)

                  Female immorality is refusing to get married. Punishing female immorality is forcing women to get married and stay married.

                • Aron says:

                  [*deleted for shear insanity*]
                  The fact that women could be executed for immorality does not mean women had to be forced to marry. That’s a wild leap on your part.
                  [*deleted for forcing a progressive meaning on startling reactionary biblical law.*]

                • jim says:

                  So if a woman, or, in the the case of an unbetrothed virgin who gets popped, a man and a woman, have a choice between being executed or getting married, she is not being forced to marry?

                • Aron says:

                  Jim, You are not having a real conversation here, due in part to the admin removing my replies because he sides with you. That is truly pathetic.

                  Passages from both OT and NT show the verbal assent to join in the covenant:

                  So Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before them all these words which the LORD commanded him.

                  Then all the people answered together and said, “All that the LORD has spoken we will do.” So Moses brought back the words of the people to the LORD.

                  [*more of the same deleted for irrelevance: The Bible speaks to men about women.*]

                  Acts 8:35-38

                  Both desire and assent in OT marriages:

                  So Ruth the Moabitess said to Naomi, “Please let me go to the field, and glean heads of grain after him in whose sight I may find favor.”

                  [*The problem however, that you ignore and fail to address, was that the one she wanted to marry, Boaz, was not her late husband’s male heir. So your point is again irrelevant.*]

                  [*deleted for similar irrelevance to the above. I allowed some stuff through to demonstrate your refusal to engage the biblical evidence.*]

                • jim says:

                  I am suppressing your material because it is a waste of space – you post scriptures that are simply irrelevant to the issue of patriarchy, or, when posting material from relevant biblical stories, such as Rebecca and Ruth, you simply omit the relevant parts of those scriptures.

                  Ruth desired Boaz. But her problem was that Boaz did not own her and she did not own herself. The desire and agreement of Boaz and Ruth failed to make the marriage. To make the marriage, required transfer of ownership, with Ruth’s opinion on the matter having no legal relevance. Her opinion on the matter motivated the men involved to transfer ownership, but she had no say it. Her opinion on the matter was as legally irrelevant as that of a dog.

                  Obviously if a dog wants to be with Peter, rather than his owner, Joe, this might motivate Peter to buy the dog, and motivate Joe to give the dog, but the dog does not get to decide, and Ruth did not get to decide.

                  Rebecca never met Isaac until their wedding night. Isaac was not informed of his marriage, and the only reason Rebecca was informed was because her brother made a fuss. Those are the parts of those stories that are relevant to the issue, and you post enormous piles of scripture from those stories, while leaving out those bits.

                  This is typical faggot demon worship. You think that great piles of scripture make you holy and righteous. No, quoting the right scripture and applying it makes you holy and righteous. Enormous piles of irrelevant scripture is just a hostile effort to waste the time and attention of actual believers.

                • Oog en Hand says:

                  “an ancient one”

                  Ancient China had age-of-consent laws. Ancient China had crossbows as well, obliterating their nobility ten centuries before firearms did the same in Europe.

                  I agree that forcing marriage is out of touch with the New Testament, because we have to follow the spirit of the law. Large age differences were the hallmark of Roman Paganism. For all his attacks on Paganism, Jimianity is awfully close to the very system that got destroyed by the sexual morality of the New Testament.

                • jim says:

                  > Ancient China had age-of-consent laws.

                  Ancient China had left wing holiness spirals which led to the collapse of their civilization, and long period of terrible poverty, darkness, and technological decline..

                  They were based on women from the fall of the Song Dynasty to about 1860. Pretty sure they did not have age of consent laws during that period.

                  > forcing marriage is out of touch with the New Testament

                  For all of recorded Christian history till about 1810, most Christians did not agree with you. Reflect on the marriage of William the Marshal.

                • Neofugue says:

                  Oog, why do you post graphic images of indecent homosexual acts on your timeline?

                  You are a massive faggot.

                  I have archived your post here:

                  Because the images are indecent, the link only contains a thumbnail of the post in question.

                  See you on the rooftop, faggot.

                • Kunning Druegger says:

                  fucking hell, is ever neopeggin’ a gay?

                • Aron says:

                  [*screenloads of demon worship deleted*]

                  The fact that women could be executed for immorality does not mean women had to be forced to marry. That’s a wild leap on your part.

                  In other cases MEN ended up being executed for immorality, but that doesn’t mean that men were forced to marry, does it?

                  [*Screenloads of demon worship deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  It most certainly does mean that some men were forced to marry.

                  Under Old Testament law if a man abducted an unbetrothed virgin, and popped her, he had to marry her. Penalty for failure to marry and stay married being death. I expect he “consented”, but Dad and Dad’s family were probably standing around with swords and spears. “Do you agree to marry this woman and look after her and her children by you all her days, or will we just kill you now?”

                  The difference, however, is that for men, this only applied to popping an unbetrothed virgin. Unmarried unbetrothed non virgins, no problem. For women, it applied to all sex with anyone.

                  In this sense, very few men were forced to marry, and almost all women were forced to marry.

                  So a few men were coerced to marry, and the vast majority of women coerced to marry.

                • Aron says:

                  Jim, You are a big coward. You cannot allow my material up, because it puts your wild claims to shame. [*even more repetition deleted yet again.*]

                • jim says:

                  I have let all your arguments through at least once. When you just keep repeating the same old same old, ignoring the point, or vomit forth a mountain of the same irrelevance, waste of space so I delete it.

                  I don’t allow you to present mountains of entirely irrelevant material from the old and new testaments, since you are just making a claim of holiness, not an argument. Waste of space. You worship demons.

                • jim says:

                  I have allowed every point that you made through at least once, and usually several times. What I have not allowed you to do is to unresponsively and repetitiously belabor irrelevancies at enormous and ever greater length when we have already pointed out their irrelevance.

                  The only points I see you making are:

                  1. that patriarchy is unkind, and the New Testament is kind, therefore the New Testament abolishes patriarchy – you posted a gigantic collection of New Testament stuff on niceness that I deleted largely unread.

                  By similar reasoning, New Testament requires gay marriage, female priests, Covid jabs, requires school children to be sexually transitioned and repudiates supersessionism Obviously we do not think that patriarchy is unkind, or that anything in the progressive agenda is kind. We think the progressive agenda is hostile, hateful, murderous, demonic, and ultimately motivated by desire to destroy all life on earth. The mask slipped badly with Peta, and fell off altogether with sexual transitions and the Jab. We think patriarchy makes woman and children happy. You could equally argue that forcing the jab on people is niceness, sexually transitioning children is niceness, gay marriage is niceness..

                  2. Rebecca and Ruth consented.

                  Rebecca consented to marry someone she had never met, because her dad made a deal with the servant of his father, and her brother made a fuss about it, and Isaac was not consulted at all. Obviously her father and Abraham’s servant did not think her consent necessary or relevant, or that her (or Isaac’s) opinion mattered. If her brother had not made a fuss, the marriage would have been as much a surprise to Rebecca as it was to Isaac.

                  Ruth wanted to bang Boaz. Obviously. She snuck into bed with him while he was drunk. Whether she wanted to marry him is never revealed. Probably she did, but this is irrelevant and not part of the story. Maybe she wanted to go on banging people like him. Ownership of Ruth is transferred from her late husband’s heir, to her late husband’s mother, and then to Boaz. Probably she thought this was a pretty good outcome, but nobody asks her. She does not speak at her wedding, and there is no evidence that she was even present for her wedding – Boaz and her mother in law told her to sit tight while they took care of matters, so it is likely that the fact that she was now property of Boaz was as much news to Ruth as the fact that Rebecca was now Isaac’s property was news to Isaac.

                • Aron says:

                  What are you talking about, Jim? [Repeated irrelevance deleted yet again.]

                • jim says:

                  The stories reveal that their consent was irrelevant. Nobody asked them to consent, and it did not matter whether they consented or not. And it is this part of their stories that you persistently ignore and refuse to engage. Which is why I delete your very lengthy replies as unresponsive.

                • jim says:

                  I made my point quite clearly, and I am not going to let you continue to sail right along as if I was making a completely different and unrelated point. If I allowed your comment through, I would have to respond by repeating myself yet again, and I have repeated myself far too many times, because you continue to sail right on pushing the same irrelevancies, over and over and over again, at ever greater length, refusing to respond to the points that everyone, including myself, keeps making over and over and over again.

                • Aron says:

                  Jim, So far all of Christian history until 1810 forcing a woman to marry was the norm? Wrong.

                  I have shown that to be false already. It is shown to be false by Christian history, which has included explicit verbal consent almost universally for much longer than 1810, [*more bunkum like this deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  If you don’t allow female sexual misconduct, you are forcing women to get married.

                  For example, in Australia, the authorities, shocked by the sexual misconduct of the female convicts, married them all off, and adopted a policy that when a new boatload of female convicts arrived, they would line them all up on the docs and marry them off, often immediately upon arrival.

                  The women doubtless “verbally consented” – because it was made clear what would happen to them if they did not. Also, after a long sea voyage, they were happy to be allowed a dicking.

                  It is the nature of women that they will have sex with the most alpha male they can get at, given the opportunity. If you prevent them from having sex with someone who lacks the ability or inclination to marry them, they will have sex with whomever you give them the opportunity to have sex with. If you then compel them to always obey that man, and never to have sex with any other, you are compelling them to marry.

                  They do indeed “consent”. Consent to get nailed. What they do not consent to, never really consent to, is to be denied the opportunity to get nailed by someone more alpha than the man who just nailed them.

                • Aron says:

                  Jim, You have failed to defend your two main claims — that consent to marry means that headship in marriage is not authentic authority, and that patriarchy essentially involves forced marriage. [*endless repetitious bullshit deleted yet again*]

                • jim says:

                  > that consent to marry means that headship in marriage is not authentic authority,

                  Consent to marry, consent once and forever, is consistent with headship in marriage being authentic authority. Consent that may be suspended at any moment, moment to moment consent, means that you do not have headship, you are just doing gay style BDSM. And unfortunately the idea of once and forever consent is not really part of female psychology. Having consented, they then need to be compelled, and they will forever cruise looking for the man that can compel them, till their looks fade,their eggs dry up, and they acquire numerous cats, who will eat them when they die alone.

                  Observe the women of the BDSM community. It is absolutely obvious that they are suffering deeply for lack of headship and headed towards being eaten by their cats. Gay.

                  > and that patriarchy essentially involves forced marriage.

                  Patriarchy means you have to prevent women from endless cruising for an upgrade. You have to forcibly suppress female immorality. If women are forever cruising for an upgrade, do not have patriarchy. Which means that when they bang someone, they have to be stuck with whomever they bang. Which means forcing them to marry and stay married. Patriarchy means you forbid female immorality. Forbidding female immorality means forcing immoral women to get married and stay married.

                  And this is what was done in Old Testament times and in every Christian society to the nineteenth century.

                  Again, reflect on the marriage of William the Marshal:

                  The King assigns a heiress to William the Marshal. She has a nice castle. She tells the King and William the Marshal to get knotted. William the Marshal lays siege to the castle. Eventually takes it, and gets to see the heiress close up.

                  Disappointed, he does a trade for the fiancée one of his men. These heiresses are virgins of good character. He then lays siege to mansion of the fiancée he has traded for, and takes it by personal storm, engaging in single combat with her guardian. At the age of forty three, acquires the seventeen year old heiress and her mansion, which is the start of his eventually substantial fortune.

                  Women of bad character got considerably rougher treatment…

                  Which rough treatment was necessary to discourage bad behavior.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  As a Twitter Woman once famously opined: “how can I be expected to make promises if I don’t know how I will feel in the future?’

              • Yul Bornhold says:

                “Spanking your Wife” is a fetish larp, not an actual account of anyone’s marriage. You can tell because it has goofy stories like “I told my wife to take a bath with another woman. She resisted, so I spanked her.” The terminology is also often the same as that used by BDSM.

                • jim says:

                  Gay BDSM, not patriarchy, Christian or otherwise. I suspect an incel.

                • alf says:

                  Aron claims to have a wife and five kids on his blog.

                  What confuses me is that he can’t possibly practice what he preaches — correcting female misbehavior goes without her consent. Has to, otherwise her misbehavior will come to include non-consent with the spanking.
                  ‘babe time for your spanking ‘
                  – ‘no I’m not feeling like it.’

                  Sidenote, I discussed this with miss Alf. At first she somewhat sided with Aron: a woman should have a say in the matter! But women always have a say in the matter. The story of Boaz and Ruth shows this: Ruth did not want to marry the first man, and through Boaz she got what she wanted. Even though the matter was publicly settled by Boaz and that man, behind the scenes Ruth excercised plenty of influence.

                • Dharmicreality says:

                  Aron studiously avoids the crime thought of discussing *why* women need correcting and focuses exclusively on the *how* on his website. Lots of description of ritualized stuff there, many aspects to roleplay and the way he repeatedly keeps insisting that it’s not bdsm. Also the kind of writing seems to be addressed to horny females (going by his comments section) rather than a male audience.

                  Jim’s intuition seems right.

                • alf says:

                  Also the kind of writing seems to be addressed to horny females

                  Yes absolutely.

                  For instance, , here, Lisa posts an entire fan-fic on how she imagines getting spanked. Highlights include:

                  But do I really want this? Isn’t it just fantasy? I don’t think so, I think…. As I look at his strong forearms and his big hands. I want them to caress me, to caress me, to hold and knead my body. But I also want them to squeeze me, to slap me, to feel his masculinity and aggression.


                  . After a few more slaps, Christiaan slides up my skirt. He slaps my buttocks a few times with my pantyhose still on. I already feel this a little more. I moan once.

                  (the bdsm man in 50 shades is also called Christian — I’m sure this is just a coincidence.)

                  and finally:

                  I can’t help but feel the sensation penetrate further, too, and I feel myself getting wet, despite (or maybe because of) his hand coming down on my buttocks.

                  hm hm you go girl.

                  Now you might wonder, how will Aron ‘spanking is not a fetish!’ Husband respond to this? I got you fam:

                  Thank you for visiting the website. I’m glad you can see the value that submission and discipline hold for you. It really is powerful and touches the soul.

                  I think your writing is very good.

                  It sure is Aron, it sure is.

                • Dharmicreality says:

                  @alf, lmao 🤣

                • Neofugue says:

                  > I’m glad you can see the value that submission and discipline hold for you. It really is powerful and touches the soul

                  > touches the soul

                  > touches

                  Not quite sure it’s the soul that’s being “touched” here…

                • The Cominator says:

                  Hitting a girl as correction is different from spanking as foreplay.

                  Women wanting to be spanked as foreplay and choked during sex is normal its not universal and the intensity of which they like it done varies but its over 90% of them. Normie women are hesitant to tell you sometimes especially about choking…

                  Strippers not being so restrained will more often than not tell you to choke them about 5-60 seconds after you start fucking them.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  >Hitting a girl as correction is different from spanking as foreplay.

                  Not from the girl’s perspective. Authority that a woman respects, and authority that a woman is turned on by, are more or less the same thing.

                  Men respond to danger by trying to fight or flee from the danger; women respond to danger by offering to fuck the danger.

                  The state of perceiving herself as being unowned by a dangerous man is deeply distressing for a women; it feels like she is up a rapid without a paddle; like she is adrift in a storm without a rudder.

                  Women obey men that turn them on; and men that turn them on are providing a feeling of security; and what provides them a feeling of security is capacity for violence; the potential of violence; and inevitably sometimes actual violence, just to check, to reassure herself that she is still owned by a man with capacity for violence.

                  There is no point in a woman’s life where she will ever feel safer than when in the grip of a conquering chad holding her over the edge of a cliff.

                • Adam says:

                  >The state of perceiving herself as being unowned by a dangerous man is deeply distressing for a women; it feels like she is up a rapid without a paddle; like she is adrift in a storm without a rudder.

                  This is the mechanism by which females alpha widow themselves, and by which alphas end up divorced. It is not that OJ was not dangerous, as he consistently proved to her. It is that the woman felt unowned, as he no longer payed her any attention.

                  Betas fail shit tests and alphas fail comfort/compliance tests. Best way I’ve heard it described is to imagine a woman is teetering in a chair. When all four legs are on the ground she’s bored, and falling backwards to the ground is terrifying. They want to always be teetering back and forth.

                • Aron says:

                  That is false Yul. Spank Your Wife is written by a man living in a marriage in which he has the authority, and disciplines his wife. It accurately describes much about my marriage as well as my use of discipline.

                  Several life details are changed for anonymity, and I openly state that fact, but that’s the only difference.

                  As far as the comments, I am sure that some are fact, and some are fiction. I hear from many of the readers, and counsel some couples at length, so in some cases I am more certain than others.

                  But it doesn’t matter a great deal, as even people who pop online to share a made-up story sometimes happen to have a useful one. Comments of uncertain veracity are par for the course on the internet.

                  Some commenters are clearly bdsm people, but I allow that unless it’s very extreme.

                • jim says:

                  > That is false Yul. Spank Your Wife is written by a man living in a marriage in which he has the authority, and disciplines his wife. It accurately describes much about my marriage as well as my use of discipline.

                  I find this hard to believe. My marriage is biblical Every happy marriage is biblical, whether the couple is Christian or not. Biblical prescription works, nothing else works. You are tossing the bible overboard.

                • Aron says:

                  Since these are very one-sided conversations due to the admin’s censorship of my replies, if you really desire an intelligent discussion about the topic, write me at my e-mail, which is on the website.

                • alf says:

                  if you really desire an intelligent discussion about the topic

                  Then present an actual argument for your case. Quote the portion of the bible that argues for your case.

                • Aron says:

                  “I find this hard to believe. My marriage is biblical Every happy marriage is biblical, whether the couple is Christian or not. Biblical prescription works, nothing else works. You are tossing the bible overboard.”

                  Jim, that does not relate to anything I just said to Yul. I spoke of the fact the website is real, it describes a real authentic life. Comments sometimes do and sometimes don’t. Bdsm people appear there, but don’t represent the majority of comments.

                • jim says:

                  > > > That is false Yul. Spank Your Wife is written by a man living in a marriage in which he has the authority, and disciplines his wife. It accurately describes much about my marriage as well as my use of discipline

                  > > “I find this hard to believe. My marriage is biblical Every happy marriage is biblical, whether the couple is Christian or not. Biblical prescription works, nothing else works. You are tossing the bible overboard.”

                  > Jim, that does not relate to anything I just said to Yul

                  You tell me the bible does not say what it says and does not mean what it means. BDSM is male authority by the moment to moment consent of the female, which is not patriarchy, it is a fake gay substitute for patriarchy, with evil results similar to faggotry. Just look at the BDSM community, simply obvious that it does not work. It is disgusting. They are disgusting, and full of childless women hitting the wall. Equally obvious, biblical patriarchy does work. Happy families, happy children, quite a lot of happy children, happy wives.

                  By their fruits you will know them. Biblical patriarchy works. The BDSM community is not as nearly as full of death and hatred as the gay community, but they obviously lean that way. It is full of bitter sad and angry childless women.

                • Kunning Druegger says:

                  >Spank Your Wife is written by a man living in a marriage in which he has the authority, and disciplines his wife.

                  The passive voice. What a fucking faggot. That site is BDSM literotica, through and through. It’s piles of shit with bits of truth mixed in, and previously, before Aron stepped on his own dick ITT, it was assumed that it was piles of truth with bits of shit added by larp-losers.

                  A valuable lesson here: it is good to let idiots come here and post their idiocy, as it will draw out other idiots. If the idiot is corrected, and acknowledges the correction, they are salvageable. If they do not, they are not. This ties into the ongoing discussion about Jab Status As Shill Test quite nicely, no?

                • Aron says:


                • Aron says:

                  [*denial deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  As soon as some of the material on your website was revealed to be fictional sex fantasies, a reasonable suspicion arose that all of it was fictional sex fantasies, that you are an incel wanking off to to softcore porn.

                  So, how do you dispel that suspicion? Simply denying it with added insults naturally makes people even more suspicious. To dispel that suspicion, you need to demonstrate knowledge of female nature, need to display knowledge of married man game and player game.

                  Which talking about “consent” fails to do. Women hate consent.

                • Aron says:

                  [*unresponsive. Insults and abuse are unpersuasive.*]

                • jim says:

                  Try responding to my response to your arguments.

                  I have allowed through all your evidence and arguments, often repeatedly. What I have not allowed through is you making fifty screenfulls of the same point that has already been refuted

  13. skippy says:

    I disagree with your (the whole movement’s) history on this and think it is very important.

    The first “church” to “disappear” was the Quakers. They were founded with a disbelief in marriage. They are the first sect to adopt the now common, once bizarre, idea that every social function is legitimized by moment-to-moment consent. They applied this to marriage and they steadily died out.

    However, they took others with them and succeeded in perpetuating themselves by “education.”

    The New England Puritans had very large, intact families. They were a Shtetl-like totalitarian theocracy based on Old Testament principles but they did have kids.

    The record shows that the Restoration Anglican establishment in England destroyed New England Puritanism before the American Revolution. They did not however set up Anglicanism in its place. Instead, they backed various local opponents, not least the Quakers, whom they did not regard as a threat. Wrong.

    The record clearly shows that the Quakers entered and undermined Puritan society, that they were backed by higher authority in England, and that they succeeded in destroying the Puritan society (not all lingering loyalty to Puritanism as an idea, but the actual society with its pastor-kings, its total control of women, and its high birth rates).


    “The colonial leadership was the most active in New England in the persecution of Quakers. In 1660, English Quaker Mary Dyer was hanged in Boston for repeatedly defying a law banning Quakers from the colony.[79] Dyer was one of the four executed Quakers known as the Boston martyrs. Executions ceased in 1661 when King Charles II explicitly forbade Massachusetts from executing anyone for professing Quakerism.[80] ”

    John Adams hoped that the American Revolution would allow him to *restore* Puritan government in Massachusetts. It did not.

    Moldbug’s history is wrong. The Puritans were not Progressives. The Quakers were Progressives. The Puritans’ political structures are gone. The Quaker political structures are still here (

    “Guided democracy” with a public participation constrained by a higher supposedly divine law is the Quaker Business Method and the West’s constitution –

    These people did not change their minds. Their politics and theology did not evolve under evolutionary pressures as Moldbug claimed of the Puritans. They just won.

    • The Cominator says:

      Good post imho.

    • jim says:

      Moldbug’s history is correct – in that Puritanism, being holier than thous, was vulnerable to even holier than thou elements. To what extent these were external entryists and to what extent this was yet another turn in the internal holiness spiral is today hard to tell and does not matter much.

      Sam Adams could not restore Old Type puritanism, because himself a progressive, trying to turn the clock back to yesterday’s progressivism.

      Whenever we look at year X progressives, we are apt to say “Oh, the progressivism of year X-10 was fine, it was peachy keen. And the Puritans of Sam Adam’s childhood were sane and good compared to the Puritans of the Revolution.

      Sam Adams turning the clock back to the relatively sane old type Puritans was as hopeless at trying to turn today’s leftism back to the relatively sane 1930s leftism.

      • skippy says:

        Moldbug’s history is wrong in the following respects:

        1. Moldbug believed that the Puritans, not the Quakers, conceived and executed the current neo-Protestant world conquest.

        2. Moldbug believed (he had to, as our current ideology clearly is not Puritanism) that the theology was irrelevant as such and evolved under evolutionary pressures to become whatever worked.

        Of these two, the second is the biggest and most consequential error.

        Quakerism was born the same as it is today (as the “Ranters” in the English Civil War). This must be so, because every true religion inspires true belief. The internal beliefs of any true religious group continue unaltered until they are destroyed by external forces or until they conquer the world. Moldbug, a soulless atheist, never comprehended this.

        The Puritans were Holier Than Thou in having no church hierarchy, and therefore were unable to use state force to protect themselves against the Quakers and against Great Britain.

        The Quakers were Holier Than Thou in believe in momentary consent as the only legitimizer or all social processes. But they had, and have, a central coordinating power, a hierarchy capable of unified action, determined by a “guided democracy.”

        As we see.

        • Red says:

          Moldbug believed that the Puritans, not the Quakers, conceived and executed the current neo-Protestant world conquest.

          John Adam’s wasn’t a Quaker. Quakers have been always more leftwing on the holiness spiral but never in charge. The only surprising things is that survived to the modern age while most of the Puritans have not.

          • skippy says:

            John Adams was a Puritan begging for the American Revolution to let him have a Puritan country back in Massachusetts.

            His begging was denied

            Moldbug would have you believe that Puritanism – a religion of decentralized Anglo mega-fertility – conquered the world.

            In fact Quakerism, a religion of moment-to-moment consent (denial of contract, denial of time preference) conquered John Adams, then the South, then the world.

            Those in charge have ALWAYS been more left wing than the public face. The public face performs the tactical role of appealing to compliant and gullible normies, not the strategic role of direction.

    • Contaminated NEET says:

      >The first “church” to “disappear” was the Quakers.

      You’re thinking of the Shakers. Very closely related, but the Quakers hate them to this day. The Quakers, unfortunately, are still very much around, acting holier than Jesus and backing every retarded Leftist idea you think of. I had the misfortune of being dragged to one of their services years ago.

  14. i says:

    The luxury fashion house Balenciaga, currently under attack for its recent ad campaign displaying images of children holding teddy bears in bondage gear, is the missing piece that shifts decades of leaks, puzzling news stories, and disjointed conspiracy theories into focus, and provides a picture of the criminal activity and depravity behind international finance and politics. The global elites are running an international sex trafficking cabal involving minors as a means of supplying incentives and blackmail for massive money laundering schemes. The Jeffrey Epstein affair made this clear, but it is Balenciaga that ties it all together, linking the Podestas, the Clintons, Epstein, the art world, the fashion world, and dozens of financial institutions into a network of collusion and extortion reaching to the highest levels of government and ultimately to the CIA.

    Is this real?

    Link here:

  15. […] The priest cannot say “groomer” and the churches are vanishing. […]

  16. Anonymous Fake says:

    The most conservative churches do not talk politics, business, or community at all. It’s just nothing but the sacraments and blessings and sermons about saints from centuries ago. And yet this works due to spiritual power, putting temporal issues absolutely beneath it.

    • jim says:

      I have been to those churches. Not conservative.

      If actually conservative, could call out serial monogamy and groomers.

      • The Cominator says:

        Any organization that does not make being explicitly right wing a part of their identity is going to be subverted to being left wing.

        Also AF is a papist, RCC being a Luciferian and false church the whore of revealations does not and cannot have spiritual power.

        • Ron says:

          Not enough. You have to concretely define “right wing”. Currently, the “right wing” believes in faggot rape as marriage.

          • jim says:

            The official Republican party believes in faggot marriage.

            It is completely obvious that if we had honest Republican primaries, none of those guys would get preselection. So in this sense, the normie right does not believe in faggot marriage.

      • grammarian says:

        You: native Russian speaker.

        • jim says:

          OK, I have not attended a Church where the priest speaks in Russian, and I have frequently remarked that Russian Orthodoxy is, behind Putin’s nukes, recovering Old type Christianity.

          Indeed, I believe this is a large part of the reason for the war in the Ukraine. The Global American Empire has been applying steady and increasing military pressure on Russia because it wants the Great Cathedral to fly the rainbow flag, and the monuments to the glorious dead torn down

      • Jimmy says:

        I think there are two groups talking past each other on this issue. Many of us belong to churches that do not address these issues from the pulpit, except for the explicit scriptural instructions, and yet the wives are submissive, the men are masculine, and the children numerous and faithful. They exist but they are relatively rare.

        “She should ask her husband at home” is practiced in these churches–that is, the fathers are real patriarchs that run the society within the body. It’s real. They are also sacramental churches–Eastern orthodox, trad catholic, anglo-catholic, Lutheran. You know the good ones by their fruit.

        There are still serious and based reformed bodies out there as well (I have seen many with my own eyes) and they are a little different. Like their puritan (or Swiss or Dutch) forbears, they have no Sacrament except for lengthy sermons, and they unpack a ton of political and social issues from the pulpit. Much of this is for the consumption and digestion of the wives. And that’s OK too. You know the good ones by their fruit.

        The thread that runs through all these Christian traditions is that 90% (99% in many cases) no longer believe Christ walked out of the tomb, therefore there is no authority behind the words of Christ and the apostles. They are dying out fast. But every tradition has a remnant. Faith in Christ manifests as attention and obedience to his commands and the commands of his apostles. And obedience manifests as intact functional families producing large numbers of masculine teenage boys and feminine teenage girls.

        We can all testify only to what we’ve witnessed, but we must remember that each of us only witnesses a small part of what’s out there. The church that reactionaries want for the future is here already, in a fractured, disbursed, embryonic state. Like spores. Christ told us that the gates of hell will not prevail against his church. It’s true–we just live in times when you have to look really far and wide to see it.

        • Jimmy says:

          Forgot to add: one big obvious piece of fruit that will mark a particular Christian body is whether they will marry someone who has been divorced in their church. It is so black and white (directly and explicitly from the mouth of our Lord), and yet so rare these days to find a body that obeys, that I would not hesitate to throw my lot (and that of my children) in with anybody who falls on the correct side of that command. It’s a great litmus test. There are groups that fail this test that are still somewhat serious and doing some good, I’m sure. But if you find yourself among people who submit on this unpopular issue, you are pretty safe with them.

        • jim says:

          > Many of us belong to churches that do not address these issues from the pulpit

          Well that is the problem. Lots of things “go without saying”, because no one dares say them. Everyone follows the unspoken and unmentionable unprincipled exception. Until they don’t. Because it is unspeakable and unmentionable.

          And that is why this post is titled “The priest that cannot say groomer” Evil just has to be called out, or else evil is going to win. You just have to denounce evil, particularly evil that smirkingly and gloatingly claims moral superiority.

          Leftism is entropy, and entropy always wins unless you forcefully eject it from the system.

          The priest should be able to call out evil that threatens the well being of his congregation for what it is. If he cannot, what good is he?

          • Jimmy says:

            Agree 100%. Again, I think we are talking past each other. I guess my point would be more simply stated: “every sermon a real Christian priest preaches will not be about the particulars of the current evil age.”

            Or: “when you are visiting a church, young reactionary, just because the priest doesn’t mention the particulars of the current evil age in his homily on the day you visit, it doesn’t mean he won’t call it out in another context or on another Sunday. Plus, there are other signs that will tell the truth about the state of both the priest, and the men who make up the local body.”

            I guess my larger point is simply that there are orthodox (small O) churches in America today, in every tradition or denomination, and they are quietly doing what they are are supposed to do (what the men commenting here are looking for). They are exceedingly rare, they are persecuted (often by their own organization) but they are out there. They are worth finding.

            • jim says:

              > I guess my point would be more simply stated: “every sermon a real Christian priest preaches will not be about the particulars of the current evil age.”

              But current evil is so pervasive, and intrudes on his congregation’s life in so many ways, that if he does not mention it occasionally, he is accepting it.

              • Jimmy says:

                Yes, I agree completely. It will come up at some point, one way or another. This is a time in which it is impossible to be a fence-sitter, and increasingly difficult to pretend to be one.

      • Red says:

        If actually conservative, could call out serial monogamy and groomers.

        One of the most disgusting things I ever witnessed as a child was my evangelical conservative church not excommunicating man and a woman who’d committed adultery together. Instead the church leadership had them stand up in church and apologize, humiliating the children of and spouses of both families who did not know it was . They should have been cast out and never allowed back in.

        Of course both continued to commit adultery.

        In a true Christian society they should have been burned at the stake.

        • Red says:

          humiliating the children of and spouses of both families who did not know it was that they were going to do that*

    • Western Taliban says:

      Organizations that put temporal issues beneath them go down under the pressure of the temporal issues. There is nothing more important in life than “temporal issues”, that’s what most of actual life is.

      What you claim is precisely what progressivism does, it pretends it’s above “temporal issues” and crafts a narrative that is detached from reality and all practical use. Detachment from real life is demonic, not lofty. When “temporal issues” are not important, well, men can ignore the “temporal issue” of their bodies and magically be women.

      Loftiness is born on a table full of every delicious food you can get, with a great roof over your head and a nice cozy fireplace to keep you warm. It’s built on “temporal” technology, “temporal” clothes, “temporal” appliances. You are lofty when you are rich, possess a healthy, strong powerful body with a belly full of food, a great family around you and even more friends to accompany you.

      Starving humans can’t even afford to talk about God and lofty morality, they’re too busy dying off.

      There is no such thing as spiritual power, you do or you die, with your own hands in the real world. The God of this universe is very firm about this and no amount of wishful thinking and self-delusion changes it.

      Your position is the position of the 21th century parasite that hasn’t really worked or done anything truly productive in their entire lives, and has never earned anything he has. A person who survives at the expense of the efforts, sacrifices and achievements of our ancestors who did not build a civilization with “lofty morality” and “spiritual power” but rather through sheer will and practical action. Blood, sweat and tears built that computer you are using to propagate your mental illness, not “spiritual power above temporal issues”… you’re not worthy of it.

      • i says:

        Jerusalem is a city located in the middle of a saucer with hills around it. So that when one worships at the Temple. One sees both Heaven and the hills beneath it.

        God is a God of Heaven and Earth. Jesus is the bridge between Heaven and Earth by being both Truly God and Truly Man. As Jesus himself said: “Man doesn’t live by bread alone but by every word from the mouth of God”.

        Theosis is the union of God and Mankind. With Mankind participating in the uncreated energies of God and hence share his divine nature(2 Peter 1:4). And hence not only share God’s Divine character but take part in his Divine Glory, Immortality, Perfect Beauty and Authority associated with that.

        Mankind as God’s Image finds its true Humanity through Theosis. As Heaven nourishes Earth.

        Better than the Ideal of the Immortal Olympian Gods.

        • Western Taliban says:

          I’m not interested on a theological discussion because my only link to Christianity are my ancestors, I wasn’t even baptized. I’ve read the Gospels, but I’m not on the level of being able to go cherry picking scripture to make arguments. However a man that doesn’t work doesn’t eat, and you know them by their fruits. You also go and kill faggots, and their blood is on them. This is all well known Bible.

          It sounds to me like Christianity 1.0 did not “live by every word from the mouth of God” as in some faggot on a pulpit pretends to be lofty and above “temporal matters” while robbing you and feeding his “dignity” at your expense. But rather, the “word from the mouth of God” was properly interpreted as Thomas Aquinas did, that reality and the “temporal matters” are the creation of God and we observe his will and get closer to him by being successful on the “temporal matters” and coming to learn more from the world, which is his creation. This is the root of science, men like Newton and Maxwell were very devout Christians, worship of God expressed through the acquisition of greater knowledge. I believe that Jim refers to this as Jesus Christ representing the Logos.

          The phrase “Man doesn’t live by bread alone but every word from the mouth of God” itself implies that the bread is important, just not the only important thing. This is not hinting to “temporal issues are beneath us” or “you are loftier when you starve” but rather, don’t get blinded by the bread and forget about everything else or you’ll pay for it, which is true enough in the real world.

          Since the dawn of humanity you can find quotes from intelligent people letting you know that the “loftier” someone pretends to be, the more demonic and evil they are. People that tell you to look away from “temporal matters” want to rob you and murder you, it’s a sleight of hand.

          The covenant is not “starve and die, food is beneath you”, the covenant is eat a ton, fuck a ton to have plenty of children, build a great nation and be prosperous in life. Jesus Christ did not preach for you to be “above temporal matters” and that “temporal issues are beneath you”.

          People that tell others that they will go to Heaven and reach higher heights through poverty, infertility and starvation are demons destroying them, theological claptrap doesn’t change a fact that is physically observable.

          • i says:

            @Western Taliban

            You may not be interested in Theological discussion. But bad Theology is the basis of “Skinsuit” Christianity and its fruits.

            You notice when they immanentize the eschaton. It turns out to be a classless, sexless egalitarian society.

            That’s because they hold Paradise itself to be an Egalitarian Paradise.

            Starting with Adam and Eve being equal. Despite the fact that Adam named his wife: “Woman” before the fall indicating his dominion over her. Hence Patriarchy existed before the fall not as a result of the fall.

            And you think the Scriptures don’t impact actual behaviors? Living by the word of God is to live by its guidelines among other things.

          • i says:

            Again the reason for my Theology. Is to show that Christianity. Has Earthly implications.

            If Heaven and Earth isn’t joined. Then beliefs cannot manifest as Righteous action. Like Justice and Mercy.

            If Heaven and Earth isn’t joined. Then to copy the Heavenly pattern on Earth wouldn’t happen.

        • alf says:

          A grave problem we are facing is inability among the Christian right to cooperate.

          A major cause of that inability is detachment of reality. That man does not live by bread alone does not mean that man lives without bread. Quite the opposite.

          Many Christians are so enraptured by their faith that they feel too holy to cooperate with those who are more practical about that exact same faith. This is the sin of pride.

          • Adam says:

            Seems to me priests need about as much attention from a strong man as a woman does. Priests have to be encouraged and willing to stick their neck out, to act heroic, to serve someone other than themselves. Without that oversight they just become nutless faggots playing it safe and serving themselves at the expense of their congregation.

          • Red says:

            Christians strange inability to notice or call out evil is kind of at the core of the problem. Being “nice” seems to be the core of their religion with of people who call themselves Christians.

            • jim says:

              Jesus, notoriously, was not “nice”.

            • jim says:

              It is complicated.

              Being nice is required. On the other hand, accepting evil is forbidden. The marriages and families of the congregation are under attack, and the attack has be resisted with mutual support. If the priest cannot say “groomer” then he is on the side of evil against the families of his congregation. So families stop turning up.

      • Kunning Drueger says:

        That was incredibly well written, Brosama

        There is a spiritual dimension to what you’re talking about, but I am the last person to try and articulate it. Instead…

        Dear Lord, our God
        Author of just and righteous vengeance
        Hold our brother Western Taliban in Your heart
        Reveal Yourself to him that he may be Your instrument

        Give us patience Lord of hosts
        Give us strength Almighty God
        Cool our bottomless rage into a steel that will not bend or break in service to You, the Protector of our souls and the Light that guides our steps

        Dear Lord, Jesus Christ, Son of God
        Have mercy on me, a sinner


      • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

        He who observes the will of God, becomes a part of God, assumes the power of God. The ways of God are the ways of Power.

        Yea, though i walk through the valley of the shadow of death, i fear no evil; for i am the baddest motherfucker in the valley.

  17. Kunning Drueger says:

    Purported coup foiled in Germany.

    Purported coup foiled in Peru.

    CritInfra attacks reported in Washington and Oregon.

    The fire rises. Acceleration is possible.

    Reddit spacing isn’t gay when I do it.

    • Jehu says:

      I hadn’t heard of the attacks in Washington and Oregon. Perhaps someone (likely plural) is attempting to summon forth a Caesar. Dunno if that’s likely to work.

      • Kunning Drueger says:

        It could also be a serial false flag attack, something designed and implemented to reintroduce and justify lockdowns, curfews, limitations on gatherings, raids, seizures, emergency powers, etc. now that Coronatarianism had lost its primacy.

        Not trying to be a wet blanket; I think Chad is an excellent option as I outlined elsewhere. But we have to be shrewd as serpents here. While Freddy Fedcuck may be a limpdick, nogunz faggot, the private world of security, espionage, and intelligence is far from fed-level incompetent. The bigger firms are converged, but the small shops and boutique service providers are a lot more free of HR strangulation.

        I think the metric that has the Cathedral most worried is disengagement/withdrawal from participation. The RNC and Republicans are buck-broken, but conservatives as a clade are being energized and vilified. Pointing out jewish domination of media, finance, and influence is fully in the Overton Window, but it has flipped sides and moved incrementally closer to the middle, by which I mean it has been possible to hear positions like the aforementioned for a long time, but it was fringe or comedic, or jews publicly rubbing it people’s faces. It is fast becoming an edgy thing for teens and a solidarity/possession thing for negros. There’s an interesting dynamic to this whole thing: jews have spent many decades building and expanding and cementing Negrolatry in the American cultural consciousness. Plenty of influential blacks are good little house niggers, ready to yassabossa jews and liberal whites with great enthusiasm, but blacks are singularly good at fucking up a good thing for themselves, so I think it’s possible the Kanye thing could have some pretty amusing unintended consequences, whether it’s a glowop or not. Imagine the 100% pure grain raw uncut ironic kekoldry if the kike class actually gets anudda shoah from their own pet pitbull.

        This circles us back to the point: just because PF is most likely a glowop, just because these CritInfra attacks might be a false flag, doesn’t mean it can’t accidentally blossom into something completely uncontrolled and damaging to the Cathedral elements that spawned it.

    • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

      The non-stop breathless coverage of the ‘attempted coup’ in Germany, is notable when juxtaposed by the deafening silence over any mention of the actual coup going down right now in Huezil.

      The polygon never reports on any ‘unrest’ it itself is not responsible for creating.

  18. Retired says:

    So the article talks about the misfortune of a dying Christianity but a segment of comments want to talk about getting laid and men being men by virtue of sexual conquests. I knew orthodox (lowercase o) Jesuit men who were manly men, and who were most likely celibate.

    • jim says:

      I don’t see anyone in the comments saying what you claim they are saying.

      Further, the article does not talk about the “misfortune” of a dying Christianity. The priest who cannot say “groomer” is going to hell, and that is why his Church is dying. It is not that they had a spot of bad luck, but that like the Nicolaitians, they sold out to steady low level pressure for steady small capitulations.

    • The Cominator says:

      Shilling for the Jesuit order lol… not going to work here.

      • Retired says:

        I can’t and won’t shill for the order today. Back in the day, more of them were good men, politically conservative, and orthodox in the faith. They knew the horrors of communism.

        • The Cominator says:

          Bullshit theyve always been pure evil and Tokugawa Ieyashu did literally nothing wrong nothing wrong they cant hate communism when they were behind communism they hated the Soviet Union because Stalin turned against them.

  19. Bill says:

    Christianity as we know is dead because it’s in the mainstream culture and majoritarian. There is no saving Christianity and there is no saving the culture at large in a majoritarian way. We all know it is all going straight to hell.

    The religion of the future is not going to call itself Christianity although it very well may and likely will contain all the Christian biological truths. It’s going to start as a small nepotistic minoritarian cult that insulates itself from mainstream degeneracy while respecting the power of the state as the Amish/Orthodox Jews do. Those in the mainstream are going to point at them and say “Wow look at those weirdos”.

    • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

      Pretty much every single successful large scale assumption of power in history by some group has been billed as the inheritor or regenerator or mandatory of some prior thing – especially notable in such cases where the former and later things have very little actually in common at all.

      The word ‘revolution’ itself meant ‘a return to a previous state of affairs’, and was not an unconscious choice of words.

  20. john seward says:

    I belong to Saint Patricks Anglican Church in Murfreesboro TN. It is packed every Sunday and growing. It is only watered-down, heretical Christianity that is dying. Good riddance.

    • Pax Imperialis says:

      Why are you doxxing yourself?

      • c4ssidy says:

        why should he not? It is fun for some people in some contexts. It is like a form of taunting. Light on a hill and all that.

        I listen to Faithful Word/Anderson church occasionally. They also seem to be growing

        • Pax Imperialis says:

          The link goes to a website with short bio with a picture of him. There’s also a large amount of personal information going back to 2004. Maybe the poster here really is Mr. Seward and it’s his risk to take, but maybe it’s someone else being malicious posing as Mr. Seward and trying to use guilt by association with this website to hurt him irl, or maybe I’m just being paranoid.

          My natural inclination is to be suspicious when the commenter starts off by dumping a large amounts of identifiable information and little else.

          • Kunning Drueger says:

            there is a number of things that could be going on here. pax has already covered a couple of them. We could also be dealing with someone who is a truly honest person and believes they have nothing to hide. You would be surprised to find that these people still exist. my experience, they tend to be tech illiterate from the bio available, this person is not one of those. It could very well be a case of absent-mindedness, and he put the link to his website into the comments submission form because he’s a high trust dude who follows orders when he’s in a place where he assumes everybody is following orders. I think this has been the case here at JB many years ago, back when there was a very wide array of different people engaging with Jim before things became what they were, which of course developed into what they are now.

            It could be an elaborate honey trap, as I myself felt very compelled to reach out to this guy. He seems interesting. so obviously, I’m pretty convinced this is some fed. bullshit intended to entrap starryeyed faggots like myself lol.

            The doxx policies in place are pretty simple and sound. to my knowledge, self-doxing is not proscribed. there are certain circumstances that I may find myself in wherein I will be sending out certain types of information, though I genuinely pray that that day doesn’t come. It’s an interesting and unusual case nonetheless.

            What do you think Jim?

            • jim says:

              I don’t trust namefags.

              Even if a namefag’s heart is in the right place, he will likely find it hard to follow his heart.

              Also, there is a great deal of hostile state sponsored entryism against Christian groups and organizations. The command was to be harmless as doves and wily as serpents – and a whole lot of Christians are failing to be as wily as serpents.

              • RMIV says:

                in the interest of being so wily, what would you say is important to do and then to do first? where would a beginner at this look to in order that he might become wily? and how much time should a beginner expect to invest in becoming thus?

                thank you Jim & Jimians for any guidance.

                • jim says:

                  > what would you say is important to do and then to do first?

                  Christianity had a problem with enemy entryists from the beginning, and in the beginning they required a very simple affirmation “Jesus is Lord”. Today, however, those who believe in Jesus the Jewish community organizer have no problem passing that one.

                  Entryists, however have a problem saying “Jesus Christ is Lord”, particularly in the context of the Nicene creed which affirms the eternity of Christ the Logos.

                  The worshipers of Serpent Christ (Jesuits, the Vatican, etc) can weasel their way through saying the Nicene creed, but it seem to stop most entryists.

                  Then there is simply checking the suspect for being based and red pilled. Christianity is antisemitic, sexist, and homophobic.

                  Yesterday I was reading on my computer screen the news about some doings of faggots in power, I got upset, stood up and walked away from my computer. Other people notice I was upset even though I was completely silent, and took a look at my screen to see what upset me, and a friend glanced at the screen, and then from memory quoted Leviticus 20:13: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.


                • i says:


                  The claim Jesus is Lucifer is disproven here:

                  From a comment:

                  The problem is that some Bible translations give Satan the title ‘Morning Star’ when translating Lucifer.

                  “Morning Star” is reserved for Christ. The correct translation for Lucifer, as you pointed out, is “Light bearer or Shining one“.

                  Satan loves to steal titles that belong to Christ.

                  Interesting that some (((translations))) give the title of “Morning Star” to Lucifer when that isn’t even in the text that its translated from.

  21. A2 says:

    Authorities do massive raids against the Reichsbürger movement, in Germany, Austria and Italy.

    30 places raided in total, 25 people arrested. Of some interest here, the target seems to be an authentic reactionary movement which does not recognize the various versions of Germany after deposing the Kaiser (I think), and which is led by a German prince. Mentions of QAnon in the article, so who knows what was going on beyond that it was obviously infiltrated.

    With just 25 arrests the org doesn’t seem big enough to actually do anything, such as a coup, so I’m guessing this is just suppressing the right wingers. Media appear to be downplaying it too, just nutters, don’t worry (but then why all the raids?).

    • Fireball says:

      25 people can be the start of a huge movement. If they are for real would justify all the raids.

  22. Jimmy says:

    You don’t evaluate the faithfulness of a local body by asking the adults questions. You do it by counting the well-behaved little ones. Even better: look for more than one teenaged girl who is modestly dressed, beautiful, and and articulate/engaging. That is a sure sign that the grace of Christ is at work in the body, making all things new.

  23. Robert says:

    I’ve been a Christian for as long as I can remember, been very involved in evangelical and baptist churches for last 15 years. What I have noticed is a big disconnect. My preachers have all been good about covering biblical principles of marriage, divorce, abortion, role of wife vs husband (not as good as i want, but not gay). Disconnect comes in one big area that impacts all this. Regarding young women; college, career, find yourself, even military is encouraged. Young women want sex/babies, we teach to wait till marriage, then tell them to push off marriage, it’s doomed to failure.

  24. Fireball says:

    Who is also having a hard time delivering pussy are the universities. I still remember the time guys that never saw pussy in their lives getting their first salary after finishing their degrees and getting very fast their first girlfriend. I saw the interval of first salary to first girlfriend grow over the years to today where there is nothing.

    • Adam says:

      Boys are only allowed to act like girls from a very young age. And as a man it is illegal to act manly in public. If by some chance you do act manly in public, it better be in the service of a woman or child, or a member of immigrant/sodomite/Jew/black class.

      Boys need to learn how to roughhouse from an early age and learn to navigate conflict with other boys both verbally and physically. If you can hold your ground when a man shit tests you, you will hardly notice when a woman does it. If you can command a man, a woman will be no trouble at all.

      • The Cominator says:

        Grown men should not shit test other men…

        • Adam says:

          Domesticated, feminized, demoralized men do not shit test each other. Manly men doing manly things that are very hard shit test each other constantly, and frequently go nuclear, with the outcome determined by who is the biggest alpha.

          Don’t you and your friends break each others balls?

          • The Cominator says:

            My instinct when having my balls broken beyond a very light level is to react like Tommy in Goodfellas. Maybe not with a gun but with violence… since you cant do this past a certain age lest you deal with legal troubles and doctors bills etc it should just be avoided. Teasing other men is mostly potato nigger bullshit anyway.

            • Guy says:

              Interesting observation Com. Us potato niggers always think it’s weird when a man doesn’t break balls, and think he’s weak, has no brothers ,etc…. but maybe it’s more cultural.

              Races who react positively to male on male ball busting: Vietnamese, Scots, Irish, Polish…. who else?

              • The Cominator says:

                Scots not as much, the Scot ball busting genes died out more as Scottish culture was to react to ball busting like Tommy from Goodfellas… rightly so.

              • Fireball says:

                I tough that “ball busting” was just an american cultural thing.

            • Kunning Drueger says:

              TC, do you have a group of male friends with high loyalty and deep emotional ties to each other?

              • The Cominator says:

                When I was in high school I did and I had some close male friends back home after that, but I moved cross country past the age when one easily makes close friends so currently do I have ones that I see regularly the answer would be no. I wouldn’t tolerate anyone as a close friend I thought was disloyal.

            • Adam says:

              If a man can upset you with words, your soft. I understand I’m todays world this is common, but it is not healthy. Just speaking of construction experience you better be able to take a punch and if you take any of it personally you are not going to last but a week or two. Testing the guy next to you is integral to achieve the results you need. It’s not meant to hurt you, quite the opposite.

              It only gets harder from there. If you can’t talk shit with the best of them your never going t be able to physically restrain or remove someone from the job, and it does happen.

              • The Cominator says:

                In adult life more than light ribbing (which I’m fine with) is rare. The kind of insults and harassment you’d get in middle school type years… really justifies borderline deadly violence.

              • Pax Imperialis says:

                >If a man can upset you with words, your soft.

                No. Words are used to convey intent. If that intent is hostile, it should upset you. If a man says something like “your girl will be a whore after I’m done with her” that should be rather upsetting. It should be upsetting enough that you communicate your capacity to use violence. If it’s not, there’s something wrong with you, granted that is an extreme example to prove a point.

                Often words are used without real intent behind them, and we are typically able to pick that up via body language and tone. In that case we are free to not be upset and even enjoy it. Using words without intent is shit talking. That’s not the same as shit testing. It is play fighting and not actual fighting.

                • Adam says:

                  Yeah. I mean the line gets kind of blurry some times. Especially under stressful conditions. The words shouldn’t bother you. The emotion if conveyed personally and directly as a threat absolutely.

              • Contaminated NEET says:

                “Ball busting” is for disarmed peasants and slaves. Free men who are capable of lethal violence and sanctioned to use it are touchy about slights and honor. Italian mafia and black gangstas have taken the norms from their peasant/slave days and brought them into a context where they’re armed and dangerous, and the result is a lot of pointless killing. Every single mafia movie has a scene where the characters are busting balls and laughing and having a good time, then someone takes a little too far and there’s blood everywhere. It is not a good norm for them. If it’s a good norm for you, it’s because you’re a slave and essentially harmless.

                • Adam says:

                  You may be right to some extent. I would add much of life is boring. Fighting is exciting. Most guys I know now and grew up with enjoy at least some level of conflict. Even most girls love conflict.

                  Fighting and talking trash has established the male pecking order since forever. General Buck Naked can talk shit with the best of them.

                  As I get older I very much enjoy my peace and quiet, and would rather guys get my attention by lining up in an orderly manner and calling me Sir, but we are not quite there yet.

                • Adam says:

                  Not to mention they guys who are too sensitive to engage in those activities, that’s your weakest link every time. He’s going to be the guy that drops the load or calls in sick when you need him most.

          • Redbible says:

            I think that Adam is using the phase “Shit Test” in a way that is not what is generally understood as “Shit Test” by the general manoshpere.

            In the general manoshpere a “Shit Test” is the opposite of a “Compliance Test”. In a “Compliance Test”, the way to pass is to do what you are asked. (Men should only give women “Compliance Tests”, and never “Shit Tests”.) On the other hand, the correct way to pass a “Shit Test” is to call “Bullshit” and NOT do what you are asked.

            A man should never “Shit Test” another man. Men Shit talking to each other, or giving each other shit on the other hand, is normal masculine behavior.

            • Pax Imperialis says:

              I’ve never seen men shit testing each other. Have seen and participated in lots of shit talking, but that’s 99% of the time all in good humor in contrast to shit testing which is never in good humor. Men will hold each other to standards, but that’s always direct and to the point which is also in contrast with shit testing.

              • Adam says:

                Happens all day on construction sites. Seven subcontractors all trying to use the same space at the same time… half the guys have criminal records if not convicted felons. Not to mention substance abuse problems. Including the superintendent.

                • Pax Imperialis says:

                  I’ve worked a seasonal job in a Trucking warehouse. Many guys with criminal records and substance abuse problems. High competition to get taken on as a year round employee. They don’t shit test each other. Having a hard time imagining that in construction when I know guys in that sector as well.

                  Define shit testing. I think we are using very different definitions.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I would think criminal felons and psychotics among each other would be LESS likely to want to give insult than normie men as people like that very well might kill you for insulting them and VERY LIKELY are to beat you up within an inch of your life.

                  I’ve seen shit talking but not shit testing in adult life… shit testing was more a middle schooler thing and I responded to it with violence unless the guy was much bigger.

                • Adam says:

                  It’s not always intentional but stress runs high and everyone needs the same space… it’s loud dirty hot etc… sometimes it’s words sometimes people just move your stuff, use your stuff, trash your work or otherwise disrespect you, talk shit to you etc.

                  Last time it happened to me was this summer at the shop I manage. One of my helpers had a problem with one of the new hires, I took him aside in the morning and once later before I threw him out of the shop. Didn’t have to put my hands on him he backed down at the last minute but was ready to. Owner was glad I did and thanked me as it was the right thing to do. Guy was way out of line.

                  I also got a helper he’s about 300 lb, 6-2 or 6-3, played 4 years college football and was a cop for a few years…we’re friends and all but the guy is a handful on a good day. He does what I say but he gives me hell for it.

                  Normal well adjusted white guys, professionals do exist they are just rare. I rather prefer peace and quiet myself but I am in the minority.

      • Fireball says:

        I think i never seen a man shit test another man and i never felt it is illegal to act manly in public. Except of course for such things as slut control that are extremely illegal.

        Either way men not being or not being allow to be mainly would never be the reason why universities cant deliver pussy to those guys.

        • Kunning Drueger says:

          It is 100% the reason. Universities deliver pussy buffet style to their star athletes and tenured professors. They used to do it for all professors, athletes, and above average students. The university system is collapsing, and it’s for the same reasons every institution is in decay.

          In human society, every question goes back to the Woman Question, every problem is the Woman Problem. Every time, no exceptions. If you can’t make the connection, you’re missing critical links/pieces.

          This is why the Faiths need to get correct on Evolution.

          • Fireball says:

            It is not. They cant deliver to the average men not because they arent manly because like you said they can still do it to the inner priesthood and this people arent manly but because they simple cant. And they simply cant because women have access to resources trough the state and bulshit jobs, are over educated and education has a terrible effect on women, and have slept with a bunch of bad boys. And after all of this it is basically illegal to have a wife.

            This are the problems are the practical problems that need to be resolved.

            • Adam says:

              If those men aren’t getting laid it is because they are failing shit tests. Pussy has to be taken.

              • Fireball says:

                No shit. So what are you going to say to them? Fail less shit tests?

                • Adam says:

                  Well, yes. There’s a whole body of material out there called game. I would start there.

                • Pax Imperialis says:

                  Universities are largely responsible for feminizing the K-12 experience. It’s university trained personnel that fill all the teaching positions and when the universities hate masculinity, the K-12 teachers will also hate masculinity. This has far reaching consequences.

                  Boys are not allowed to roughhouse in most schools. When they do, they get suspended or expelled. K-12 are formative years. People don’t change much after. A boy who has been prevented from roughhousing all his life is not going to be well adapted as a man. He will also likely not change outside drastic pressure.

                  A great irony is that traditionally recognized nerdy things like K-12 Chess have become more manly than K-12 football. The Chess teams often go to tournaments that occur far away from schools and are often coached by volunteers who are not on the payrolls. There is little school oversight even if they are happy to accept all the trophies. As a consequence, much roughhousing, shit talking, and underage rule breaking happens (shots of Bacardi 151 and broken hotel furniture). The football team was under constant supervision by school monitors. Forget rule breaking like drinking, they couldn’t even swear or even shit talk because it would be considered bullying.

                  When the chess team is participating in more masculine activities than a full contact sport something is seriously wrong. This is getting worse as many schools are removing contact sports for things like flag football.

                • Kunning Drueger says:

                  *Chad face in profile* Yes.

                  This sucks for us priests. We want elegant simplicity after structured debate and explanation. In this instance, there’s no other option but to pass shit tests. Terrifying and intimidating and inopportune though it may be, the only viable solution is the harsh commitment to fail no tests.

                • Fireball says:

                  @Adam @Kunning Drueger

                  So tell me if or when the wife of one of your friends cheats on him you are going to say the same to him?

                • The Cominator says:

                  Unless you have absolute proof my advice would be to keep your mouth shut.

                  Generally if people around the guy and girl knows shes running around with other guys the guy knows it too (probably know shes some bipolar bpd whore type) and doesn’t want to confront it.

                  Just tell him privately in a joking way we know her and what shes like, get a paternity test dude… don’t make explicit accusations without proof of that ever though.

                • Adam says:

                  I would tell my friend if it happened to him he is well within his right to Minecraft his wife and her lover and I would be glad to help him dig the holes.

                • Kunning Drueger says:

                  I don’t have friends, I have family, brothers, subordinates, bosses, strangers, and adversaries. I guess friends would be long lost brothers from youth? If I found out one of my brother’s wife was cheating, I’d tell him immediately and back his play. If he cucks out, I will reprove him and try to help; I’ve been cheated on, and I’ve been a prolific cheater, none of that shocks me and it isn’t unique. There’s always a way to do the right thing. If he does the needful, I will back him to the utmost while keeping my promises and obligations to my property and Master.

                  If I see a brother walking down a bad path, I say something. This has cost me greatly, and I’ve been hideously damaged by my own choices when supposed brothers saw what was happening and did nothing.

                  We live in a fallen and broken world. It’s always going to be easier to go along to get along.

      • JFL says:

        “If you can command a man, a woman will be no trouble at all.”

        just no. you are a keyboard warrior.

        • jim says:

          Women love to be commanded, and will obey when a man would be outraged or indignant. On the other hand, a woman is going to shit test you, and a man is not.

          So in some important ways, much easier. It certain other ways, its complicated.

  25. Fidelis says:

    Fairly sure the Franks and other Germanics converted through faith alone, and then converted others at swordpoint. My history of this is low resolution, would like to know more details if there are any worth sharing.

    Further, there is a huge Christian movement among the southern Chinese. I am not sure what it is that makes them so receptive to Christ, but in the mainland there are hundreds of millions of practicing, faithful Christians. In Taiwan, in Malaysia, Indonesia, where ever the southern Chinese diaspora is found you can find church services that would be incredibly familiar to an American southerner. It’s quite frankly jarring to witness in person, it’s the same church but in mandarin and with a Chinese congregation, on the other side of the planet, but heartwarming. The point I want to make is that Christianity is growing far faster here through conversion rather than through offspring. Perhaps in time we will see those specific parishes that favor wise family practice vastly outgrowing the others and the locals, but this is going to be a project requiring a century or so considering the sheer size of populations and the very small number of churches that successfully promote marriage. Well, I would say even the lukewarm churches are better than mainstream asian culture, and a small dose is enough to create a substantial differential, but the real history-making movement is in those churches that can provide the conditions for fertility levels not seen since the previous century at earliest.

    • The Cominator says:

      The kings converted to (generally Arian) Christianity and others converted to sword point.

    • Aidan says:

      What would happen is that a bishop would go to a pagan king, and convert him. The king would say “I can’t outlaw paganism yet, most of my people follow the old ways still”. So paganism would be tolerated, while public worship of pagan gods would not be. And then in a few generations, no more pagans.

    • Kunning Drueger says:

      Generally and most often without exception, higher races are converted by the swords of their own, lower races are converted by the swords of outsiders.

      In the context of China, the southrons are ever subjected to the northern “Han” on the mainland. So it tracks quite well that they would take up with an outsider method of coordination (American faith tradition).

      • Fidelis says:

        My chink history is fuzzy, but I was under the impression the actual ruling class recruited heavily from the south for military and otherwise leaders. Sort of like how Scotland was supposedly conquered by England, but went on to dominate the English political and colonial system.

        • Pax Imperialis says:

          South China is tropical. Tropical people tend to be less martial than winter people. When a people lives in an actual garden full of food, there is less competition over resources. Rain forests inhibit large scale agriculture which inhibits large scale civilization.

          North China is gets cold in the winter and is flat. It’s easy to farm, but easier to invade. You have to farm to create food stockpiles to survive the winter. You have to be martial to defend those stockpiles because they are so easily attacked in a land without natural barriers.

          Hence North China is martial and South China is not. South China has relevance because they have natural harbors. They developed into a mercantile people as they civilized.

          Historical China was ruled by the North. Modern China had a power sharing agreement where North and South rotated. Current day China is going back to historical China.

          • Fidelis says:

            Perhaps I am not being clear when I speak of “South China”, because the geography and people you are referring to are only a subset, mostly coastal merchant types as you say. I’m really speaking about all the land below the lattitude of say, Shanghai. Certainly not all of this is tropical, and I know for sure many great generals and admirals were sourced from this region. It is true that the land has been ruled from the Northeastern yellow river center since ancient times, but I will dispute with you that people south of Peking live a jungle nigger tropical paradise life.

            As an aside, rice based agriculture also messes with the general pattern of tropical people to be entirely disorganized and frankly retarded. The collective action problem of organizing and defending rice fields forces them to at least not be bantu, even if they never get to the ordnung of a winterized people.

            • Kunning Druegger says:

              This is me just pulling from Sowell, Zeihan, and a few other sources:

              China has three general regions: North Kingdom, West Kingdom, South Kingdom. The North is centered on Beijing, the West on Chongquing, the South on Guangzhou. The MO of Beijing has been to pit West v. South while they desperately balance water supplies to keep population stable through intense agriculture projects. This game has remain unchanged in its fundamental for many, many years, though obviously ideology and technology have had massive influence/impact.

              Zeihan asserts that the South would be more than happy to side with outsiders to defeat/upset the Northern dominance, and that the very existence of Hong Kong was an expression of this.

              I’m sure this is overly simplistic and rife with errors. If you want a real chinkologist’s perspective from the Proper Frame, dig into Spandrell, and tell him to come back here.

              • Fidelis says:

                Zeihan asserts that the South would be more than happy to side with outsiders to defeat/upset the Northern dominance

                This actually explains quite a lot. Met many clearly southern chinese now that were very happy to talk about american politics with me, in a way that most asians are not. They weren’t saying it out loud but the quiet message was support for american empire in the region, support for Trump politics. It also confused me that the chinese diaspora in Malaysia and Indonesia is at real risk of being genocided, yet they are not pro Beijing. In fact they are all Christianizing at a fairly rapid rate, while the brownoid bumi governments make moon eyes at Xi. An inborn instinct of resisting the imeprial grip of the yellow river people goes far in clearing up the contradicitons.

                • The Cominator says:

                  So is Xi ruining his economy deliberately just because the Southerners have done better under capitalism?

                • Kunning Druegger says:

                  That’s a good question, Com.

            • Pax Imperialis says:

              Shanghai is subtropical. It doesn’t look like that anymore because all the forests were cut down. By the time you reach the latitude of the northern tip of Taiwan, the whole stripe of coastline (plus a couple hundred km inland) to the south is outright tropical.

              >I will dispute with you that people south of Peking live a jungle nigger tropical paradise life.

              Didn’t say that. Laid out a general rule of thumb that the more tropical the climate is, the less capable the people inhabiting it can scale up civilization. South of Peking is tropical enough compared to the North that it is less martial. Some of the more negative effects of tropical living were mitigated by having a lot of good coast line and some great harbors. South Chinese are more sea faring and mercantile as a result.

              Shanghai (Wu) had a martial advantage over Jiaozhou (Shi Xie). Peking (Wei) had a martial advantage over Shanghai (Wu). Many hundreds of years later, Manchuria had a martial advantage over Ming.

              Northern climates favor longer time horizon preference (having to survive winter selects for planning ability) and more militarist advantage (being able to plan is a big factor) until it gets too cold for some form of mass agriculture.

        • Kunning Drueger says:

          There’s probably higher powered medicine out there, Fidelis, but I am a fan of Thomas Sowell, and his work on culture is excellent. Easily digested, copiously footnoted, readily convertible to tweets, comments, blogposts, and artworks. His analysis of middleman minorities helped de-radicalize me against jews (as much as possible lol) and his Black Rednecks, White Liberals helped me navigate my time in The Mist. Well worth a read.

          He goes into some detail about the Three Kingdoms that comprise modern China, and fully support what Pax wrote as well as elaborating further.

  26. alf says:

    I love how, when you put it like that, it becomes so easy and intuitive to understand. Running a well-functioning church does not have to be rocket science. Just run it in the spirit of what is outlined here.

    • Arkyshrugger says:

      The current pastor of our LCMS church talks constantly about the order of creation, bridegroom Jesus, bride Church, marriage follows the Jesus-church model, very Pauline. Our church is growing slowly versus shrinking, adding young married couples having babies. Occasional baby baptisms versus none before. He teaches against the LGBT horrors. Early in his call here, some members told him he wasn’t being “welcoming”. He told them they needed to learn more about church doctrine and Scripture. A few left, but most came around. Contributions are up and rising, our church’s ministries are local and growing. Remarkable, but maybe not really. Jesus truly is the truth, and the light.

      • Kunning Drueger says:

        That is so good to hear. Be ready for invasion/assault from the Adversary. Nothing draws the enemy quote like success.

Leave a Reply