The resurrection of God

Western Civilization has a great big God shaped hole at its center.

Nietzsche and Bronze Age Pervert had a go at filling that hole with something more manly than Christianity, but Nietzsche failed and Bronze Age Pervert is no Nietzsche. Bronze Age Pervert correctly tells us that the job now is destruction, but the left will destroy itself soon enough if we don’t. We need to prepare for construction once the left self destructs.

The Christianity of Constantine and Charles the Hammer was manly enough for anyone. We could do with the Christianity of King John the Third. Christianity tends to holiness spiral the sermon on the mount and the Good Samaritan, but provided you don’t holiness spiral, the Sermon on the Mount and Good Samaritan is entirely compatible with being a man. After you are out of cheeks you can beat the stuffing out of the bad guy.

If Christ is the incarnation, then he is, among other things, the incarnation of the logos, and interpretations of his words that give him meanings incompatible with game theory and evolutionary psychology should be treated as heresy. (Because the New Testament is politically incorrect, Game theorists are apt to neglect to mention that in a world of imperfect and asymmetric information, the strategy that leads to cooperate/cooperate equilibrium is one tit for two tats, rather than tit for tat. But even less does a strategy of zero tits for unlimited tats lead to cooperate/cooperate equilibrium.)

The death of God led to the death of western philosophy, summarized by Alf in his book “The Resurrection of God”.

“What does it mean to be a good person?”
“What does it mean to be?”
“What does it mean?”
“What does ‘it’ mean?”
Bertrand Russell
“What does it?”
C.S. Lewis
Lil’ John
Douglas Adams

And eventually to the death of science, for if there is no truth, what is science? You need to take the ground beneath your feet on faith. Build on the void, your buildings fall down. An individual atheist scientist can do fine science, but science as a collective endeavor, as a social endeavor, requires a shared belief in the pursuit of truth, and we just have not been successful at maintaining a shared belief in truth without God. Hence the reproducibility crisis and peer review, which replaces evidence with social consensus. Robert Boyle told us that if a scientist talks about consensus, he is likely dishonest, and, honest or not, is facilitating dishonesty. He who believes in consensus, has no regard for truth. Robert Boyle tells us that if a prominent expert tells you experts agree, or gives you third hand evidence, what they supposedly agree upon is unlikely to be true. The supposed expert consensus is being manipulated, and you are being manipulated. If the supposed consensus was not being manipulated, they would invoke evidence from primary sources, not consensus nor third hand evidence.

Alf tells us:

if man necessarily has individual faith, then what do we call shared faith? Well, we call it religion, of course.

I hope for Alf to be Archbishop under Holy American Emperor Trump.

The faith of Gnon requires adherence to law of Gnon, which requires, among other things, that people are required to see what is in front of their noses. If someone cannot commit, or even acknowledge, a thought crime against progressivism, they are not of our faith, but of a faith that intends our destruction.

The faith of Gnon requires confidence that God intends use to be happy, provided that we follow his laws, intends us to conquer the world and the stars, requires the white pill. If someone accepts the red pill but concludes the black pill from the red pill, concludes from the red pill that a wife and children that belong to him, in a home that belongs to him, will not make him happy, not of our faith. The black pill is gnosticism. The white pill requires us to accept the world of the fall, the world of Darwinian natural selection, and still be cheerful and optimistic about it. Every morning the dawn wakes me up, I squeeze my wife’s backside, and she makes me coffee while I watch the sun rise over the islands and the sea. Most evenings I check my fruit trees, then I sit down on my log in my garden, and watch the sun set over the mountains. Every few weeks, I get drunk with my friends. Is this a world that belongs to Satan? Is this a world ruled by Satan? Every dinner and most lunches I thank the Lord for my food, for the pleasant company with whom I eat it, and for the beautiful creation in which I eat it.

The faith of Gnon requires that we respect the lessons of old and successful social technologies – eighteenth century marriage, Biblical marriage, recently existent capitalism, and science as it was before 1944, that we think very carefully before dismantling Chesterton’s fence, and carefully monitor the consequences of dismantling, or failing to properly maintain, Chesterton’s fence, requires proper respect for tribal taboos and the copybook headings.

Cooperate/cooperate equilibrium between men and women requires indissoluble marriage, otherwise you get defect/defect. We need marriage vows and a marriage ceremony that reflects and respects the fact that humans are heterogamous organisms. Children need to be raised in one household by their mother and their father. One household requires one head of household, and if your marriage ceremony does not give this woman to this man, if the wife does not promise to honor and obey, to submit and reverence, you are not actually getting married, because you are not actually forming one household, you are getting gay married.

The faith of Gnon requires generosity and forgiveness, but generosity and forgiveness should not be unlimited, lest we empower evil. Charity begins at home, and we owe more generosity and forgiveness to kin, friends, neighbors, and co-religionists, than we owe to strangers in places we could not find on a map. We owe peace and goodwill to strangers of goodwill, but no more than that, and not everyone is of goodwill. Sometimes you have to go Old Testament. The New Testament does not cancel the Old, merely cancels the legalism that the Jews substitute for the spirit of the law. We are risen killer apes, angel and killer ape both, and we rose on a thousand genocides, as tribes of killer apes that cooperated more effectively wiped out tribes of killer apes that cooperated less effectively.

We should be peaceful to all men of goodwill. A few centuries ago Europe achieved a highly successful social technology for peace on earth, for avoiding terrifying and immensely destructive wars, which social technology which was lost during the twentieth century. That social technology was: Cuius regio, eius religio, the Peace of Westphalia. Interpreting “religio” broadly, that means that every country is entitled to its own ways, and that the current ruler should be respected even if he is not following our ways. The Peace of Westphalia aims for a world of sovereign and independent nations who protect their citizens, respect their neighbors, and honor the differences that make each country special and unique. When the Harvard and mainstream media priesthood call someone a “dictator” that means they are plotting to overthrow him and probably kill him, which is not very peaceful. Installing “liberal democracy” on the bloodstained sands of the Middle East on people unfamiliar with “liberal democracy” and demonstrably bad at it is far from peaceful. We should pay the rulers of alien countries appropriate respect and refer to them by the titles that they have managed to get away with, rather than calling them something that implies that overthrowing them and murdering them is good. We should accept each country conducting themselves in the ways that are particular to the uniqueness of each country. When the holier than thou priesthood of Harvard and the mainstream media support a violent, destructive, dangerous, and revolutionary faction in Hong Kong in order to install “liberal democracy” in Hong Kong, a system that the people of Hong Kong have never experienced, do not genuinely comprehend, and are clearly even less competent than ourselves to operate, that is an act of war by a nuclear power against another nuclear power. The state religion should be universal within the state, but should not impose itself outside the state, while maintaining collegiality and communion with the state religion of other states with a similar state religion. The state religion should never pursue or encourage the overthrow of a sovereign, unless its own sovereign has first declared war. Especially against a nuclear power.

682 Responses to “The resurrection of God”

  1. Nikolai J. Fuentes says:


    • jim says:

      Deleted for refusal to discuss Saint Paul’s explicit directive that Deacons and Bishops should normally or always be married with children.

      Are you telling me that Paul is saying that the priesthood should be composed of formerly married men who have abandoned their wives? That is what you seem to be telling me. If Paul’s words do not mean what they say, what then do they mean?

      Your method is to torture fragments of Paul into evil and madness, and then glibly assume that somehow his plain directive that Deacons and Bishops should normally or always be married with children can therefore be ignored, because blatantly inconsistent with evil and madness, that it must have some other meaning, which meaning you neglect to explain.

      Instead of holiness spiraling carefully selected fragments of Paul to insanity and absurdity, rendering them incoherent and making them contradict each other, and contradict our common sense knowledge of human nature, and our historical knowledge of how priestly celibacy has actually worked out in practice, let us discuss Paul’s explicit directive that Deacons and Bishops should normally or always be married with children. Let us discuss the texts that cannot be tortured into evil and madness, rather than only the texts that can be tortured.

      You assert that because you have made a plausible case that some parts of Paul can be given evil, depraved, and insane meanings, the parts that cannot be given evil and insane meanings can simply be ignored in favor of some other meaning never quite explained. This is backwards reasoning. Rather, because some parts of Paul have plain and clear meanings that are incompatible with evil and madness, it is obviously incorrect to give evil and insane meanings to those fragments that can plausibly be given evil and insane meanings, however plausible the argument for depravity and evil is for a few fragments isolated from the context of the whole.

      Rather, we need to first discuss Saint Paul’s straightforward directive that Deacons and Bishops should be married with children, and then we can look at fragments more amenable to text torture.

      You have hinted darkly at some alternate meaning of Paul’s directive that priests should be married with children, without actually committing yourself to any clear meaning. Tell us plainly what you think Paul is saying when he tells us:

      5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:

      6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

      7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;

      8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate;

      And when he tells us

      1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

      2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

      3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

      4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

      5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

      6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.

      7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

      8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;

      9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.

      10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.

      11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.

      12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

      I ask again: Is Saint Paul telling Titus to construct a priesthood of wife abandoners? If he does not mean what he says about the qualifications for priesthood, what then is he saying?

      If Saint Paul did not expect Titus and Timothy to do as directed, what did he expect them to do? Suppose you are Titus and recruiting a priesthood as directed by Saint Paul. What are the sex lives and sexual and reproductive histories of the priests you have selected? Do you think that after they become Bishops they stopped having sex with their wives and having children? Do you think Saint Paul would have been happy if Titus had instead selected a priesthood composed almost entirely of childless single men?

      If that is what you think tell me so, so that we can debate it.

      If Saint Paul is not saying what he says, what is he saying? If Titus and Timothy are not to do as directed, what are they directed to do?

      What is your text torture for these sections of Saint Paul? Are you telling me that if Titus had instead recruited a priesthood resembling the modern Catholic priesthood, Paul would think that Titus had obeyed him?

      I don’t know what you are telling me. I keep asking, and you keep not answering.

      Obviously first thing Saint Paul would have said to Titus would have been “Hey, that is almost the opposite of what I told you to do”.

      And, in view of his words on celibacy, the next thing he would have said to Titus is “How do you know that they are actually celibate, and not perverts having sex with each other in a great big pile?”

      Do you disagree? I cannot tell what escape route you claim to have away from what scripture and common sense command. I keep asking, you keep not answering.

      • Nikolai says:

        Ok, let’s debate this.

        “Deleted for refusal to discuss Saint Paul’s explicit directive that Deacons and Bishops should normally or always be married with children.”

        I explicitly discussed that verse in my comment. I can only assume you deleted my comment without reading it in its entirety. I’ll repeat what I said: St. Paul thinks celibacy is holier than marriage, but he allows married priests as a concession to gentiles who have no custom of male celibacy. If he sent Timothy and Titus to Greece looking for celibate men, they likely would not have found any, especially given that Greeks worshiped the sodomite Zeus.

        St. Paul isn’t commanding that priests should be married. “Husband of one wife” is a nice way of saying “no polygamists”. St. Paul is saying n<2, not n=1. When St. Paul talks about marriage he explicitly says (1 Corinthians 7)"But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. [7] For I would that all men were even as myself." And in the same letter he says (ch 11)"Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ." The perfect Christian is celibate, and St. Paul would never command someone to deviate from perfection, unless they were burning with passion and unable to maintain celibacy.

        "Is Saint Paul telling Titus to construct a priesthood of wife abandoners?"
        No, but it's worth noting that Jesus explicitly commends wife abandonment. (Luke 18) "[28] Then Peter said: Behold, we have left ALL THINGS, and have followed thee. [29] Who said to them: Amen, I say to you, there is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, OR WIFE, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake, [30] Who shall not receive much more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting." (emphasis mine).

        St. Paul or St. Luke. Choose! (/s)

        The apostles were the original bishops and they left their wives to follow Christ. There's no indication they remarried and Christ obviously wouldn't let them fornicate, so the apostles must have been celibate. Do you think St. Paul wouldn't have let the Apostles be bishops?

        "Do you think Saint Paul would have been happy if Titus had instead selected a priesthood composed almost entirely of childless single men?" Yes. As long as they were virtuous.

        "Obviously first thing Saint Paul would have said to Titus would have been “Hey, that is almost the opposite of what I told you to do”." Not at all. If my boss asked me to hire workers with high school diplomas and I hire workers with masters degrees, I did not disobey his orders. Rather I exceeded his expectations. St. Paul believed celibacy was holier than marriage and told his readers to imitate him in his unmarried state. He would've been ecstatic if Titus and Timothy found men similar to Paul. It makes no sense to claim that St. Paul didn't want celibates in Church leadership, as St. Paul himself was a celibate in Church leadership and the Church was founded by Jesus, a celibate priest.

        "And, in view of his words on celibacy, the next thing he would have said to Titus is “How do you know that they are actually celibate, and not perverts having sex with each other in a great big pile?”"

        I'm curious, is that the first thing that comes to your mind when you think of a group of religious men who are dedicated to celibacy? What do you think Christ and the apostles were doing in the desert? In any case, it's generally pretty obvious when a man is a sodomite. More often than not, you can tell within a five minute conversation. I'm sure Paul entrusted Timothy and Titus to discern whether a potential priest was fit for Holy Orders or not.

        If I may ask you a few questions Jim, you've often said that Scripture should be interpreted by the Communion of Saints. Do you still hold this position? The Communion of Saints overwhelmingly side with me on this issue. Why the particular hate of St. Jerome? All the Church Fathers agreed that celibacy was holier than marriage. Why no similar criticism of say Sts. Augustine, Chrysostom, Basil, Cyprian, Ambrose etc.? Did I miss a blog post somewhere?

        You claim that a married priesthood would've prevented the gay mafia. Seems obviously untrue to me. Why is every mainline protestant denomination with married priests 10x gayer than even the worst of Catholicism? Lutherans transgenderize their children, Anglicans ordain openly gay bishops, Episcopalians bless furries. The gay mafia actually wants a married priesthood because the gay mafia hates Tradition and thinks introducing reforms is high status.

        I'll close with one more Bible verse. Revelation 14 "And I beheld, and lo a lamb stood upon mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty-four thousand, having his name, and the name of his Father, written on their foreheads. [2] And I heard a voice from heaven, as the noise of many waters, and as the voice of great thunder; and the voice which I heard, was as the voice of harpers, harping on their harps. [3] And they sung as it were a new canticle, before the throne, and before the four living creatures, and the ancients; and no man could say the canticle, but those hundred forty-four thousand, who were purchased from the earth. [4] These are they who were not defiled with women: for they are virgins. These follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were purchased from among men, the firstfruits to God and to the Lamb: [5] And in their mouth there was found no lie; for they are without spot before the throne of God."

        • jim says:

          You still refuse to discuss Saint Paul’s words, instead just lying barefaced about what he said. That is not discussion.

          You are lying, and Saint Jerome is lying. And this is the last time I will allow a comment from you that refuses to discuss the words of Saint Paul on the requirements for the priesthood.

          Your method is to text torture tiny fragments of Paul into evil and madness, and then glibly assume that somehow his plain directive that Deacons and Bishops should normally or always be married with children can therefore be ignored, that because it is blatantly inconsistent with evil and madness it must have some other meaning, which meaning you neglect to explain.

          If you cut and past subsentence fragments of Saint Paul, as someone making a ransom note by cutting and pasting newspaper headlines, this is not discussing the words of Saint Paul, this is lying barefaced about the words of Saint Paul, and this is the last time I will allow it.

          You explain away “Husband of only one wife” as actually meaning “at most one wife, and possibly zero wives”,

          11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.

          12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

          Saint Paul demands demonstrated success at family and patriarchy.

          You interpretation of “one wife” only makes sense if you ignore everything preceding, then stop in mid sentence and toss “ruling their children and their own houses well” down the the ditch.

          Your interpretation makes no sense in the context of the whole sentence, nor in the social context of the time (Jewish polygamy, Roman monogamy but concubines and slave girls are fine) it clearly means one and no more. But OK, in the social context manufactured by the gay mafia, it could well mean “one or zero wives” as a four word sentence fragment. But not in the context of the entire sentence, and not in the context of the immediately preceding sentence.

          How do you explain away the requirement for demonstrated success at patriarchy?

          4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

          5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

          If some fruit is supposedly celibate, how can he “ruleth well his own house”?

          Answer me!

          No more cutting and pasting tiny fragments of Saint Paul to stand him on his head and turn him upside down. That is not discussing his words. That is lying about what he said.

          If you are going to explain away what Saint Paul said, you have to quote the whole sentence, and give an alternate meaning for the entire sentence, not an alternate meaning for one fragment of the sentence in isolation that ignores the rest of the sentence.

          How can some supposed celibate “ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity”?

          Answer me!

          How is a celibate “One that ruleth well his own house” even if he actually is celibate? And it does not seem that any church in the past couple of thousand years has been particularly vigorous about making sure that supposed celibates are actually celibate, rather than deviant.

          Again I ask:

          How can some supposed celibate be “one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity”?

          And again you fail to answer.

          You can text torture away “only one wife” to mean “at most one wife”, contrary to the plain meaning. How do you text torture away “One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity”?

          How do you text torture away “the husband of one wife, having faithful children“?

          The husband of one wife. Having children.

          The point and purpose of this directive is to insist that the priesthood is composed of men who have successfully demonstrated patriarchal authority. How does a celibate successfully demonstrate patriarchal authority?

          This explain why, in a society where marriage had collapsed, women converted to Christianity, as white Christian women are now converting to Islam. Instead of a dead God who will give them a “Season of Singleness”, they converted then and are converting now to a religion where the top alpha will give them a husband and children.

          The Christian Church, in order to perform its role as the bride of Christ, has to be a familist movement in its earthly mission. For it to be a familist movement, has to have a priesthood of men with demonstrated success at patriarchy. Chicks of all ages dig men with adult female pre-selection. Conversely, every Church dies about a century after the priests start pissing on husbands. The husbands stop turning up, and after century, no one turns up. The first to die of that was the Congregationalists, who were mighty big when America was young, And then attendance fell, and fell, and fell, and eventually fell to zero, and now every Church is dying of that. Anglicanism started pissing on husbands in 1928, and now they are on the verge of death, with nearly empty churches and what little congregation they have in their eighties and nineties.

          • Nikolai says:

            Simply astonishing. It’s like English isn’t your first language. Does reading comprehension just plummet after a certain age?

            I keep telling you exactly what St. Paul meant in the plainest possible terms, I keep showing you how your interpretation is inconsistent with St. Paul’s other writings and the Gospels and you just keep asking me the same questions as though I didn’t write anything. I’ll repeat myself for the umpteenth time.

            St. Paul isn’t saying a bishop or deacon must be a married man with his house in order. St. Paul is saying that if a married man wants to be a bishop or deacon, said man must, at the very least, have his house in order. St. Paul would prefer a celibate priesthood, but Timothy and Titus would be unlikely to find any celibates in Greece. I keep telling you this and you keep not responding.

            The lines you incessantly quote are not universal requirements for the episcopate, they’re concessions given a unique circumstance. You fight a war with the army you can muster, not the army you wish you had.

            If marriage were a requirement for priesthood, then Elijah, John the Baptist, John the Apostle and Jesus Christ Himself would be unfit to be bishops, which is obviously insane. Do you think St. Paul would have deemed Jesus unfit for the priesthood? And you tell me *my* interpretation doesn’t make any sense?

            “No more cutting and pasting tiny fragments of Saint Paul to stand him on his head and turn him upside down. That is not discussing his words. That is lying about what he said.”

            Textbook projection. St. Paul was a celibate man who was dead to the passions of the world, encouraged his followers to practice celibacy and severely admonished fornicators. And you imagine him as the leader of some sort of Epicurean fertility cult because you have two paragraphs where he permits married clerics. If you think I’m using “tiny fragments”, let’s debate the entire seventh chapter of 1st Corinthians.

            “The Christian Church, in order to perform its role as the bride of Christ, has to be a familist movement in its earthly mission. For it to be a familist movement, has to have a priesthood of men with demonstrated success at patriarchy.”

            This is just flatly false. The leaders of Christianity, Jesus, Paul and John were all unmarried celibates and Peter left his wife to follow Christ. We’ve had a celibate priesthood for countless centuries and the Church has been a familist movement in practice up until the past several decades (and it remains a familist movement on paper).

            We’ve all seen the Monty Python sketch: Catholics having a million children because every sperm is sacred while Protestants marriages consist of protected sex once a year. And to this day I see couples with 4+ kids sitting in the pews of my local Latin Mass. If anything a married priesthood seems to lower fertility.

            • jim says:

              > St. Paul isn’t saying a bishop or deacon must be a married man with his house in order.

              Well, now you are actually saying it. You were dancing around it, saying it and not saying it. And you are still reluctant to directly quote Paul’s words. Perhaps you fear you would burst into flames if you did.

              Can you directly quote Saint Paul? The devil can quote scripture to his purpose, but does so very very carefully.

              Paul said, as a requirement to be a priest or a deacon:

              4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

              5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

              And you are now flatly telling me he did not say it.

              > If marriage were a requirement for priesthood, then Elijah, John the Baptist, John the Apostle and Jesus Christ Himself would be unfit to be bishops,

              Rather, we could not know in advance that they were fit to be priests, and if we recruited new priests with the same background as them, some of them would be fit to be priests, some of them, quite a lot of them, would be unfit to be priests, and some of them would be members of the Lavender Mafia, sodomites looking for a job that gives them access to young boys.

              Saint Paul did not say “fire all unmarried priests”. Saint Paul said to recruit new priests from men who are successful at patriarchy.

              An awful lot of celibates have some terrible and unspeakable sexual deviation. Some of them, quite a lot of them are, despite that, very holy men who manage to keep the monster inside. But you do not know in advance which ones are going to keep the monster inside. Or even have any real intention of keeping the monster inside.

              Paul gave us this instruction, and then gave his main reason for that instruction, which reason today remains as relevant as ever it did. The priest is supposed to perform the social role of father, or a social role akin to that of a father. Therefore, recruit people with demonstrated capability to perform that role.

              Nothing has changed that affects the reason that he gave for his instruction. The priesthood should be recruited from married men with demonstrated success at patriarchy, in order to give us a Church successful at patriarchy. At which task our current churches are spectacularly unsuccessful, and Roman Catholicism has been failing since the tenth or eleventh century.

    • shaman says:

      When St. Paul told Timothy (1 Timothy 2):

      15 Yet woman will be saved through childbearing, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

      Did he somehow imply that a sexless, childless marriage is superior to a normal marriage?

      If “saved through childbearing” doesn’t mean what it says, what does it mean? Did St. Paul give any permission to husbands to sexually neglect their wives?

      (But before you answer these questions, answer Jim’s)

      • info says:


        “Did he somehow imply that a sexless, childless marriage is superior to a normal marriage?”

        This is what the Catholic church calls a “Josephine marriage”. Where each vow to not have sex for the rest of their lives.

        And this is used to explain the ever-virginity of Mary.

      • info says:

        “Josephite Marriage” actually.

  2. Random Alias says:


    re your deleting my comment (made as I_Never_Knew_That) above:

    >Deleted for repetitious claims of holiness that are forever beyond the capability of mortals to achieve, and a stubborn misreading of the gospels, which might perhaps be defensible in a different context, but is utterly indefensible when accompanied by, and used to justify, implausible proclamations of holiness.

    In fact the comment was deleted (I suspect) because it suggested a wager to Jim.

    He has called me a Gnostic many times, something I literally had to google a few days ago to discover what that was. Nothing like me at all.

    I suggested to Jim that we agree a wager on the subject, and he would win the wager if he could prove by quoting any comments here at this talk-shop of his that proved I was speaking Gnostic beliefs. I would win when he is unable to back his libelous claims. (I haven’t yet taken legal advice on the subject, but I suspect costs would be very high to the loser in such a case).

    It would need to be suitably adjudicated, as I don’t trust Jim as far as I could throw him.

    But his minions know now he ran away from a wager, and lied about why he deleted the comment.

    Anyone considering the value or truth of Christian faith is in the den of Satan’s supporters here, the modern wannabe Catholics.

    Jim, a weak lying coward.

    • shaman says:

      We don’t owe you our precious time.

    • jim says:

      regrettably, posts on religion tend to attract commenters that are stupid and floridly insane.

      • Attracting some insane commenters is not a bad thing, it is a sign that you are really outside consensus reality. OTOH the kind of commenter I don’t understand is that type that loudly announces that he despises you, that he despises people who agree with you and yet sticks around. WTF. It’s like disliking a restaurant but still keeping on going there to eat anyway.

        I don’t like thinking they are getting paid for it, too conspiracy theory-like, but yeah, people don’t do things they dislike in their free time without getting paid.

        • jim says:

          That some of them are unable to commit, or even acknowledge, thought crimes consistent with their hail fellow reactionary persona suggests that some of them are answerable to Human Resources, and troofers are obviously fbi.

      • The Cominator says:

        Every Christian religious tradition should be subjected to the “fruits” test in Matthew 7. The fruits of celibacy are consistent faggotry and evil plus the great evil of papism ultramonatism and thus the evil of priestly rule (the Papacy in its modern level of authority not existing until Gregory VII the great heretic of Rome whereas the Bishop of Rome was just a 1st among equals prior to him) as such we conclude that because celibacy bears bad fruit that a celibate priesthood is hated by god.

        • kawaii_kike says:

          If having married priests is the solution to faggot entryism then what does the Pope have to gain by potentially eliminating priestly celibacy?
          Is this just a stepping stone to ratifying gay marriage in the Church?

          • The Cominator says:

            “If having married priests is the solution to faggot entryism”

            I reject your “frame” here. There is no IF question here, it IS the solution to faggot entryism period. I’m not allowing tradcucks the false frame that there is any solution to faggot entryism that doesn’t involve eliminating celibacy.

            “then what does the Pope have to gain by potentially eliminating priestly celibacy?”

            As a non-catholic I love Francis because he has broken the very pernicious political influence of the Vatican by being an OPEN shitlib rather than a clever closet artful shitlib as John Paul II was (mr I’m anticommunist but you should open your borders and expand your welfare state). If he eliminates celibacy he’ll be really great.

            • kawaii_kike says:

              You say moralfagging and tradcuck so often that they’re starting to lose their meaning.

              I’ll never understand your particular hatred of the Catholic church. In terms of Progressive corruption it is no worse than any other Christian denomination. And don’t bring up the orphanages again, because whining about a bunch of orphans really is moralfagging.

              Giving warriors higher status than priests enables warriors to police the priests and keep the faggots out, then celibacy is possible without the faggotry.

              • The Cominator says:

                Globalism and priestly supremacy are innately part of catholicism as of dictatus papae. Orthodoxy does not have this, it only has the problem of celibacy but to a lesser degree than catholicism.

                Warriors would have zero interest in enforcing celibacy. Athletes often dont fuck or jerkoff before a game, and boxers and MMA fighters go for long periods celibate but in general a warrior type is going to think lifetime celibacy is just weird.

                Moralfagging about kids being tortured… Im okay with that.

                • kawaii_kike says:

                  “Moralfagging about kids being tortured… Im okay with that”

                  Is that a personal opinion or is it meant to reflect an official NRx position?
                  Please tell me if the following statements are correct:

                  1. Women and children are a man’s property.
                  2. A man can do whatever he likes with his property.
                  3. If he discards his property then anyone is free to claim it for themselves and do with it what they please

                  So in a reactionary state, should the government care if discarded property is claimed and then destroyed?

                • jim says:

                  The question presupposes an oversupply of entirely unwanted children, like rats, that a man with an intact biological family discarded his offspring in the street, but kept his wife, and no other kinfolk exist.

                  The case seems unlikely, and the question presupposes an argument for state intervention in families, which inevitably becomes state replacement of families – thus in at least some states, Child Protective services seems alarmingly hostile to intact biological families headed by and supported by affluent husbands, especially if Christian, and is apt to strike destructively on entirely frivolous and contrived justifications.

                  One could argue that the Reactionary Position is morally equivalent to that position – but the argument that the reactionary position is morally equivalent to that position presupposes facts about the family, human nature, society, and the state that Reaction vehemently disputes.

                • kawaii_kike says:

                  I suppose my question is a bit too hypothetical and relies on too many pressuppotions to be answered seriously but I was trying to apply the principles I saw in other comments.

                  “The question presupposes an oversupply of entirely unwanted children, like rats”

                  I didn’t mean to imply that there is or will be an abundance of unwanted children but rather wanted clarification on the reactionary position on fathers killing their own children and wives.

                  Jim you said
                  “There is no real difference between a child sixteen weeks after conception, and a child sixteen weeks after birth. If we can murder the one, we can murder the other.”

                  And a comment from NT:
                  “Right, this works like any other property law. I can park my car in my own backyard, smash it up with a baseball bat, pour gasoline on it and light it on fire. You cannot do that to my car, even if I was going to do it anyway”

                  So if a father can kill his own child at anytime without interference, then anyone with proper ownership and authority of their child can kill it at anytime. Because if a father can end his child’s life in the womb then he should also be able to end it at anytime in the future. I’m not saying that father’s massacring their own children will be a common occurrence but rather asking if I am interpreting and applying these principles correctly.

                  In the same sense that there is no state apparatus for stopping people from destroying their own cars on their own property, I assume that their will be no state apparatus from stopping father’s (or anyone else with proper ownership of the child, such as orphanages) from potentially terminating their progeny and starting over if they choose to do so.

                  Am I correct in saying that the reactionary position is that a man has absolute lawful authority over his property and that there will be no state apparatus from stopping him from potentially culling his wife, his harem, his kids, his dogs, and his goldfish on a whim?

                  comment from shaman:
                  “a husband killing the fetus, in his own wife’s womb, whom he owns — is likewise not murder, and merely amounts to the destruction of one’s own property.”

                  A man is sovereign over everything he owns and he can kill his wife and children with no external party questioning his justification for his actions regarding his property. A patriarch killing his progeny and wife isn’t murder but destruction of his own property. Just as God has total sovereignty over all of creation, a patriarchs household is a microcosm of God’s kingdom and he has total sovereignty over his property.

                  If the reactionary position is not morally equivalent to what I’ve described above then what is the reactionary position?

                • jim says:

                  Well, yes, but …

                  It is not at all the same thing as destroying your car. It is immensely different.

                  Obviously a man that did this without good reason would be a very bad man, and no one should trust him. But not every very bad thing is properly the business of the state. The problem is that stopping some bad things is apt to undermine the freedom of action of good and law abiding people to do good, and is not always very effective in stopping those bad things. Further, any intervention will be gamed, with the servants of the state using it for purposes considerably more questionable than stopping the evil that it was intended to stop – the current horrific, criminal, lawless and evil Child Protective services being exhibit A. The sovereign is apt to find that he has empowered the priesthood, and disempowered himself.

          • Not Tom says:

            I normally stay out of the deep theological discussions, but I clicked through and saw this:

            …we propose that criteria and dispositions be established […] to ordain as priests suitable and respected men of the community with a legitimately constituted and stable family, who have had a fruitful permanent diaconate and receive an adequate formation for the priesthood…

            OK, that’s interesting, sounds almost like it comes from Jim or Paul. But keep reading:

            …in order to sustain the life of the Christian community through the preaching of the Word and the celebration of the Sacraments in the most remote areas of the Amazon region.

            …and there it is. The author of the article (not the above quotes) says: “There is no reason to prohibit in other regions of the world what will be permitted in some parts of the Amazon.” But isn’t there? Double standards are part of the game, and this one would promote non-white fertility over white fertility.

    • jim says:

      regrettably, posts on religion tend to attract commenters that are stupid and floridly insane.

      Silently banning you from here on.

      I have already discussed the Gnostic heresy far too many times, and I am not going to debate Gnosticism all over again.

  3. RandomAlias says:


    >Both Scripture and logic tell us that God can manifest however He wishes – and He evidently did, including as the Logos, the Christ.

    If Scripture told us that God can manifest as He wishes, I’m sure you would quote chapter and verse.

    You don’t, you merely assert that it tells us.


    Your logic is like a flea on a rat’s ass compared to the power and glory of Jehovah, and He tells us that no man may see His glory, lest they die (scripture quoted above).

    Your continued argument with God Himself is instructive of your motivation, you are seeking to deceive, to lessen God’s majesty. You’re certainly a risk-taker.

    You fail miserably, in the same way Satan fails miserably. Try following the winner, and avoiding the lying loser, otherwise you face a terrible judgement.

    • shaman says:

      God can do whatever He wants.

    • jim says:

      Chapter and verse of scripture has been quoted at you repeatedly.

      Banning you for failure to respond, among other things.

      I banned the intelligent and thoughtful Nikolai for failure to respond when Saint Paul was quoted at him.

      He, unlike you, is capable of intelligent response. In the unlikely event that you intelligently respond, I will allow it through. I hope to see an intelligent response from Nikolai. Not really expecting one from you.

      Unresponsive posts from you will be silently deleted. Unresponsive posts from Nikolai will be deleted, but followed by a demand for response, but to my regret, he is not responding.

      • Nikolai says:


        • jim says:


          How do these people explain away what Saint Paul said? They just assume universal consensus that Saint Paul said the direct opposite of what he said, much as CR insists on interpreting me and Adam Smith as accepting Marxist theory lock stock and barrel, without attempting to give any explanation of why I supposedly agree with what I have just vehemently disagreed with. Everyone supposedly knows that Saint Paul supposedly said “celibacy”, and the fact that he repeatedly and directly said “no celibacy” is quietly dumped down the memory hole.

          Is their explanation internally coherent and plausible? Saint Paul did not commend celibacy over marriage. He commended self control, but noticed that it was not common, and therefore recommended marriage, an observation confirmed by the present state of the Roman Catholic Church.

          And supposing that he was commending celibacy, and claiming to himself be celibate, which is not how I read him, he unambiguously rejected clerical celibacy. Saint Paul tells us Bishops and Deacons should or must be married with children, and if married, should or must be having sex with their wives. If saint Paul was celibate, which I doubt, he did not want any celibates in the clergy, in part because of well founded suspicion that scandal would ensue, in part because he wanted demonstrated capability to successfully exercise patriarchal authority.

          Engage the words of Saint Paul directly. Don’t just blithely ignore him and assume that we all agree that he said the direct opposite of what he plainly said.

          Explain to us why Saint Paul’s words mean the direct opposite of their plain and direct meaning. Saint Paul tells us that clergy should or must be married with children, and married men should be having sex with their wives.

        • shaman says:


          As Jim says, conversations with you aren’t fruitless, unlike those with the schizophrenics, which is why we are having these conversations. It is unfortunate, however, that you insist that only the Catholic interpretation of Scripture is plausible, in much the same way that Orthodox Jews insist that only their interpretation of Scripture is plausible.

          The most reasonable interpretation of St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 is that he considers sexual self-control to be superior to sexual incontinence. If you have no active lust, says he, it may be preferable that you not marry. He then goes on to explain, in very explicit words, that while he personally has that kind of nature, people as a general rule do not, hence they should get married – lest they end up tempted by Satan. He does not advocate celibacy, he opposes celibacy, because people (who aren’t exceptional cases like St. Paul himself) cannot remain celibate without falling into sin.

          How do we know that St. Paul is praising sexual self-control, and at the very same time, tells us to get married and have sex with our wives, since otherwise we lose that self-control? Let’s see:

          Titus 2:

          1 You, however, must teach what is appropriate to sound doctrine. 2 Teach the older men to be temperate, worthy of respect, self-controlled, and sound in faith, in love and in endurance.

          3 Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. 4 Then they can urge the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.

          6 Similarly, encourage the young men to be self-controlled. 7 In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness 8 and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us.

          St. Paul is preaching marriage here, not celibacy, and he is telling men and women to have marital sex, and to avoid such things as adultery and sodomy. Women should “be subject to their husbands,” which strongly implies always being sexually available to their husbands. We see here no indication that St. Paul considers sexless marriages to be superior to normal marriages (in fact, just the opposite), nor is there any indication that celibacy is likely to result in anything positive.

          1 Timothy 4:

          1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.

          St. Paul prophesies through the Holy Spirit that in the future, “hypocritical liars” will arrive who will “forbid people to marry,” which is against the will of God. In other words, those who teach that being unmarried is holier than being married are comparable and akin to Judaizers who claim that avoiding certain foods makes you holier than if you don’t avoid them. St. Paul denounces both the Judaizers and those who teach celibacy, in the very same breath. These are the works of “deceiving spirits,” “taught by demons.” Prohibition of marriage, says he, is from Satan, as is prohibition of certain foods – cucks and kooks BTFO.

          1 Timothy 5:

          9 No widow may be put on the list of widows unless she is over sixty, has been faithful to her husband, 10 and is well known for her good deeds, such as bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the Lord’s people, helping those in trouble and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds.

          11 As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry. 12 Thus they bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge. 13 Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also busybodies who talk nonsense, saying things they ought not to. 14 So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander. 15 Some have in fact already turned away to follow Satan.

          Widows younger than 60 — yes, Nikolai, St. Paul says 60 — possess “sensual desires,” and consequently “want to marry,” which is exactly what they should do. Otherwise, says he, “not only do they become idlers, but also busybodies who talk nonsense, saying things they ought not to,” which evidently is also the case with all of the childless unmarried cat ladies we see today. That is what St. Paul explicitly tells us; he does not consider celibate women to be holier than married women, rather, the exact opposite is the case – St. Paul recognizes that fertile females (and even some recently infertile females) possess an overpowering sex-drive, and should therefore be married. Thus we read: “I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander. Some have in fact already turned away to follow Satan.” Once again, tells us the Apostle in no-uncertain terms, failure to marry is apt to result in Satan worship and Satanic practices.

          Hebrews 13 is quite conclusive:

          4 Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.

          If “marriage should be honored by all,” you don’t get bonus holiness points for celibacy. Otherwise, St. Paul would have said that celibacy should be honored by all, which he clearly did not say and did not imply.

          Again, in light of all this, the reasonable interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7 is as follows: “It would be better if everyone had the sexual self-control that I possess, being able to overcome lust at all times, or to not experience lust in the first place; and since that is emphatically not the case, marriage is excellent and good and commendable, people should get married and have plenty of sex within marriage, and should definitely not be celibate, lest they end up controlled by Satan.” This is a nuanced position, but it’s not all that very complicated, now, is it? The refusal of holiness-spiraling Churchians to see what is in plain sight has made their Churches into dens of jeering demons.

          • jim says:

            > This is a nuanced position

            When nuance is hit with a holiness spiral, nuance goes out the window – and with it, everything else Saint Paul said on sex, marriage, and the clergy.

            Single women make trouble because they are cruising for a dicking. They make trouble because they hope that the alpha will come out of hiding and demonstrate his alpha by giving them a spanking.

        • shaman says:

          By the way Nikolai,

          On whether God communicates with us by (among other things) revealing His Scripture to us, or through Tradition alone, the Bible itself provides a definite answer. I’m bringing up this point because people like you are likely to tell us: “Okay, even if your interpretation of Scripture is perfectly correct, and even if it’s a healthy and sound interpretation, I’m still going to follow the Tradition which I have received from my Church.” Well, in that case, you should at least know what the Bible says.

          2 Kings 22:

          8 Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the secretary, “I have found the Book of the Law in the temple of the Lord.” He gave it to Shaphan, who read it. 9 Then Shaphan the secretary went to the king and reported to him: “Your officials have paid out the money that was in the temple of the Lord and have entrusted it to the workers and supervisors at the temple.” 10 Then Shaphan the secretary informed the king, “Hilkiah the priest has given me a book.” And Shaphan read from it in the presence of the king.

          11 When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law, he tore his robes. 12 He gave these orders to Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam son of Shaphan, Akbor son of Micaiah, Shaphan the secretary and Asaiah the king’s attendant: 13 “Go and inquire of the Lord for me and for the people and for all Judah about what is written in this book that has been found. Great is the Lord’s anger that burns against us because those who have gone before us have not obeyed the words of this book; they have not acted in accordance with all that is written there concerning us.”

          Summary: The High Priest Hilkiah found a Book of the Law, the contents of which were absolutely unknown and unfamiliar to everyone in the Kingdom, except to a prophetess named Huldah (verses 14-20). There was absolutely no Tradition regarding this newfound Scripture, and therefore, if the people involved had been “Traditionalists,” they would have totally dismissed the text and forgotten about it, burying it in some library somewhere, or dumping it in the garbage. Yet, upon reading it, the High Priest, the Secretary, and King Josiah himself, were struck by the soundness and correctness of the contents, and realized that it was a legitimate Sacred Text that should be followed rather than ignored. So, the Book of the Law was thenceforth perceived as authoritative and the King ordered everyone to adhere to it (see: 2 Kings 23; 2 Chronicles 34-35), without any “Tradition” to affirm its authenticity. The text, as it were, spoke for itself; it suddenly revealed itself as the word of God.

          Nehemiah 8:

          13 On the second day of the month, the heads of all the families, along with the priests and the Levites, gathered around Ezra the teacher to give attention to the words of the Law. 14 They found written in the Law, which the Lord had commanded through Moses, that the Israelites were to live in temporary shelters during the festival of the seventh month 15 and that they should proclaim this word and spread it throughout their towns and in Jerusalem: “Go out into the hill country and bring back branches from olive and wild olive trees, and from myrtles, palms and shade trees, to make temporary shelters”—as it is written.

          16 So the people went out and brought back branches and built themselves temporary shelters on their own roofs, in their courtyards, in the courts of the house of God and in the square by the Water Gate and the one by the Gate of Ephraim. 17 The whole company that had returned from exile built temporary shelters and lived in them. From the days of Joshua son of Nun until that day, the Israelites had not celebrated it like this. And their joy was very great.

          18 Day after day, from the first day to the last, Ezra read from the Book of the Law of God. They celebrated the festival for seven days, and on the eighth day, in accordance with the regulation, there was an assembly.

          Summary: Ezra the Scribe, who was also a Priest, taught the nation to observe the Feast of Tabernacles, with which none were even remotely familiar. There was no Tradition at all about it, and it had not been observed for centuries – once again, it was discovered (or rediscovered) in the Book of the Law. If Ezra had been a “Traditionalist,” he could have simply pronounced those sections of the Book dealing with the Feast of Tabernacles to be Apocrypha or Pseudepigrapha or whatever, and dismissed them entirely. Instead, he exercised his judgement, figured that these commandments were valid and authentic, and that it was good for the nation to follow them, so called on the people to do so. Once again, that a certain text — or anything else, for that matter — is newfound or has been long neglected, doesn’t necessarily mean that it isn’t from God; it clearly depends on what the text actually says. By their fruits, we know them.

          The fruits of correctly following the Pauline writings, with or without “Tradition,” are manifestly good. The fruits of following St. Jerome are evil, regardless of how authoritative the Church proclaims him to be. King Josiah and Hilkiah the High Priest were deeply impressed with the Book found in the Temple, considered it to reflect God’s genuine commandments to Moses, and embraced it; likewise, Ezra the Scribe found the Feast of Tabernacles in the Book of the Law, figured that it’s authentic and good stuff, and re-instituted it. Tradition was not so much disregarded as it was rightly and justifiably placed in subordination to direct Divine Revelations which also happened to produce good fruit.

          There’s an important lesson here for us, then: A divine revelation that produces great and healthy fruit trumps even long-established traditions that evidently, obvious as the nose on your face, produce poisonous and rotten fruit. The original Pauline doctrines about sex and marriage, which doctrines are good, trump your Church’s holiness-spiraled teachings about clerical celibacy, which teachings are bad.

  4. shaman says:

    In 2013, in a conversation with B, Jim wrote:

    [B:] You can’t just throw out some of the basics, then say to the moment, “stay, thou art so fair!”

    [Jim:] Well that is why Christ gets promoted to God. If you say he is just another preacher who changed Judaism somewhat, (Unitarianism) then you can go on changing it. Stick him upstairs to God, you get doctrinal stability at the doctrines of the new testament.

    Which is in fact what happened. The left singularity happened at particular places and times. It does not affect all Christians. That is why the Puritans had to conquer using military force.

    Further, that is why left Christianity always goes Unitarian. They have to demote Jesus to community organizer so that they can correct and improve his doctrines. The fact that they go Unitarian demonstrates that the Gospels are incompatible with leftism

    100% agreed, and I would like to add that this doctrine is not at all incompatible with some old school (really old school) Jewish views, albeit obviously not orthodox Jewish views like B’s.

    Let’s consider the full implications of Exodus 6:3:

    I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty [El-Shaddai], but by My name LORD [Yahweh] I was not known to them.

    Clearly then, the Biblical authors were comfortable enough with the idea that God incarnates in various different manners, at times revealing one aspect of His, and at different times revealing another of His aspects. If that’s the case, then who is to say that Yahweh couldn’t descend down from His Throne and embody a human form to walk among us? To say that Jesus could not have been God is to dismiss Exodus 6:3, because — so goes the inner logic of that position — God must only have a single aspect which He reveals to humanity. But in actual fact, we do read in this verse that Abraham, Issac, and Jacob knew God as El-Shaddai and were unfamiliar with Yahweh; and if so, then it may well be argues that Jesus Christ was another manifestation of God that only was revealed.

    Point being, contrary to orthodox Jewish accusations, accepting that Christ is an aspect of God is not “the worship of foreign deities,” because Scripture tells us that God may choose to reveal Himself in different ways, at different times, to different people, even using different names and identities. If Christ cannot be true God and true man (at once), then Exodus 6:3 should urgently get scrubbed off the Bible, because according to that view, God only has a single identity. Nah, God can assume or manifest whatever identity He so desires. Jews should think well before arguing that “Christ is a foreign deity,” because then they’d have to resolve the emergent discrepancy between El-Shaddai and Yahweh, to say nothing of El-Elyon, Elohim, and I Am That I Am – other theonyms and theophanies.

    So, next time a Jew or some other heretic pulls off the “Jesus could not have been God” line on you, raise the implications of Exodus 6:3.

    • Sonsofgod says:

      >I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty [El-Shaddai], but by My name LORD [Yahweh] I was not known to them.

      If God appears as God Almighty, the one and only living God, but does not choose to reveal His Name (or one of them), you’d have to pretty stupid to infer He’s appearing as something other than Himself, given that He has stated He appeared as Himself, but just didn’t reveal His name.

      A logical fallacy is ever I saw one.

      If the Son of God, Jesus, the Messiah, literally begotten by Yahweh via Mary’s conception, and then needing the Holy Spirit to descend upon him to begin his ministry, it’s a safe bet it’s not God, but His son.

      If that son subsequently dies, literally dead for 3 days and 3 nights, good chance it’s not God, as God can’t die for a few days. He is eternal.

      If the son constantly prays to Jahweh, seeks His approval, obeys His will even unto death, and if Jahweh expresses pleasure in His son, good chance it isn’t God.

      If the son chastises a man who calls him good, saying only My Father in heaven is good, good chance it isn’t God.

      If the son is unable to decide on who sits on His left hand, as told to the mother of the sons of Zebedee, saying God alone can decide, probably not God.

      If the son falls to the ground in anguish and asks God if the cup can be taken from him, definitely not God, especially if the son then agrees he will follow God’s will.

      If the son needs to call on God for 12 legions of angels, not God.

      If the son, and no man, and no angels, but God alone know the date when the son will return, definitely not God.

      If the son relies on two testimonies, his own, and that of God, unless he’s really bad at maths, not God.

      If the son does not speak of his own accord, but of that of His Father, God, who sent him, not God.

      If the son Jesus, goes to His Father, who is greater than the son, not God.

      If life eternal is knowing the one true God, and also the man Jesus, not God.

      If the son says “Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father. But go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.” he’s definitely not God.

      I think that’s more than enough to destroy the Trinitarian myth, which was invented to fit with Greek/Roman ideas of their gods, and was nothing to do with the reality of Jesus Christ.

      • jim says:

        Jewish legalism. Lawyering God demonstrably results in a social order that self destructs. Your methods of argument are discredited by the events that led to the destruction of the Temple.

        Plus, you just sound insane.

      • shaman says:

        If God appears as God Almighty, the one and only living God, but does not choose to reveal His Name (or one of them), you’d have to pretty stupid to infer He’s appearing as something other than Himself, given that He has stated He appeared as Himself, but just didn’t reveal His name.

        Stop twisting yourself into Talmudic knots. God appeared as one thing to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, identifying as El-Shaddai (sometimes translated as “God of the Mountains” or, alternatively, as “God of the Wilderness”), and He appeared as “I Am That I Am” to Moses during the Burning Bush episode in Exodus 3:14, and as Yahweh later on in Exodus 6:3. Plainly, that tells us that God may manifest differently if He so chooses.

        God had diverse theophanies throughout the entire Bible, not to mention the Apocrypha, and there’s no reason why Jesus Christ could not have been one of them. Hence, Trinitarianism (God is Three and God is One): The Lord, The Logos, and The Holy Ghost.

        • SonsofGod says:

          Jehovah didn’t appear to anyone on earth.

          Jesus himself said so …. ‘Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One being from God; He has seen the Father’

          Also John 1:18, and 1J 4:12 both confirm this.

          Also, Jehovah Himself tells Moses on the mountain that no one can see Him and live, so hides Moses in a crack in the rockface as He passes.

          Scripture tells you literally that it was the Angel of the Lord, not God, in the burning bush, it tells you literally that Abraham was talking to God’s messenger, not to God and scripture literally tells you that Jacob wrestled with a man (again, an angel, they often appear as men).

          >So Jacob was left all alone, and there a man wrestled with him until daybreak.

          >Just then, the Angel of the LORD called out to him from heaven, “Abraham, Abraham!” “Here I am,” he replied.

          >There the Angel of the LORD appeared to him in a blazing fire from within a bush. Moses saw the bush ablaze with fire, but it was not consumed.

          >“I will cause all My goodness to pass in front of you,” the LORD replied, “and I will proclaim My name—the LORD—before you. I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
          And He added, “You cannot see My face, for no one can see Me and live.”

          So to even suggest that God has shown Himself in ANY form to ANY man (except to the man Jesus) at ANY time is to contradict Jehovah Himself, Jesus, and dozens of examples too.

          Just pure heresy and lies.

          You’re really bad at this aren’t you?

          • shaman says:

            Nope. We were specifically discussing manifestations of God, and God can manifest however He wishes – angel, human, or anything else, as indeed He has manifested in various different manners all over the Bible. Who are you to (contradict Scripture and) tell God what He can and cannot do?

            John 10:30: “I and the Father are one.”

            • SonsOfGod says:


              We, and everyone reading this argument, know exactly what we are (not were) discussing.

              All reading here have read God’s words on the subject, and they have read Jesus’ words on the subject. You and I both know too eh?

              They have read your words on the subject too, and your opinion differs from that of God and Jesus. I assume everyone (but you) knows what the Angels of God are too?

              You are, of course, welcome to have your opinion, and to argue literally with God and Jesus. An incoherent approach to be sure, but you have the gift of free will.

              If you have been deceived, I am happy to have opened your eyes. If you seek to deceive, I suggest you repent and stop, as those (like you) preaching a false gospel will suffer for it, according to scripture.

              You failed to refute one single item of the scriptural examples I provided to show that Jesus was the Son of God, but not God Himself. You didn’t even try.

              But I will refute your one piece of scripture now. The Greek word ἕν (one) does not imply being a part of the same substance. This is clearly illustrated in John 17:11 and 17:21-23, where in these passages Jesus prays to God that the disciples may be one (ἕν) as Jesus and God are.

              >22And I have given them the glory which You have given Me, so that they may be one, as We are one— 23I in them, and You in Me—that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me and loved them even as You loved Me.

              >I in them, and You in Me–that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me and loved them even as You loved Me.

              The word ‘unity’ in verse 23 (above) is the same Greek word as ‘one’. Note that unity does not mean the same as union. It means ‘agreed, working together’, not physically joined.

              So, I bid you farewell, and hope that you will stop spreading lies and heresies, as God hates people who do that.

              • shaman says:

                Both Scripture and logic tell us that God can manifest however He wishes – and He evidently did, including as the Logos, the Christ.

  5. shaman says:

    The New Testament does not cancel the Old, merely cancels the legalism that the Jews substitute for the spirit of the law.

    Arguably, the differentiation between an Old Testament and a New Testament is itself a concession made by Christians towards Jews.

    Since God’s will is independent of Mosaic Law (hence the pre-Mosaic tales in Genesis, or the decidedly non-Mosaic Samson narrative, for instance), any of the relevant texts that reflect it might simply be Scripture; the differentiation between Old and New was made not primarily on the basis of chronology, but on the basis of content: the “Old” doesn’t directly follow Jesus’ mission, while the “New” does. Law vs. Gospel.

    But why make this distinction? The Christian view is that Jesus Christ’s mission marks a new covenant that concretizes the manifestation of Divine Will on Earth, i.e. the Logos – it fulfilled ritual law, and substituted the spirit of the law for legalism; yet it is of the same exact origin as the so-called “Hebrew Bible.” The Law and the Gospel are inseparable, as the latter in no way cancels out the former, but rather breathes a fresh and indispensable life into it by unshackling it of its dead letter, so that its spirit may be made manifest.

    The response to the heresy of Marcionism, which rejected the “Jewish Bible” completely, should have been “We make no distinction between an Old Testament and a New Testament; both of them are one and the same Holy Bible, both are of the very same divine source.” The failure to do so looks suspiciously like a theological concession made to the Jews, i.e.: “You Jews have your Old stuff, whereas we Christians have your Old stuff plus our own New stuff,” implying a clear and obvious rift between the former and the latter.

    Instead, should have framed it rather differently, should have framed it as: “Our Scripture is whole and undivided; yours is partial and incomplete.” The difference here may seem all too subtle, but it’s quite meaningful: There is but one unified and essentially indivisible Bible, which Christians possess, and Jews don’t; neither the Law nor the Gospel can stand independently, within such a frame.

    In short, not “the Law vs. the Gospel,” but “the Law and the Gospel,” the latter being the live spirit without which the former is but an inanimate instrument, yet both being essential, and being inseparable.

  6. eternal anglo says:

    Just want to say these “Jewish pedophile DESTROYS heretics with scripture and logic” threads are absolutely brilliant and much appreciated. Based and redpilled!

    • shaman says:

      Ecclesiastes, a pretty mixed (interpolated) work, contains lots of Epicurean stuff, which is fundamentally anti-Gnostic. If anyone is looking for Biblical Scripture that says “Enjoying one’s daily life is generally better than not enjoying it,” this book delivers the stuff. Epicureanism may be regarded by some as a heresy, but if so, then it is the opposite heresy to Gnosticism, it isn’t nearly as destructive, and it’s better to err on the side of Epicureanism than on the side of Gnosticism.

      Chapter 5:

      18 This is what I have observed to be good: that it is appropriate for a person to eat, to drink and to find satisfaction in their toilsome labor under the sun during the few days of life God has given them—for this is their lot. 19 Moreover, when God gives someone wealth and possessions, and the ability to enjoy them, to accept their lot and be happy in their toil—this is a gift of God. 20 They seldom reflect on the days of their life, because God keeps them occupied with gladness of heart.

      Chapter 8:

      15 So I commend the enjoyment of life, because there is nothing better for a person under the sun than to eat and drink and be glad. Then joy will accompany them in their toil all the days of the life God has given them under the sun.

      Chapter 9:

      7 Go, eat your food with gladness, and drink your wine with a joyful heart, for God has already approved what you do. 8 Always be clothed in white, and always anoint your head with oil. 9 Enjoy life with your wife, whom you love, all the days of this meaningless life that God has given you under the sun—all your meaningless days. For this is your lot in life and in your toilsome labor under the sun. 10 Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the realm of the dead, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom.

      Of course, people looking for Gnosticism in the Bible can find it, but as discussed ITT, when both material conditions and public morals are improving, as under Christianity in its relatively non-pozzed phases, Gnosticism becomes unattractive and people tend to be drawn more to an Epicurean life-outlook. The Gnostics, after all, turned the Dionysian rites on their head, inverting their cathartic debauchery of yore into Nirvana-seeking through renunciation of the world:

      Ascent vs. decline.

  7. Dancing Israeli says:

    My sole purpose in life is to be accused of being a Jew, a pedophile, and especially a Jewish pedophile, by Trad Tard losers who never influenced the culture war, never wrote successful books, never produced viral manifestos, never created their own thriving ideological movements, never had hundreds of direct followers (and tens of thousands of indirect followers), never reached 4,000,000+ views on any one of their blogs, never had their memes disseminated all over the internet, never gained notoriety for their epic trolling campaigns, and whose reality testing is half-way between CR and Kookanic.

    WRPQ: According to the Red Pill, who is responsible for Internet Pornography?

    a. Capitalism. As we all know, and all agree, modern society is ruled by Capital, and serves his interests above all else. The only reason to dispute this account of reality is being a Baby Boomer. As such, the reason some girls go into porn is that our capitalist culture of consumerism, hedonism, and materialism, offers them money to do something so anathema to their inborn natures. Prior to capitalism, i.e. prior to the 18th century, there were virtually no prostitutes. The people who claim that prostitution is the oldest profession, and that it was common for 10% of women in most societies to be prostitutes, have clearly not read enough Marxist literature to set them straight. Once money is abolished, the problem will solve itself. But Capital, helped by his Randian libertarian supporters, is preventing us from abolishing him, so here we are.

    b. Misogyny. In the same way that racism alone makes POCs commit disproportionate violent crime, homophobia causes homosexuals to get AIDS, and transphobia causes transsexuals to commit suicide, misogyny makes women have sex for money in front of a camera. Some people among us are innately evil, or can’t get laid, or have a small penis, and these people then develop irrational prejudices against womyn. Driven by these irrational and misplaced feelings, they go on to oppress, demean, and objectify women by giving them money in exchange for a sexual performance. Sadly, there is no real solution to such misogynistic oppression, but the least we can do is agree that men are awful. Awful, awful, awful.

    c. Directly, out-of-control women are responsible for it, because when sexually liberated, women are prone to make bad and stupid sexual choices which later on they might regret. Since female sexual promiscuity has become the norm, and men aren’t legally allowed to pass women’s shit tests and effectively own women as wives and daughters, lots of women — especially those educated in Progressivism — figure that they may as well become literal whores and get banged like a drum by stud porn actors. It’s an altogether unsurprising development. Indirectly, the Cathedral’s Progressive holiness spiral is to blame, and particularly the blue-pilled Victorian lie that women naturally make wise sexual choices, and should therefore be liberated to make them, rather than married off when they are young to economically productive husbands who can provide them with reproductive sex. The leftist Cathedral, being memetically Puritan (with substantial Quaker influence), tells us that we must never question the wisdom behind female sexual behavior, that women always make rational and good and wonderful sexual choices, that women fully understand the implications of their decisions, and that the problem is everything in the world except female misbehavior. The cladistically Puritan Cathedral doesn’t allow husbands and fathers to own their families, thus female sexual liberation, thus mass whoredom. The solution is abolishing the Cathedral and Prog education, and restoring hardcore coverture.

    d. Jews. Since Jews own all of the studios, and most political power is theirs, it logically follows that they are able to induce women to overcome their inner nature (which is chaste) and work as whores against their own wills. Jews have that kind of power. Boomers like Jim may argue that Jews can’t actually make women do things that they don’t want to do, that women are more powerful than Jews and not vice versa, but that’s just typical deluded Boomer nonsense – in actual fact, Jews have more power than women, and are alone capable of playing women like a fiddle. Really, it’s not women who produce porn by documenting themselves spreading and riding. It’s the damn Jews. Women just do whatever the Jews who own the studios and rule society tell them to do, because of the infamous Jewish mind tricks that we all agree exist. It’s not women who are exploiting their Jewish pimps – it is the Jewish pimps who are the exploiters in all of this. Besides, why blame female nature and female sexual liberation under the Cathedral, and thereby risk angering some girls whom I’m trying to impress because I’m a classic beta orbiter, when I can just blame a category of Bad Foreign Men? The solution is a variation on Sieg: Heil Hitler.

    e. Technology. There would not be Internet Pornography if there were no internet – fact. We need to eliminate the internet, and indeed, we need to destroy all the technological and scientific inventions of the 21st and 20th centuries. I’m not crazy and not mad at all, by the way.


    Let’s see how many accusations of Jewish pedophilia (or just Jewishness, or just pedophilia) this one gets me from ideologically PWNED Trad Tards with precisely 0 achievements.

  8. I_Never_Knew_You says:

    >The faith of Gnon requires confidence that God intends use to be happy, provided that we follow his laws, intends us to conquer the world and the stars, requires the white pill. If someone accepts the red pill but concludes the black pill from the red pill, concludes from the red pill that a wife and children that belong to him, in a home that belongs to him, will not make him happy, not of our faith. The black pill is gnosticism. The white pill requires us to accept the world of the fall, the world of Darwinian natural selection, and still be cheerful and optimistic about it. Every morning the dawn wakes me up, I squeeze my wife’s backside, and she makes me coffee while I watch the sun rise over the islands and the sea. Most evenings I check my fruit trees, then I sit down on my log in my garden, and watch the sun set over the mountains. Every few weeks, I get drunk with my friends. Is this a world that belongs to Satan? Is this a world ruled by Satan? Every dinner and most lunches I thank the Lord for my food, for the pleasant company with whom I eat it, and for the beautiful creation in which I eat it.

    The Gospels of Christ teach that this world is not for His followers, and that we will find it to be generally hard to bear. Christ went so far as to say you will hate this life.

    So, you could conclude that’s a big black pill I suppose, if you don’t actually believe the Bible and Jehovah and Jesus are who they say they are.

    But if you do believe the Bible, and you have faith, or something better than faith (physical evidence, as I have) then you actually move past the red pill, past the black pill, and on to the Golden Pill.

    The Golden Pill means that you can get through life on a planet you’re not from originally with ease, despite the evils Satan wreaks in ever-increasing amounts, because you know that eventually (and probably sooner than most think) you’ll be rescued by the return of the Lord Jesus to sort things out. He’ll wipe out most of humanity, those who didn’t believe in who he was. He’ll send Satan into a prison for 1,000 years and then he’ll literally rule the earth from Jerusalem, and those who have been the best advocates for his Father’s laws, commands and statutes will be placed in positions of power.

    After a thousand years, Satan is released for a bit, there’s a final war (maybe Jim will be in the ranks with Satan eh?) which obviously Jesus wins with ease, and then every nation on the planet acknowledges him as supreme ruler for even more.

    Then, the best bit, all the dead, and those still living, everyone that’s ever existed, will have to kneel before Jesus, acknowledge his power and glory, and be judged by him, based on their faith in him, or otherwise. Even many who believed in who he was will be found guilty of preaching lawlessness (the Catholics and Protestants will be turned away, as they willfully don’t observe the Sabbath). Muslims will all be found guilty, and all atheists, followers of Baal, gnon (whoever that is), Hindus, Sikhs. all guilty.

    The guilty will burn in the lake of fire until they’re dead. Forever. Knowing the truth as they burn. I imagine I will be stood to the side as Jim is thrown in, watching him burn to death in agony, gone forever, not to the stars, but to oblivion for eternity. Would that be THE black pill Jim?

    Me, I’ll be resurrected (if dead) into a perfected body, and will live forever, literally forever, on earth with Jesus ruling, and Jehovah will join us, bringing His temple back down to Jerusalem.

    I expect to become a scratch golfer as eternity progresses, that will be fun, I hope to get a game with Seve, hoping he makes it through Judgement.

    Would you call that a Golden Pill, eternity on earth with no evil around, just perfection? I would.

    And, if need be, as I continue to speak for the Lord in the years ahead, I end up being martyred, perhaps by the likes of Alf, or Jim, who preach entirely faked up Gospels like the Catholics always have, I’ll not bat an eyelid. I enjoy my sleep, and a rest til Jesus returns will be fine.

    Oh, I mentioned the evidence, rather than faith. Yes, as well as some dreams and visions I was given back in February, overnight whilst I was asleep a song was changed on a playlist on my phone, with one pop song being replaced by a Gospel song. The same playlist on my PC and the burned CD I have in my car were unchanged. Literally a miracle, I was amazed, but I was given proof. I think I know why too.

    Details at my blog, Dumnonia Watchman (blogspot). You’ll find it.

    Don’t fall for the BS of the blog owner here. Look what he writes:

    >If you have property, wife, children, and authority over your property and family, you will probably be happy enough, often enough.

    Yet fully 80%+ of his posts are about what a mess all of those facets of modern life are. So why does he lie to you? Because he’s working for the prince of lies, and he wants NONE of you to follow Jesus and obey His Father’s will, here on earth, as it is in heaven.

    Don’t be deceived, grab a Bible, ask to know the truth, to know Jehovah and Jesus, and mean it, that’s all you need to do, and it will happen (I just wrote a one-line sentence in an email a few years back, expressing a curiosity to know God, if He existed, that was it, but I meant it. Boom, suddenly everything changed).

    May God let you see through the fog and find Him, he’s waiting. Amen.

    • Nikolai says:

      Presuming Salvation and gloating about it is one of the most unchristian things imaginable. Real Christianity is constantly begging God for mercy and incessantly decrying you’re own unworthiness. It’s almost impressive how you manage to be a gnostic and a judaizer at the same time, usually those are conflicting heresies.

      Btw, what institution codified the Bible that you worship? It’s on the tip of my tongue…

      • I_Never_Knew_That says:

        >Presuming Salvation and gloating about it is one of the most unchristian things imaginable.

        Chapter and verse please, I have no interest in your opinion, Roman.

        Here’s what scripture says though:

        ’11And this is the testimony: that God has given to us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12The one having the Son has life; the one not having the Son of God does not have life.
        13I have written these things to you, the ones believing in the name of the Son of God, so that you may KNOW that you have eternal life.’

        I know this, it’s great.

        Jim, you’ve called me a gnostic several times, and I literally have never even had a clue what a gnostic was, so I had a quick look at wiki. Here’s what I found:

        Three periods can be discerned in the development of Gnosticism:[55]

        Late first century and early second century: development of Gnostic ideas, contemporaneous with the writing of the New Testament;
        Mid second century to early third century: highpoint of the classical Gnostic teachers and their systems, “who claimed that their systems represented the inner truth revealed by Jesus;”[55]
        End of second century to fourth century: reaction by the proto-orthodox church and condemnent as heresy, and subsequent decline.

        ‘During the first period, four types of tradition developed:[55]

        1. Genesis was reinterpreted in Jewish milieus, viewing Jahweh as a jealous God who enslaved people; freedom was to be obtained from this jealous God;
        2.A wisdom tradition developed, in which Jesus’ sayings were interpreted as pointers to an esoteric wisdom, in which the soul could be divinized through identification with wisdom.[55][note 21] Some of Jesus’ sayings may have been incorporated into the gospels to put a limit on this development. The conflicts described in 1 Corinthians may have been inspired by a clash between this wisdom tradition and Paul’s gospel of crucifixion and arising;[55]
        3. A soteriology developed from popular forms of Platonism in which the soul ascended to union with the Divine;
        4. A mythical story developed about the descent of a heavenly creature to reveal the Divine world as the true home of human beings.[55] Jewish Christianity saw the Messiah, or Christ, as “an eternal aspect of God’s hidden nature, his “spirit” and “truth,” who revealed himself throughout sacred history.”[43′]’

        You will never be able to find one single sentence I’ve written here at your little blog that matches any of the four points listed above. Go ahead and try, anyone, search the blog, and you’ll not find a single comment that even comes close to the nonsense above.

        Also this at Wiki:

        ‘Gnosis refers to knowledge based on personal experience or perception. In a religious context, gnosis is mystical or esoteric knowledge based on direct participation with the divine. In most Gnostic systems the sufficient cause of salvation is this “knowledge of” (“acquaintance with”) the divine. It is an inward “knowing,” comparable to that encouraged by Plotinus (neo-Platonism), and differs from Christian proto-orthodox views.[1] With gnosis comes a fuller insight, and gives an understanding of the deeper spiritual meanings of doctrines, scriptures, and rituals.[citation needed]’

        There are and have been millions of Christians like me through the ages, who simply take their faith entirely from God’s word, the Bible, and spurn man-made traditions and Roman revisions. Most of us end up as martyrs, we expect it.

        I have no special knowledge, just the Holy Spirit within me, which keeps me on the narrow path. I am not spiritual, in fact I never spiritualise scripture. You may not like the fact that I quote Jesus and stick to his commands and those of Jehovah, but that’s because you’re working for our enemy, Satan. So you want to distort everything in the Bible, and use it for your own enrichment.

        Let me finish with some more scripture:

        ’15Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone should love the world, the love of the Father is not in him, 16because all that is in the world, the desire of the flesh and the desire of the eyes and the vaunting of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world. 17And the world is passing away, and its desire; but the one doing the will of God abides to the age. ‘

        ‘4Everyone committing sin also commits lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness. 5And you know that He appeared, so that He might take away sins; and in Him there is no sin. 6Anyone abiding in Him does not sin; anyone sinning has not seen Him, nor has he known Him.

        7Little children,b let no one lead you astray; the one practicing righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. 8The one practicing sin is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. For this reason the Son of God was revealed, so that He might destroy the works of the devil.

        9Anyone having been born of God does not practice sin, because His seed abides in him, and he is not able to continue sinning, because he has been born of God. 10Through this, the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: anyone not practicing righteousness is not of God, and also the one not loving his brother.’

        ’21Beloved, if our heart should not condemn us, we have confidence toward God, 22and whatever we might ask, we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and we do the things pleasing before Him. 23And this is His commandment, that we should believe in the name of His Son, Jesus Christ, and we should love one another, just as He gave the commandment to us. 24And the one keeping His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us: by the Spirit whom He has given to us.’

        ‘4I rejoiced exceedingly that I have found some of your children walking in truth, just as we have received a commandment from the Father. 5And now I implore you, lady, not as though I am writing to you a new commandment, but that which we have had from the beginning, that we should love one another. 6And this is love, that we should walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, so that you should walk in it. ‘

        Here you go Jim, this final piece of scripture describes both me and you:

        >7’For many deceivers have entered into the world, those not confessing Jesus Christ coming in flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8Watch yourselves, so that you should not lose what things we have worked for,a but you may receive a full reward. 9Anyone going on ahead, and not abiding in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. The one abiding in the teaching, this one has both the Father and the Son.’

        One of us abides in Christ and one of us is a deceiver.

        Do you Jim confess that Jesus was the Messiah, the only begotten son of Jehovah, who was killed, rose from death on the third day, then ascended to heaven, where he sits right now, on the right hand side of God, until he’ll return in glory to rid the world of sin.

        Do you confess that Jim?

        Will you answer that question with a yes or no Jim?

        I do, I confess it all, so I have the Father and the Son.

        What, precisely, do you have?

        • jim says:

          Piously announcing that you stick to the commands of Jesus is holier than thou, since Jesus told us that we could not do so, which is part of his and Saint Paul’s considerable efforts to prevent his followers from holiness spiraling in the manner that the Pharisees were holiness spiraling.

          So, in your posts to this blog, you are very clearly not sticking to the commands of Jesus.

          Rather, you are telling us that Gnosticism is holier than Christianity. Observed behavior of Gnostics in practice is that in their actual lives, they are considerably less holy than Christians, and in telling us of your spiritual superiority, you are being considerably less holy than myself in your messaging to this blog.

          You have said this all before and it is getting repetitious. This argument is a waste of space, and further posts, especially lengthy posts, are likely to be censored for repetition. Your arguments for Gnosticism are defensible and plausible, but we have been through these arguments before for two millenia. Piously announcing that you are holy is unholy online activity indicative of the offline activity for which Gnostics have been infamous for two millennia.

          Gnostics generally fail to reproduce or to cooperate. Gnosticism is the black pill. Gnostics give up on this world for presumed salvation in the next, which means that in observed practice they give up on right conduct, on loyalty to friends and kin, in this world.

          It is the religious equivalent of “Men Going their own way” Christians are required to not give up on this world and they are also required to not be holier than thou. You fail on both counts, which is a reliable indicator that like most Gnostics for two millennia, you fail on just about every count.

          • I_Never_Knew_You says:


            • jim says:

              Deleted for repetitious claims of holiness that are forever beyond the capability of mortals to achieve, and a stubborn misreading of the gospels, which might perhaps be defensible in a different context, but is utterly indefensible when accompanied by, and used to justify, implausible proclamations of holiness.

              Which characterizes what is wrong with Gnostics. While Progressives are holier than you are because they care deeply about strangers in places they could not find on a map, and thus are dangerous to kin, friends, and other progressives, Gnostics are holier than you are because privy to secrets you do not know, though they are eager to share, and thus are dangerous to kin, friends, and other Gnostics.

              The superior holiness of both progressives and Gnostics is unimpaired by doing very bad things to friends, family, and neighbors.

        • Starman says:

          @INKY INKT

          What’s so hard about answering a RedPill on women question?

    • jim says:

      You are a Gnostic. There is plenty in this life to support Gnosticism, and if you pick and choose fragments from the scriptures, plenty to support Gnosticism in the scriptures, for the devil can quote scripture to his purpose.

      But Gnosticism is heresy, was declared to be heresy way back in the beginning, and observed behavior of Gnostics is similar to that of Satanists, wicked and self destructive, dangerous to their friends and impotent against their enemies. By your fruits, we know you.

      Gnostics are not Christians, but they tell adherents of every faith that they have the truer version of their enemy’s faith. You told the Jews that you were Jewish, you told the Christians that you were Christian, you told the Zoroastrians that you were Zoroastrian, and you told the Manicheans that you were Manichean, and the Manicheans were deceived.

      Gnosticism keeps coming back because the world of the fall, the world of natural selection, is mighty harsh, and Gnostics keep going away, because they don’t cooperate with each other very well and they do not reproduce successfully.

      • Dave says:

        Readers of this blog are privy to some uncommon knowledge: That the Western world is ruled by a leaderless, increasingly insane leftist cult, and that this cult is destined for an inglorious end. None of us know exactly how it will play out, and no one is safe, but the more leftist you are, the more likely you are to die in the coming left-ocalypse.

        How is our secret knowledge different from that of the Gnostics?

        • jim says:

          Gnostic knowledge makes Gnostics holier than thou, without the inconvenient requirement of actually having to act rightly in this world to friends, neighbors, and kin. Same as progressivism, where caring deeply about people you cannot find on a map excuses you from caring about friends and kin.

          The survivorship fallacy is that stuff that has befallen every other nation is unlikely to befall us, because the anglosphere has been going fine for centuries. This is akin to a stock market bubble. It is true that markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent. It is, however, also true that that which cannot continue, will not.

          So we are not analogous to Gnostics. We are analogous to people calling a stock market bubble.

          Holiness escalation has been a very successful strategy for progressives (not so much for Gnostics) as investing in tulips was a very successful strategy, so more and more people are following that strategy, as more and more people invested in tulips. The price of progressive holiness, like the price of tulips, has become unsustainable. (Gnostic holiness, however, remains cheap, which it should, being entirely worthless.)

          Our secret knowledge is that holiness spirals are followed not by value of holiness permanently stabilizing at extremely high values, but by a sudden catastrophic collapse. As they say when giving stock market advice, past performance is no guarantee of future results. At some point going ever lefter is going to get one killed, probably by one’s fellow leftists. Trouble is, it is likely to get everyone else killed first.

          • Dave says:

            I think you mean “recency bias”. Being lefter-than-thou has always been a winning strategy as far back as any living person in the Anglosphere can remember, so it always will be.

            Good answer, and thanks for leaving up some Gnostic postings so we can learn to spot Gnostics in the wild.

            • jim says:

              Survivorship bias means that those polities where everything went pear shaped are not around any more. All surviving polities are polities where things have not gone pear shaped. So people look at every surviving polity and say “this time it is different”.

              Mike quotes Solzhenitsyn :

              As If the intellectuals in the plays of Chekhov who spent all their time guessing what would happen in twenty, thirty, or forty years had been told that in forty years interrogation by torture would be practiced in Russia; that prisoners would have their skulls squeezed within iron rings, that a human being would be lowered into an acid bath; that they would be trussed up naked to be bitten by ants and bedbugs; that a ramrod heated over a primus stove would be thrust up their anal canal (the “secret brand”); that a man’s genitals would be slowly crushed beneath the toe of a jackboot; and that, in the luckiest possible circumstances, prisoners would be tortured by being kept from sleeping for a week, by thirst, and by being beaten to a bloody pulp, not one of Chekhov’s plays would have gotten to its end because all the heroes would have gone off to insane asylums.

              • Dave says:

                And if you shove one of the not-surviving polities in their faces, they say, “That’s not socialism”. When Sweden gets bad enough, progressives will piously declare that Sweden is not socialist, never was socialist, and we never said it was!

                • ten says:

                  They already do that and they are not married to the concept of socialism – they are married to the concept of robbing and murdering the peasant with two cows and knocking over the apple cart. If the concept socialism is a succesful vector for achieving these goals, it is pursued and defended, otherwise not.

  9. Every morning the dawn wakes me up, I squeeze my wife’s backside, and she makes me coffee while I watch the sun rise over the islands and the sea. Most evenings I check my fruit trees, then I sit down on my log in my garden, and watch the sun set over the mountains. Every few weeks, I get drunk with my friends. Is this a world that belongs to Satan? Is this a world ruled by Satan?

    You have a wife. A seaside house, a garden with fruit tries, friends and money to get drunk with. Your life is great. Now consider this:
    There are people out there who are alone, living with their parents at a late age, or renting some pod in a megalopolis where you have to drive for hours before you see a single tree, who have to choose between paying their electricity bill or eating and who have nobody to confide in, especially with regard to their badthink, let alone the money or time to drink alcohol. None or very little of this is their fault – they were simply born in a world ruled by the Cathedral (Satan), which hates them and wants to see them suffer.
    Hard to imagine why these people would have a bleak outlook.

    Not even trying to insult you here, Jim. I’m genuinely curious as to why someone in a shitty situation would believe the world is not ruled by Satan, especially when he sees an entity very much resembling Satan shitting all over him out of what appears to be pure sadism.

    • alf says:

      I’m genuinely curious as to why someone in a shitty situation would believe the world is not ruled by Satan, especially when he sees an entity very much resembling Satan shitting all over him out of what appears to be pure sadism.

      Because, despite being in shitty situations, people have dreams and hopes.

      What we have created here, through NRx and Jim’s blog, is, for the first time since Progs exterminated the hope Jesus brought, is a new hope. We recognize much of the modern world is shitty, we recognize how and why it is shitty, and we have created a solution for that shittiness. Implement our solution in your life, and you will find your life situation drastically improving.

      Of course, that does not guarantee you a seaside house by next year. Whereas Jim is a relatively wealthy man, I, by implementing Jimian solutions in my life, am still just-above-broke. But I’m doing pretty well. I have a pretty girl who makes me tasty dinners, a kid whose laughter lights up the whole house, and I’m enjoying what I’m doing, both for money and in my spare time. It’s not much, but it’s mine, you know? That satisfies me greatly.

      And really, compared to most people around me, I do exceptionally well. Despite most people making more money than me, I can see the envy on their face. What all this is about is telling people: why be envious when you can have the same thing we have? All you have to do is listen…

      • Poochman says:

        “Implement our solution in your life, and you will find your life situation drastically improving.”

        What is this solution exactly?

        • alf says:

          It is hard to provide a cookie cutter solution because people are different, with different problems.

          For me, it meant re-evaluating my entire life. I cut off toxic people, which in my case was my entire family and a big chunk of my social circle. Previously, I did not value property. Now I see it as an imperative to secure it – so I went out of my way to buy a house. I used the red pill to secure a nice girl, and because of the red pill our relation is very solid. I pushed her to have children; a woman not wanting to bear your children is a shit-test. I quit my education to become a physician; physicians are government employed, I avoid anything governmental like it is the plague. I now do work where I am valued for my results, as opposed to how well I suck up to others. It pays less, but every euro feels earned. Finally, I carry myself differently. People have expectations of you based on societal norms; because I get my norms from this obscure corner on the internet, I behave differently from what people expect, better than people expect. You gain more respect.

          But again, that’s what it means for me.

          • I feel a change in my attitude and I don’t know if it too comes from getting my values from this obscure place of the internet.

            Used to be socially anxious which boils down to being worried how people judge me.

            This not only stopped, but in fact I feel I am judging people now. Complete opposite.

            It is not a very happy place to be in yet, because right now I tend to judge most people very negatively. Which is not a very inspiring place to be in. I sort of should try to see more good in people.

            The reason I tend to judge people very negatively now is that I have always hated dishonesty. You and Jim are saying we always perform to a certain extent, we are always dancing monkeys, but I was never okay with that. Never okay with too much of that at least.

            I am okay with it to that extent where there is a script of etiquette to follow. Muh autismo likes that, when the rules are clear. Where the forms are performance, but the CONTENT is honest. That is sort of like accounting, I like accounting, put real stuff in the books, but put it onto the socially decided account number, so true content, social form.

            I tend to judge people very negatively because I get too much NPCis scripted content, where everything is said because it is socially expected to say that and there is no real actual honest part of the message. This is just me. For example I always hated chitchatting. Talking for me always was to exchange interesting information, not to exchange entirely empty, content-free forms. It’s like accounting with made up numbers. It is stuff like I don’t enter my birthday on LinkedIn because I don’t like people giving me entry empty, not really meant birthday greetings. Because those who really care about it have my phone number and will call. But going through an entirely not-meant script of sending best wishes on LinkedIn to people you don’t give any fucks about just disgusts me.

            So I judge that harshly and sort of trying to learn to judge that less harshly in order to be more whitepilled about people.

            But at least becoming very judgemental solved any anxiety about worrying about how people judge me.

            • (Another thing on judgementalism and confidence. I think it is very often so that the strong confidence that is really necessary for Game / RP comes from formerly having been seen that hot thot as a demigodess and worrying if one is good enough for her, and now seeing her as a dirty slut who should be grateful to us for expressing interesting in her. But again, that is not a happy place to be, most men eventually stop slut-hunting, try to find a decent woman and if succeed feel so grateful that there is a real danger of the frame being lost, back to beta and pedestalizing her. Being grateful for having found a decent woman AND still keeping alphaish frame – now that is playing it on hard mode.)

              • The Cominator says:

                The problem with good women is women are herd creatures and the herd of evil insane American women in time wears them all day. All women BECOME like that.

                • One of the most obvious signs of having found a decent woman is that she strongly dislikes the fem-herd. My wife’s opinion is that women can be decent when on their own but when they get together in a group it’s all backstabby gossip, so she meets her friends (other mothers) on a one to one basis, not together. She is telling me the problem with meeting not one but two or three female friends is that when she goes to take a pee she can be sure they are laughing “Have you seen those terrible shoes she is wearing?” and wants none of that.

                  I think it is relevant, because what will those women do who do meet other women in groups? They only way they avoid that sort of backstab is to conform 101% to the group so they cannot gossip/secretly criticize about anything. So I guess that creates herdiness. Going on shoe shopping together so none of them can make fun of the shoe later on behind her back.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “One of the most obvious signs of having found a decent woman is that she strongly dislikes the fem-herd. My wife’s opinion is that women can be decent when on their own but when they get together in a group it’s all backstabby gossip, so she meets her friends (other mothers)”

                  ABSOLUTELY but the problem is the fem herd tends to reel them in.

                  Knew a girl (we weren’t banging as she was married and although I probably could of she really liked me for whatever reason… but as I actually really loved this one and she was married I specifically would not want to take advantage of her big flaw of having poor impulse control) who for years was as trustworthy and honest as any male friend who avoided girls nights and would only see her sisters and ONE old female friend absent mixed company. She was manipulated into changing this and soon her character severely changed for the worst, honest loyal and trustworthy became a typical untrustworthy lying American bitch.

                  Although this may sound strange this was even more blackpilling then a bad break with the good girlfriend… as the good girlfriend was good as long as she was infactuated with me but in a lot of other ways bad character (and she was a huge pretty fanatical shitlib politically) the female I wasn’t banging… really had a good selfless honest character that changed rapidly for the worse when she stopped isolating herself from other women.

            • alf says:

              You and Jim are saying we always perform to a certain extent, we are always dancing monkeys, but I was never okay with that.

              Yet here you are, performing your monkey dance for us other monkeys 😉

            • jim says:

              > You and Jim are saying we always perform to a certain extent, we are always dancing monkeys, but I was never okay with that. Never okay with too much of that at least.

              I did not pull my wife with beta provider game, and I am always tempted to give her too much beta provider game. When she says she loves me I am always tempted to reply that I love her. And when I do that too often she gets stroppy. So I continue to dance the same dance as when I was looking for a new wife.

              I continue to play the dangerous bad boy adventurer. Otherwise, things would get difficult. Sometimes I neglect the dance, and things do get difficult.

              I have friends and acquaintances with good marriages and respectful well behaved children, and friends and acquaintances with bad marriages and difficult children. And I can see what works and what fails. So, I do what works.

        • jim says:

          > What is this solution exactly?

          The same in the small as in the large. Family, property, and patriarchy.

          Indeed the large solution is merely a hope and a plan for making the small solution legal again, as it was two hundred years ago.

          We need a true King to lead us in battle, so that we can each be King each under his own roof, but, Kings and battles being chancy things, each man must build his little Kingdom for himself without the government noticing and destroying what he has built.

          The plan is

          • Throne
          • Altar
          • Freehold
          • Family
          • Property

          Without Throne and Altar, hard to have freehold, family, and property, but it is doable if you are willing to take some risks, willing to live the lifestyle you were created for, even though it is illegal and vehemently condemned day and night.

          • RedBible says:

            If you would be willing to share, what do you consider to be the characteristics/attributes of a king to follow into battle?

            It seems to me that lots of “soyboys” (among others) think they are the only one fit to be leader/king, but they are pretty easy normally to tell since they can’t even talk the talk. Then there are others who talk a good talk, and seem to mostly be doing an okay job of leading, but every so often make a bad decision for the group, and never undo the change. (and then in a year or a few, the group/company is dying/dead.)

            So maybe the better question would be: How can a person tell when to forgive a leader for not being a perfect all knowing being, and when to acknowledge that they are not really fit to be leader/king?

            • jim says:

              In a small group, the beta male makes the alpha male alpha by acting beta to his alpha. The chicks see the alpha male’s status endorsed by his entourage, and follow the alpha around. The alpha then gives some of his surplus to the betas.

              The True King and the True Faith is this system in the large, with the top alphas in the Kingdom acting beta to the King, who then confirms them in their little Kingdoms, and similarly down to the peasant in his hovel, with the peasant’s lord treating the peasant as a king under the small and leaky roof of the peasant’s hovel.

              This system went horribly wrong when King Louis the fourteenth disempowered the nobility of the sword, and ruled through the servants in his palace, which became the nobility of the robe, but empowered not himself, but dangerously powerful bureaucrats dangerously close to the throne. Then King Louis the sixteenth interfered with the price of grain, empowering the mob against the merchants, whereupon the bureaucracy used the mob against the King. And here we are.

              And as with the True King, so with the True Faith. The True Faith conducts a marriage ceremony suitable for heterogamous organisms, and socially enforces cooperate/cooperate equilibrium between men and women as a matter of faith and morals.

              At present, if you try to organize a marriage ceremony through any mainstream religion, they are not going to marry you, they are going to insist on gay marrying you.

              Our enemies promise to redistribute the means of production, but the white working class know that they would have no idea what to do with the means of production. If it actually got redistributed to them, they would starve. We, however, promise to redistribute the means of reproduction.

              Our enemies notice that merchants are vulnerable, so they incite a mob to burn down the supermarket as in Ferguson and Venezuela. We, however, notice that Jeremy Meeks is more vulnerable, and what he has will not be destroyed by the transfer, but will be enormously improved in value. The authorities in late eighteenth century, early nineteenth century Australia had one hundred percent success in turning whores into wives, and the newly married women, their shit tests passed, internalized the values commanded.

              • The Cominator says:

                The bureaucracy was already excessively meddling in the French economy under Louis XIV.

                Things got especially bad under Louis XVI because he got into what was sort of a world war (of which the American Revolution was only a part) with England that ended in a military statemate but a bankrupt treasury. I think Louis XVI then tried to fix the price of grain at an artifically low cost things spiraled out of control the Tennis Court Oaths happened (the Estates General disempowering the king extralegally) but they quickly found they had sawed off the branch they were sitting on.

                • jim says:

                  “Let them eat cake” was not a stupid as it sounds. As in Venezuela there was no bread, because of price control, but not everything was price controlled until after the French Revolution and The Maximum. So she was advising the masses to sneak through the cracks in the system. Pretty much as we are doing. And instead the revolutionaries shut down the cracks, as the Democrats plan to do.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I think the problem was that the non-price controlled food was even more expensive then the pre price control bread (and the French unlike the rest of Europe did not grow the other cheap food eaten by Europe’s poor, potatoes) so the bread didn’t exist and the other food was unaffordable to the Parisian poor.

    • jim says:

      If you have property, wife, children, and authority over your property and family, you will probably be happy enough, often enough.

  10. TBeholder says:

    (sigh) You keep thinking papier-mâché is a structural material. And it still isn’t.
    That’s what those trailing-after-Cthulhu and believing this time IT surely stopped swimming did so many times, invariably creating Frankenstein grade constructs. The Cult of the Supreme Being, Wiccans and Hubbardologists being the most obvious.
    The first problem with fake things is exactly being unnatural. Which is why this invariably attracts mostly loons and phonies, and this sets the course. Even if it’s true that otherwise this could be mostly irrelevant after a while, since any such phenomenon is re-shaped by its own memetic evolution combined with pre-existing behavior stereotypes of an ethnos.

  11. Carlylean Restorationist says:


    • jim says:

      In addition to claiming to be a right winger, a right winger who takes Marxist History, Marxist Economics, and Marxist Class history to be self evidently true, so self evident that it is entirely unnecessary to present evidence or argument, you are now claiming to be a Christian, which you very plainly are not, nor of Christian background.

      Tell us the New Testament position on female initiated divorce, homosexuality, and the roles of husband and wife in marriage. You know every jot and tittle of Marxist dogma, but are entirely unaware of the contents of the New Testament.

      All your beliefs are a heresy from Judaism, whereas a standard issue progressive has beliefs that are a heresy from Christianity. Further, your obvious ignorance of Christianity suggests a Jewish derived background.


        If you’re lying about him like you’re lying about me, he could very well be correctly observing that lifelong monogamy was absolutely standard and routine until 1963, when LBJew directed the CIA et al. to effect Civil Rights, Sexual Revolution, and the Great Catholic Cleansing.

        And we would never know, because you’re a censor to make Stalin blush.

        • jim says:

          If I am lying about you, post something that does not assume that every jot and tittle of Marxism Leninism and cultural Marxism is universally accepted, uncontroversial and obvious, and argues for some point of Marxist History, Marxist Economics, and Marxist Class theory from within the frame that your point is controversial, far from universally accepted, generally rejected by me and most of your audience, requires actual evidence, and present actual evidence for your claim.

          Respond to any one of the numerous rebuttals on this blog.

          Or, since you are now purporting to be of Christian background, post a rebuttal to the faith that argues from within a Christian frame, using Christian, rather than Jewish shibboleths, and which shows some vague familiarity with traditional Christianity, at least at the Margaret Mead level. Emulate one of those progressives in the tradition of Margaret Mead who have sufficient familiarity with Christianity to argue that progressivism is the truest Christianity. What you know of Christianity comes from the Frankfurt School, heretical Jews who got what they think that they know of Christianity from Orthodox Jews.

          • BOOMER, BOOMER, ON THE WALL says:

            You’re confusing me with someone else.

            Name a thing and I’ll tell you why you’re wrong:

            * Moon landing
            * 9/11
            * gommunism
            * the Puritan Hypothesis
            * Venezuela
            * ISIS and NSS
            * how normal things were before 9/11
            * American population replacement
            * Australian immigration and your misplaced dicksucking of Turnball (Turnbull?) or whomever
            * Christopher Langan
            * Spielberg’s magnum opus, A.I.


            • jim says:

              I choose Marxist Economics and Marxist History theory. Let us debate whether Israel was capitalist at the time of Jesus, and capitalist at the time of King Solomon, since we have an ample supply of troofers, but not many Marxists, and we have an ample supply of documents that are familiar to most of my readers, though unfamiliar to yourself, that were written back then.

              The advantage of Israeli history is that they wrote books, which were translated before political correctness was enforced on translations of old books – Authorized King James Translation.

              But if you insist on assuming, rather than arguing, Marxism, we could do 9/11: As for 911, I choose molten steel, or dancing Israeli Mossad agents, or World Trade Center building seven falling on its own foundations like a demolition, rather than falling towards the massive terrorist damage and the fire into the square to the south of it. Citing troofers as evidence for trooferism will be deleted. Citing the FBI will be deleted, because Mueller and the FBI are the original troofers. You have to produce the photos that the FBI lied about, not their interpretation of what the photos supposedly show. Similarly, let us see the photos of molten steel, the rubble pile of building seven, etc rather than what Mueller, assorted universities, and the FBI tell us these photos show.

              One hundred and eleven troofer “facts” which presuppose molten steel, dancing Israelis, or building seven falling on its own foundations like a demolition will be, as usual, silently deleted, as will comments that presuppose that periods for which we have adequate and familiar documents were not capitalist.

            • Not Tom says:

              You’re not actually willing to debate the “Puritan hypothesis”, you just casually dismiss cladistics in favor of inane Marxist theories.

              Really, on any of these topics, you won’t actually present any evidence, or rebut our evidence, you’ll just ignore our evidence and spout Marxist claptrap. It’s happened dozens of times by now. How stupid do you think we are not to notice the pattern?



                • jim says:


                  Give us argument and evidence. You are not allowed to simply assume your conclusion.

                  To make an argument against the cladistic analysis of puritanism/progressivism, you have to say something like “At date X, Frankfurt School Jews came in to Harvard and replaced the Christian puritans” or something like that

                  OK, what date, and how Christian were the Harvard professoriat by then?

                  The cladistic model is that Harvard was a holier than thou priestly seminary created to rule New England as the official state religion of New England, then by the time of the Civil war considerably holier than Jesus, and not long thereafter holier than God, at which point they proudly proclaimed that Christians were despicable and contemptible deplorables who needed to be emasculated and their guns taken away, long before the professoriat allowed Jews into Harvard.

                  It was Christians transitioning to progressivism that were responsible for the War of Northern Aggression, the dismantling of marriage, and women’s suffrage.

                  You cannot just dismiss the cladistic model of progressivism as the latest name change for Brownism, except you give us approximate dates for changes in the official faith and personnel.



                • jim says:

                  Unresponsive. You are going through the motions of debating on empirical evidence, without actually engaging your interlocutor’s argument.

                  Asked for empirical evidence that “the Civil War had nothing to do with holier-than-thou antiracism” you respond with an enormous pile of highly convincing empirical evidence that politicians of that time were shockingly, unthinkably, and indescribably unholy by 2019 standards.

                  2008 Obama was shockingly unholy by Obama 2012 standards, and both very different Obamas shockingly unholy by 2019 standards, as Trump cheerfully points out with great regularity.

                  This is rather like Troofers being challenged on their claim that there was molten steel when the towers collapsed, and responding by providing a mountain of empirical evidence that jet fuel cannot melt steel. Yes, indeed jet fuel cannot melt steel, but the relevant question is not how holy 1860 was compared to 2019, but how holy 1855 was compared to 1865.

              • The Cominator says:

                Its too bad none of the shills ever actually attack the Puritan hypothesis, because there are actually some flaws in the theory.

                1. The Post-Puritans were the originators of early leftism but they actually LOST the power struggle in the Northern states after the Civil war and lost it pretty badly. It took Woodrow Wilson (a Southerner with IMHO outright Marxists sympathies) to breath life into the corpse of progressive leftism.

                2. From the New Deal onward to the modern era the progressive constituency relied upon Catholic ethnics and (as the wignats are so found of exagerrating) jewish intellectuals. Though second wave feminism originated with left wing CIA WASPs (who paid all Jewish women to push it).

                • shaman says:

                  On the one hand, you have a point.

                  On the other hand, Puritanism is still more destructive than Catholicism – it has of all Catholicism’s vices, and none of its virtues. Both religions are dominated by gays who take it up their incontinent assholes, but Puritans are open about it, while Catholics are in the closet. Both religions are antithetical to male sexuality, but Puritans have taken it all the way to en masse (((circumcision))), Comstockery, banning prostitution, an ever rising Age of Consent, and similar projects which are still ongoing and intensifying. Both religions are universalist, but it’s the Puritans who launch bloody wars to “reform” and police the entire planet about Womyn’s Liberation and condoms-on-bananas and “Human Rights Democracy.” Both religions are full of whiney kvetching cucktards with balls more blue than the deepest ocean, but at least Catholics build beautiful Cathedrals while Puritans only create ugliness.

                  Catholicism was heavily infiltrated by Satan; Puritanism was outright invented by him.

                • jim says:

                  How recent are the latest reasonably OK Catholic Cathedrals?

                • shaman says:

                  Not very recent, presumably.

                  My point to Cominator is that I counter-signal Catholicism because all the Catholic shills here (they know who they are) are pushing cucked positions and falsely call these positions “Reactionary.”

                  For example, these Cucktholics gladly and happily support and join in the blue-pilled, blue-balled, and blue-uniformed WASP Poztestant obsession with masturbation, pornography, prostitution, and teenage sex, they tell us that husbands have no justification whatsoever to flush down defective perilous womb-cancers, and they pat themselves on their hunched and warty backs for being celibate.


                  Still, come the restoration, ordinary Catholics won’t be needlessly persecuted for being Catholic (and ordinary Jews won’t be needlessly persecuted for being Jewish), but Puritans of all stripes and backgrounds will definitely be forced to enjoy a warm and refreshing shower in Auschwitz – or a helicopter ride, I guess.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The closest thing to actual Puritans in the US today are Baptist Evangelicals and they overwhelmingly supported Trump. In the case of Southern Baptists they supported him in the Republican primaries.

                  I am ADAMANTLY opposed to giving them helicopter rides they saved the country. It was the POST puritans and the Puritans that Cromwell himself defeated (and exiled) who caused the problems and it wasn’t even entirely them… as I mentioned above there are a lot of flaws with the puritan hypothesis.

                  The proper way to look at Epstein was that he was a glownigger running a honeytrap.

                  My approach to handling Catholicism will be to train up a bunch of Orthodox priests and an Orthodox Patriarch, and one day all the existing Catholic Church’s property will become part of the American Orthodox Church (communicating with the Pope without Imperial authorization will become treasonous contact with a foreign power on day one and this will be strictly enforced) and Catholic clergy would be given the choice between swearing allegiance to the new American Orthodox Patriarch under royal control or going to a work camp in Alaska.

                  The laity wouldn’t be harassed unless they tried to contact the Vatican directly without permission (as mentioned that would be treason), they would just have nowhere Catholic to go.

                • jim says:

                  > The closest thing to actual Puritans in the US today are Baptist Evangelicals

                  The reason that Baptists are closest to the original puritans is that they escaped the holiness spiral. The defining feature of the Puritans is that they were in a holiness spiral from the beginning, which led to the English civil war, and their ideological descendants are still trapped in a holiness spiral, having become holier than Jesus before the war of Northern Aggression, and are today militant atheists intent on driving Christianity, not only out of public life, but out of everyone’s private lives, because they have become holier than God, and are determined to inflict their superior holiness on everyone, through the schools, through child protective services (which wants to transexualize your boys, sell them to gays, and pimp out your daughters) and through Human Resources.

                  The holiness spiral caused the English civil war, it caused the war of Northern Aggression, and is now rapidly approaching Civil War II, which may well feature nuclear weapons.

                  Cromwell saved England, in that he cut off the holiness spiral sooner than Stalin did, and was less a captive of Puritan beliefs than Stalin was a captive of Communist beliefs. Cromwell gave Monck a praetorian guard, while Stalin failed to give Beria a praetorian guard. But Cromwell was still a Puritan and a regicide, and England did not get back on the path to civilization, empire, science, technology, and industrialization until the Restoration.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Puritanism was Christian heresy, and Progressivism is Puritan heresy. One could even argue that Marxist-Leninism and Intersectionality are Progressive heresy, and some progressives do argue that, although they use secular phrasing.

                  It’s all one big, never-ending holiness spiral. You can find individuals and groups at various stages who rejected the holiness spiral and chose stasis instead; they are the “conservatives” of their generation. But what they choose is almost always stasis, never restoration.

                  We don’t need stasis, we need restoration.

                • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                  > Puritan hypothesis … some flaws in the theory

                  Like any retrospective explanation, it’s fit to the data, so empirically adequate by construction, without the adequacy as such necessarily being impressive. The same applies to evolution, for more or less the same reason, hence the (somewhat pointless and motivated) dissatisfaction with calling evolution “science” or taking it as a complete explanation. We explain backwards but want to reason forward.

                  Jim tries to get at underlying mechanisms (WQ and all that), needed for prediction and control (engineering), which is more convincing but at present requires leaps of faith to accept the evopsych/PUA work in progress as basically a done deal. At the moment I think the Moldbug historical approach is the most convincing — evidence of past successful and unsuccessful models counts for a hell of a lot — but the Jimian clarification via sociobiology can eventually surpass it with enough foundational work to go beyond mere rhetorical persuasion. Hence the need for a new canon of truly-reactionary history books and meditations such as Alf’s book on God, working out the evo-game theory for networks of agents and so on.

                  Returning to the Puritan hypothesis. Cladistics can always be done retrospectively. Everything descends from something, which descends from something else. Jim put it succintly in the Aaronson-Boldmug epic: “it was inevitable that the branch of leftism that took longest to go pear-shaped would end up ruling the world”. But this does not rely on any property of Leftism other than it being whatever is currently super-hyper-powerful and descends from something only slightly less super-powerful that had enough Darwinian inclination to further increase its power. This is more or less Moldbug’s definition, leftism (“a mystery cult of power”) is that ideology which constantly seeks power as an end. This does not help predict what movements in the present are best ideologically adapted to become tomorrow’s successor-leftism. We can extrapolate historical trends to say that, democracy having being the vehicle for the last couple of centuries and still being in power, whatever vacuums up more voters and gives them more rights will continue to be it for a while. Thus, more and more Inclusion (antiracism, immigration, lower voting age, welfare; everyone knows the drill). But the cladistics goes back more than 200 years, and the institutional structure can change again, so this is just an extension of recent trends and not an explanation of what leftism “really is”.

                  In short: retrospection feasible, medium-term prediction possible, genuine mechanism discovery is difficult.

      • jim says:

        Silently censoring your posts for the usual reasons. Your verse needs improvement. Giving you marks for effort though. Try again with more respect for sense and poetic scan and I will let it through.

        Not everything that attempts to be parody and verse, is. Insults are graded on entertainment value.

        • BOOMER, BOOMER, ON THE WALL says:

          My verse? My verse was great. The rhythm was perfect. You have to infer the double- and triple-beats, though: it gets complex. Consider the following:

          It’s really quite a shame, but he plays the part,
          Of a cryptographer with a fatal brain fart:
          He believed what he saw on the television screen,
          The results we have seen, ‘twas poor mental hygiene.

          Here’s the approximate rhythm:

          da- dadadadada, dadada da da,
          dadada, dadada, dadadada da da,
          dadada dadada, dadadada da da,
          dadada dadada, dadadada da da

          • jim says:

            OK, that passes, but the rest of it stank.

          • Needless Critic says:

            That poem is criminal. There is no metrical form in English poetry into which that could plausibly be crammed. It’s reasonably close to an alexandrine though. Are you perhaps an uncultured Frenchman?


              I’m insanely bright, my structure, rhythm, allusion, and imagery are superior to Byron, Keats, Shelley, et al., and I can’t live by your rules, maan.

  12. info says:

    Whats with all the “gay nationalists” and “conservatives in this thread?

  13. REDS UNDER THE BED says:


    • jim says:

      Your entire very lengthy post can be paraphrased as “Marxism Leninism is obviously true because it is obviously true.”

      No longer very obvious, even to the mainstream left. If your account of imperialism was accurate, not only would ISIS not have gotten the oil, Saudi Arabia would not have gotten it either. That was Trump’s point, to which you have failed to reply. The problem is not that you are not replying to an obscure band of reactionaries and a bunch of libertarians who believe that the baker should be forced to bake a gay wedding cake, but that you are not replying to President Trump.

      The argument that the oil, including ISIS oil is secretly owned by evil capitalist overlords is as transparently insane as the argument that towers fell in 9/11 to demolition charges. Like the troofers, you never actually provide any support, you just assume the support is well known. Marxism is the equivalent of “Jet fuel cannot melt steel”, which argument assumes that molten steel is entirely obvious and uncontroversial, but is never accompanied by any evidence for molten steel.

      Similarly, no evidence for invisible capitalist overlords, and your wrath is not actually directed at these invisible capitalist overlords who secretly own the oil anyway, but at the peasant with two cows, and the man who owns your local Domino’s franchise.

  14. Frederick Algernon says:

    To the tech savvy here; how much of this article is trustworthy?

    • jim says:

      All of it. All this information, and the object code on which it is based, has been widely available since the Stuxnet turned itself off in 2012. The analysis and object code was widely shared.

  15. […] comments on Alf’s new book, The Resurrection of God, and develops its ideas a bit further in respect of national sovereignty […]

  16. WHY????t Man says:

    Hindu or Thai? Just FBI: Now’s in your auditorium.
    Acne-faced ‘n lacking taste: I’m here to monitor ya.
    Walls-of-text, who knows what’s next? Truly, Mahabharata.
    Such bummer, shitposting-spammer: Merely collecting data.
    Speaking of shit? Right on the street! I spread my defecation.
    Ya’ll on my lists, unlucky autists: Show me cooperation!
    Lowly snark, glows-in-the-dark: A federal requirement.
    Thick unibrow, like flatulent cow: Polluting the environment.
    Witness my wit, I’m no Dalit: They call it “Indo-ARYAN.”
    Hear whatta say: shower’s passé! I stench of reeking carrion.
    O great Ganga, cowabunga: In excrement I’ll dive!
    The eyes of HR, are never too far: Thank Vishnu I’m alive.
    Paralyzed dick, I’ll send you its pic: Repay with bobs ‘n vag!
    Ain’t a felony, excessive melanin: So call me Agent Rajj.
    Furiously fapped, locations I mapped: To toilet-voyeur Cyndi.
    Low-effort scripts, penis death-gripped: An unresponsive Bindi.

  17. Frederick Algernon says:

    he mad

    All of your questions can be answered by reading previous posts.

  18. shaman says:

    Abraham on rabbinic dietary laws:

    6 And Abraham hastened into the tent unto Sarah, and said, Make ready quickly three measures of fine meal, knead it, and make cakes upon the hearth. 7 And Abraham ran unto the herd, and fetched a calf tender and good, and gave it unto a young man; and he hasted to dress it. 8 And he took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree, and they did eat.

    King David on rabbinic dietary laws:

    27 And it came to pass, when David was come to Mahanaim, that Shobi the son of Nahash of Rabbah of the children of Ammon, and Machir the son of Ammiel of Lodebar, and Barzillai the Gileadite of Rogelim, 28 Brought beds, and basins, and earthen vessels, and wheat, and barley, and flour, and parched corn, and beans, and lentils, and parched pulse, 29 And honey, and butter, and sheep, and cheese of kine, for David, and for the people that were with him, to eat: for they said, The people is hungry, and weary, and thirsty, in the wilderness.

    The obsession with separating meat and dairy is not Biblical. The rabbis have abrogated the important commandments — don’t murder, don’t covet, don’t steal, don’t bear false witness — in favor of made-up nonsense that was evidently unfamiliar to previous generations.

    • jim says:

      And in particular, the no covet rule. Trouble is, that coveting is a holy sacrament of progressivism, and the rabbis want to be acceptable to progressives.

      • Jim, you are very wise but I often wish you would cite more sources for your views as not everybody has read what you have read. In this case, I can help: it was largely Richard Dworkin who defined coveting as the holy sacrament of progressivism:

        “A different way in which envy might be thought to motivate broadly egalitarian thought is by appeal to the idea of envy-free allocations. A distribution of goods is said to be “envy-free” when no one prefers anyone else’s bundle of resources to her own.[24] The suggestion here is not that envy is the psychological motivation for the concern with equality, but rather that, where a distribution in fact produces envy, this is grounds to doubt the fairness of the distribution. But ‘envy’ in these contexts is a technical term for any situation in which someone prefers another’s bundles of goods, and does not refer to the emotional syndrome with which this entry is concerned.[25]”

        I.e. the definition of envy as sin is turned to its opposite, it is not the sin of the envious, but the sin of a distribution, if it is capable of “producing” envy, then it is unfair, regardless of whether people actually feel the emotion of envy or not. It follows logically that actually feeling envy becomes having a good unfairness-detector, which is logically an important thing for a social reformist egalitarian, and thus a virtue.

    • Mister Grumpus says:

      Parched corn! Wow. I thought corn was undiscovered in Mexico at that time.

      That and thank you for the food/meat/dairy Bible excerpts. Abraham was pre-Genesis/Exodus/Deuteronomy, and David was post, so those are two great data points that I had never put up the effort to find myself.

      • monkey says:

        Corn is a word that has been in the English language before Columbus and meant all grain. I guess the work slowly came to mean American grain because maize is a word that flows less in English sentences.

      • shaman says:

        Parched corn! Wow. I thought corn was undiscovered in Mexico at that time.

        In the KJV it means parched grain, though, not Zea Mays.

        Anyway, whatever “Don’t boil a kid in its mother’s milk” actually means, it is clear that the Pharisaic interpretation of this commandment, that all meat and dairy must be thoroughly separated, is a wild and far stretch, that it had not been even remotely observed either before or after Mosaic Law went into effect, and that constantly doubling down on this superstitious issue is a form of “religious OCD,” leading to ever less observance of core commandments as more and more of one’s attention is diverted to those darn maleficent cheese crumbs.

        In modern Israel, IDF combatants who dare to put cheese in the “meat refrigerator” or sausages in the “dairy refrigerator” are routinely punished. Personally, I’d suggest subjecting the IDF’s rabbis to electroconvulsive therapy (sans any sedation) until their OCD is completely and permanently cured, but then, of course I’d suggest that.

        • Mister Grumpus says:

          “Don’t boil a kid in its mother’s milk.”

          Do you think that was even meant literally in the first place? I don’t recall ever eating (or just seeing) meat boiled in milk before.

          • Jehu says:

            If memory serves, boiling a kid in its mother’s milk was a ritual in one of the various pagan and demonic playbooks back in OT days. A lot of the stuff in the first 5 books of the Bible is basically…don’t do what these pagan dogs do.

          • shaman says:

            Possibly, Jehu is correct, and it refers to an ancient Canaanite pagan rite.

            Another possibility is that the word read as milk (chalav) should rather be read as fat (chelev), and that the commandment basically tells us, “If you feast on the young goat, be kind and spare its mother.”

            Deuteronomy 22 says:

            6 If you come across a bird’s nest beside the road, either in a tree or on the ground, and the mother is sitting on the young or on the eggs, do not take the mother with the young. 7 You may take the young, but be sure to let the mother go, so that it may go well with you and you may have a long life.

            So, possibly the commandment says something similar.

            • info says:

              Its also to do with not up mixing life and death.

              Just like how dead bodies can make a man ritually unclean.

              Or that using a living giving nourishing substance like milk in and mixing it up with a dead animal or using it as an instrument of death by boiling a live animal.

              Many other measures to separate life and death are apparent when one applies this theme to the Old Testament.

              This fits with the theme of Jesus as saying God is a god of the living. (Mark 12:27)

              And his dislike of dead bodies in (Jeremiah 16:18) when commenting on Idols.

              • jim says:


                Not what Jesus said.

                • info says:

                  ??? I am not quoting the gospels. It is a deduction. Separation from death and disease seems to be a major theme in ritual purity.

                • jim says:

                  One is physically pure by not eating animals that have died of natural causes and not drinking water polluted by decaying bodies. One is sacrally pure by avoiding wrongfully spilled human blood. The Jews substituted one for the other, and got covered in the blood of a Roman cop slain in the course of performing his rightful duty.

                  You propose to return to the error that Jesus Christ pointed out and corrected. Which is the opposite of Christianity. What goes into your mouth can merely make you sick in body. What comes out of your mouth can make you sick in the head.

                • info says:

                  The new covenant did away with those things yes.

                  But I am talking about why such ritual purity laws were handed down by God in the 1st place.

                  And their symbolic significance.

                  Jesus is dead on in regards to moral and spiritual cleaniness.

                  So I dont see how explanation of ritual purity and its symbolic purpose is proposing what you said.

                  It was meant to be symbol pointing to something greater.

                • jim says:

                  The meaning of those purity laws gets tortured into the grossest impurity

                  I don’t think it happened in the first temple period, but when the Romans started kicking the Jew’s asses in the second temple period, they started torturing the law to justify morally vile conduct – hence Jesus had a short way on ritual purity.

                  Over and over again, the voice of God in the Old Testament tells us that ritual purity is only a stand in for genuinely good conduct. The congregation of the Lord should demand outward compliance with rather silly and arbitrary rules because we cannot tell if someone is inwardly complying with sensible and important rules.

                  But it came to pass that people were legalistically complying with these rather silly and arbitrary rules, and legalistic compliance was not an indicator of inward compliance with sensible and important rules, but rather an indicator of the grossest violation of these sensible and important rules. Observing the letter of the law ceased to correlate with observing the spirit of the law, spectacularly so in the incident that eventually resulted in the Roman expulsion of the Jews.

                  The letter of the law stopped working because the Jews were lawyering God, gaming the system. Gnon was unimpressed.

                • info says:

                  Agreed. The Lawgiver himself had to incarnate to set things straight.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            I read a case made in this comment section that the meaning is metaphorical and the sentiment is “don’t screw someone for doing you a kindness”.

  19. White Man says:

    @Jim, That’s four times you’ve said I am Dot Indian and Fed. Do you mean literally an Indian? Why would you think that. Please explain how you could possibly conclude that I an an Indian from anything I have written. Regarding being a Fed, a Fed would not need to post anything, you guys will eventually incriminate yourselves all on your own.

    My guess is some of you are jewish based on your detailed bible knowledge and some of you are zionist christian due to defense of israel.

    You could save us both time a break down the purpose of your club and if I like it I’ll keep reading.

    • The Cominator says:

      Accusing people of being jews who are not here is not helping your case we do have open jews here. LURK MOAR!

    • WM says:

      My question is just for the blog owner Jim.

      Do you seriously think I am indian or fed and I cannot understand the purpose of your blog. Please explain.

      • Not Tom says:

        You don’t get to choose who responds to you, newfag. Learn your place, Ranjeet.

        • WM says:

          @Tom, Looks like my reply got deleted Tom. I’ll make it more friendly, Foxtrot Uniform, your posterior.

          • jim says:

            Unfunny insults will be deleted. Insults on this blog have to either informative or entertaining. Verse or readily recognizable parody is nearly always approved. Comments that contain worthwhile content in addition to boring insults are allowed, but the standard for worthwhile content goes up.

            Your insult is not up to scratch, though I am allowing it this once. Future insults along those lines will be silently deleted, even if they are not obscene. If you are going to insult people in future, you are going to have to improve your insults.

    • WM says:

      Since how I can’t get a straight answer. The purpose of this blog is for a group of trolls to act important and make snarky comments that they would never do in the real world. Not at least without lots of dental insurance. You guys can’t be for real. No one talks the way you do. No wonder why your spending all your life on here stroking each others ego.

      • jim says:

        You are obviously not what you purport to be.

        A dot Indian working for the fbi is the usual case, but I really have no idea.

        As I said, you need to do more work on our shibboleths and memes before attempting to use them to signal ingroup membership.

        When someone inappropriately signals ingroup membership, he is usually FBI, though we are afflicted with considerably fewer FBI than the white nationalists are. So probably FBI. That you are a dot Indian is just a wild assed guess, because the FBI is hiring a lot of dot Indians for this job, and because you called yourself “White Male”.

        The ngos deployed by Harvard just cannot help signalling that they are wonderfully well informed about the latest official truth, which you have not done, so probably not ngo.

      • Not Tom says:

        No one talks the way you do

        That’s a feature, not a bug. Unlike wignat communities, it’s not supposed to be easy to fit in.

        I very much doubt that you’d be staging fistfights with any of us in person. Sharp rhetoric and physical discipline are not mutually exclusive.

        [Jim:] A dot Indian working for the fbi is the usual case, but I really have no idea.

        Personally, I think it could be garden-variety wignat, but the disciplinarian warning applies: if he doesn’t want us to treat him like a pajeet, he needs to stop acting like one.

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:


      • jim says:

        Again, “hail fellow Christian”. It is obvious that not only are you not a Christian, you do not derive from a Christian background and suffer from profound ignorance of Christianity.

        If you are going to pull the “hail fellow Christian” act, do try to correctly use some basic Christian shibboleths and memes, or better still, reference something vaguely relevant from the New Testament.

        Your ngo should have sent someone with some slight familiarity with Christianity, when this blog started addressing religious issues.

        Your belief system, Marxism Leninism and Cultural Marxism, is generally held by progressives of Jewish background. You lack enough Christian background to insert a few random Christian shibboleths when pulling the “hail fellow Christian” act.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          LOL I *so* wish I’d screenshotted my comment so I could expose you one more time for the lying piece of garbage you really are. Sadly I forgot what you were for a second, so now readers can only see your astronomical misrepresentation and not what you were *actually* replying to, which had precisely ZERO PERCENT to do with any of the drivel you just spouted.

          The sheer chutzpah of this retard: he seriously thinks the majority of people here just don’t know what he’s up to, that’s how easy to fool they are.

          • jim says:

            I allow enough of your posts through that everyone can see that the posts that I do allow through are exactly the way I describe the posts I silence – and I usually silence them because they are repetitions of stuff I have already allowed through.

            Repetitious commie crap that refuses to engage any of the arguments against Marxism Leninism and Cultural Marxism.

            If you were willing to make an argument, I would allow it through, but commies never make arguments, because you were shot out of the water centuries ago.

          • Not Tom says:

            What’s Jim “up to”? I see that innuendo from you a lot, yet you never quite seem to spell it out.

            If you mean that he’s up to muzzling shills like yourself and helping to lay the philosophical groundwork for dumping you and your NGO buddies into the middle of the Pacific, then we know, and we approve.

            • alf says:

              It’s typical commie babble: ‘you may have beaten me for now, but I still hate your guts. Rest assured that one day when you show weakness me and my commie buddies will kill you and your family.’

              Of course, the most relevant part is he acknowledges being beaten. That he acts like a bitter loser is, I think, no surprise to anyone here.

          • ten says:

            Normal person behaviour is fucking off from a blog where the host is a lying censor and a shill for ones enemies – obviously the audience does not agree that this is the case, since they are here, and you are crazy for thinking so and staying.

            The amount of flak the CR policy receives, 0, reflects the opinion of the audience – maybe this is because we are all drooling morons led by the nose ring to the slaughter house by the grand overjew, maybe it is because we never saw what you wrote and just trust the censorship of our host, or maybe it is because we have seen what you think, several annoyingly big books worth of it, and we don’t like it or your indignant spamhappy ways, and wisely support suppressing it.

            like, shut the fuck up dude.

            (if you stopped the repetitive antagonism everything would be much nicer for everyone, and dissidence is valuable – you could be valuable here. let go of the pride, it does not serve you)

            • Frederick Algernon says:

              I loathe censorship and i used to enjoy CR posts from a long time ago as i thought them stimulating (prior to his blackpill shit about having kids). And, as you very accurately stated, I have 0 problem with him being censored. He is obviously externally compelled to be here. No sane man would continue. Glenfilthie is gone, and many others besides for various reasons. Why this fag continues to stick around indicates high level faggotry with a deep need for abuse.

              …lol what if CR is a girl? Might explain the reckless fag stuff, the inherent socialism, and the deep desire to keep getting beaten.

              • info says:

                Why did Glenfilthe and others drop off this blog? Many commentators seemed to have dropped out.

                • Not Tom says:

                  That’s just the nature of the medium. New people come, old people go, sometimes old people just create new identities. Even shaman disappeared for a little while.

                  People get too busy. People become worried about their privacy. People get married or have kids or have more kids. Some people ragequit or stressquit. Maybe some people just get bored.

                  If there’s an implied question here about moderation damping engagement, I’d say that’s working as intended; the true measure of value is not how many unique individuals interject themselves into the conversation, but how far the memes spread, and judging by some of Trump’s recent speeches, I’d say they spread quite far indeed.

                • info says:


                • alf says:

                  Quality in the comment section has def increased compared to before, both through formal and informal moderation.

                  Yeah, people come, people go. It’s a hobby thing; you do it for a while, perhaps you get bored, or you found what you were looking for, or you find a new hobby. Few hobbies like this tho.

                  The anonymity makes it harder to build a community. Scott Alexander has about ten percent of Jim’s charisma, yet his commenters have real-life meet-ups and everything. That’s much more streamlined, whereas my identity here and offline are very decidedly separate.

          • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

            Before the relentless deletia, your (CR) long rambling comments were a sui generis form of ASCII art that I enjoyed as such.

            Then the quixotic salmon-run struggle against the moderation provided a sort of comic relief.

            Now, it just looks like spam for the sake of spam. Failing to take the obvious step of creating your own blog, one that defensively archives the ASCII art in all its glory, is a sign of bad faith. You write walls of text sure to be screened but can’t be bothered to cut and paste? I suspect Jim is making solid and generous decisions on the moderation, precisely because he strikes me as having old school laissez-faire online free speech inclinations in practice, no matter how much he might disavow free speech in theory.

            If you respond, please do so with actions such as making a blog, not (a priori idiotic) complaints that you are being denied the audience earned by someone else’s years of high end blogging.

            • ten says:

              Oops, sorry, edited your comment by mistake, hit the edit button instead of the reply button, instead of creating my own.

              My apologies. I lost your original comment. Here is what little remains:

              He did create a blog only a few months ago. He posted some five or so entries a day, of not inconsiderable length, for a very short time before shutting it down. He also took a stroll through twitter in the same fashion around the time.

              I don’t know if the fed shill memeing is always seriously meant or if it is a means of taking the air out of low quality commenters.

              • The Cominator says:

                Jim always challenges CR to discuss things he is not allowed to acknowledge even exist like the woman question and because he fails we assume he is bound to a script. Hes admitted to having worked for the British government in the past as well.

              • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                Feds don’t pay enough to get true oddball creatives. It’s hard to simulate prolix semiautistic inspired nonsense with Tortured Soul overtones, fiction writers work hard to get those kinds of effects, and you can’t get it on tap at industrial scale in fluent grammatically correct American English for 25 dollars an hour.

                For the more conventionally disputatious and less earnest writers like “Allah” it is easier to imagine that they could be Fed-ayeen.

                • The Cominator says:

                  On the contrary if Allah is a fed or a shill he much outranks CR who repeats the same crap with minor tedious variations every time.

                  Allah is allowed to go off script to a much greater extent then CR is which speaks to him being a Cathedral inner party type rather then Outer Party type.

                • pdimov says:

                  Or, might “Allah” be exactly what he says, a Turkish university student?

                  Nah, that can’t be true. Too far-fetched. He must be an FBI agent using a Turkish VPN.

                • shaman says:

                  I don’t know if the fed shill memeing is always seriously meant or if it is a means of taking the air out of low quality commenters.

                  Personally, I use it as a rhetorical device to indicate that someone’s position, or behavior, is aligned with working for a government agency.

                  I tend to agree with Omar about this one. Without revealing too much here, let’s say that I know how actual feds write, and none of these regular antagonists fits the bill, though on a scale of 0-10, I’d put CR at 2 and Allah at 4 – both scores being maximums.

                  The hallmark of a fed is that he knows and understands you all too well, and — despite his plausible deniability — you can tell clearly that he knows and understands you all too well. Feds have more SIGNIT than you can shake your stick at, and spend a whole lot of time analyzing it. If someone seems to not know or understand you at all, likely not a real fed.

                  And feds who shoot their comments at personal blogs usually perform very brief “hit and run” jobs. The longer one sticks around, the less likely he’s a fed.

                • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                  > Turkish VPN

                  The way to bet is always against someone being a fed, gay, actual crazy, or other statistically small-to-tiny category, absent strong or specific evidence. That doesn’t mean our guesses at the probabilities have to be the same in every case.

                  There is some social utility to telling people if they don’t want to be considered as potential shill/fed/troll then not to write and engage like one.

                • The Cominator says:

                  > More sigint

                  Certainly there is a difference between high level agents (which “Allah” may well be one) and low level shills. The shills not having access to such information only scripts to read from.

                • Allah says:


                • jim says:

                  I never doubted you were a Turk. I doubt you are the Turk you claim to be.

              • jim says:

                CR is an fbi or havard shill – he says what he is directed to say.

                He just cannot go off script. Nikolai does a lot of irritatingly scripted stuff, but it is openly the official script of his religion and he can go off the official script of his religion. CR gives us a script, denies the religion whose script it is, and just cannot go off script.

                Lots of people give scripted stuff lots of the time. Shills are defined by not only giving scripted stuff, but by saying “I am not an X, I am totally an opponent of X”, and then sticking unshakably to the X script.

                Troofers are obviously shills, because not only will they unshakably stick to script, but they will not say anything critical of Mueller or the FBI, even though Mueller and FBI misconduct could plausibly be interpreted as evidence that the hijackers were a show stage managed by Mueller and the FBI.

                CR is an obvious shill, because his work is obviously being scrutinized by HR, as for example when he piously blamed the acid attacks in the streets of Britain on the white working class – albeit in his case, he obviously has British supervision, while people who focus on troofism obviously have US FBI supervision.

                If he was a genuine lost soul and genuine nutcase, would be able to acknowledge hate facts when they are glaringly obvious. If his beliefs were genuine, there is nothing stopping him from noticing bad conduct by non wealthy foreigners. Denying the acid attacks was very plainly the heavy hand of Human Resources, not the policeman inside.

                Plus a genuine communist just does not stick to every jot and tittle of the communist script when you talk to them in private. CR is just too doctrinaire to be genuine. A genuine communist will concede, at least in private, that there are some parts of communist doctrine that have passed their use by date and are a bit on the nose. It is obvious that everything he posts is under supervision by communist supervisor who requires adherence to the communist line, even parts of the line that have grown old, stinky, and an embarrassment.

                • Not Tom says:

                  It’s not just the “senior” institutions who shill, though. There’s Media Matters, Share Blue, and a variety of other commie content farmers, and they all pay their people – generally minimum wage – to shill specific subjects and never go off script.

                  I’m not really that familiar with CR’s history, but he doesn’t appear to be that smart; I’m guessing 120ish IQ. FBI probably looks for higher quality, and although they are likely not finding much quality these days, CR has been around for… I think at least a few years now? If he’s fed, he’s got to be in some dogshit position that’s basically assigned as a punishment.

                  NGO is more likely to me for most of these guys, probably one of the Soros OSF offshoots.

                • ten says:

                  (Considering the response to the maimed version of my post it must have been better – for the record, the rest of it was a teary eyed sad interpretation of CR as a lonely, desperate nut alone in the night, returning here for the memory of once feeling like he belonged.)

                  What you say makes sense and i could only speculatively argue against it – maybe his lockin is due to personal antagonism to you. I don’t have a tuned shill radar.

  20. shaman says:

    Reminder that non-castrated men who voluntarily choose to avoid marriage aren’t following Jesus’ instruction.

    Matthew 19:

    10 The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.” 11 But he said to them, “Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”

    “But [only]” = ἀλλά:

    1. an opposition to concessions; nevertheless, notwithstanding
    2. an objection
    3. an exception
    4. a restriction
    5. contrariwise

    “Eunuch” = εὐνοῦχος:

    1. castrated person, eunuch

    This is Jesus, in plain language, responding to his disciples who suggest that in order to avoid divorce it is better not to marry in the first place, by objecting to their argument, and telling them that unmarriage can only ever be fit for those who are biologically without testicles, and are capable of receiving this λόγον (word). I.e., if you are not a castrato, you certainly need to get married.

    This is Jesus being in perfect agreement with Jimianity and the red-pill, being in perfect agreement with the position that men with balls have sexual needs, which are legitimate, hence should not avoid marriage. Jesus does not say or imply that it’s better to be unmarried (it’s his disciples who brought that notion up); just the opposite, he objects to that idea and tells us that only if you’re a biological eunuch, and are inclined to accept it, should you accept it. Otherwise, it’s emphatically not for you.

    Any blue-pilled, holiness spiraled reading of this text is false, does not follow from the text. Jesus does not approve of a degenerate faggot lifestyle. Jesus said nothing wrong.

    • kawaii_kike says:

      “there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven”

      Could the quoted section above also be interpreted metaphorically? Non-eunuchs who choose to not get married have made themselves metaphorical eunuchs for the kingdom of God. Wouldn’t it be wise to preemptively give an outlet to holiness spirals? How do we know when Jesus is speaking metaphorically or strictly literally?

      I don’t intend to torture the scripture, I just want to be sure.

      If all men are supposed to get married and have kids then humanity fucked up Christ’s instructions almost as soon as he left. Early Christians got it right. Then you claim that early theologians like Saint Augustine and Saint Jerome started a holiness spiral and all subsequent Christian sects eventually spiraled as well. So collectively, there’s only been a few hundred years of Christianity as Christ intended?

      Wouldn’t it also be dysgenic to encourage EVERY man with working balls to marry and reproduce?

      • shaman says:

        Could the quoted section above also be interpreted metaphorically? Non-eunuchs who choose to not get married have made themselves metaphorical eunuchs for the kingdom of God.

        The metaphorical interpretation is not new, but it’s exactly that interpretation that has given rise to the holiness spiral. Jesus spoke only of biological eunuchs, people who literally chop off their balls and have no desire to be with women. Allowing for “metaphorical eunuchs” made it easier for sexual deviants of all sorts to claim bonus holiness points vis-a-vis regular folks and to insinuate themselves into the Church. A metaphorical interpretation is not healthy, and it’s better to stick with the actual words of Christ, which clearly refer to a biological condition (hence “who have been so from birth,” “have been made eunuchs by men”) that makes marriage unfeasible and undesirable for them. Jesus did not accord bonus holiness points to virgins, and encouraged men to get married.

        Wouldn’t it be wise to preemptively give an outlet to holiness spirals?

        No. What you mean by “outlet” is better defined as “pressure-release valve,” and the way to achieve that, so as to avoid catastrophically initiating an anti-sex holiness spiral, is exactly by limiting celibate virginity-signalling to eunuchs, who are naturally low status. We want the King, the warriors, and taxpaying heads-of-households and husbands to have high status, and various sex freaks to have low status. That’s the pro-natalist, GNON-ordered hierarchy.

        How do we know when Jesus is speaking metaphorically or strictly literally?

        Well, in this case, we know it because “who have been so from birth” and “have been made eunuchs by men” are clearly not metaphorical descriptions.

        So collectively, there’s only been a few hundred years of Christianity as Christ intended?

        Something like that, yes.

        Wouldn’t it also be dysgenic to encourage EVERY man with working balls to marry and reproduce?

        No; first of all, anti-social types need to be excommunicated (at the very least), and outside the community let them do whatever the heck – they are not likely to thrive there, anyway. Secondly, successful men naturally have larger families — a greater number of descendants — than unsuccessful men, and with the restoration of patriarchy, the natural male socio-sexual order will return, and with it eugenic elite fertility. We want every productive man to be married and have children (and we want every man to be productive), but naturally, members of the elite, the most successful men in society, the most productive, intelligent, or otherwise valuable, the top 15%, will find it easier to own larger families than those lower than themselves down the hierarchy. That’s perfectly eugenic.

      • Nikolai says:

        “there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.””

        It’s rather obvious that this verse means that some people become celibate in order to more wholly dedicate themselves to God and that Jesus is encouraging them to do so, if they are able to bear the yoke of celibacy.

        See the Doay-Rheims Bible commentary

        “”There are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs, for the kingdom of heaven”: This text is not to be taken in the literal sense; but means, that there are such, who have taken a firm and commendable resolution of leading a single and chaste life, in order to serve God in a more perfect state than those who marry: as St. Paul clearly shews. 1 Cor. 7. 37, 38.”

        Also see St. John Chrysostom’s homily on this verse.

        “Having spoken then of the eunuchs that are eunuchs for nought and fruitlessly, unless with the mind they too practise temperance, and of those that are virgins for Heaven’s sake, He proceeds again to say, He that is able to receive it, let him receive it, at once making them more earnest by showing that the good work is exceeding in greatness, and not suffering the thing to be shut up in the compulsion of a law, because of His unspeakable gentleness. And this He said, when He showed it to be most possible, in order that the emulation of the free choice might be greater.”

        And just for good measure, the Council of Trent

        “CANON X.-If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema.”

        Lastly Summa Theologica

        “On the contrary, Augustine says (De Virgin. xix): “Both solid reason and the authority of Holy Writ show that neither is marriage sinful, nor is it to be equaled to the good of virginal continence or even to that of widowhood.”

        I answer that, According to Jerome (Contra Jovin. i) the error of Jovinian consisted in holding virginity not to be preferable to marriage. This error is refuted above all by the example of Christ Who both chose a virgin for His mother, and remained Himself a virgin, and by the teaching of the Apostle who (1 Corinthians 7) counsels virginity as the greater good.

        It is also refuted by reason, both because a Divine good takes precedence of a human good, and because the good of the soul is preferable to the good of the body, and again because the good of the contemplative life is better than that of the active life.

        Now virginity is directed to the good of the soul in respect of the contemplative life, which consists in thinking “on the things of God” [Vulgate: ‘the Lord’], whereas marriage is directed to the good of the body, namely the bodily increase of the human race, and belongs to the active life, since the man and woman who embrace the married life have to think “on the things of the world,” as the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 7:34). Without doubt therefore virginity is preferable to conjugal continence.”

        God does, in fact, reward extra bonus holiness points to celibates. Rejecting the Church Fathers is rejecting Christ.

        • jim says:

          > > “there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.””

          > It’s rather obvious that this verse means that some people become celibate in order to more wholly dedicate themselves to God and that Jesus is encouraging them to do so, if they are able to bear the yoke of celibacy.

          That is a holiness spiralled interpretation. The disciples ask “Is it better not to marry?”, and Jesus replies that except for a few exceptional and unfortunate cases, it is better to marry.

          A more reasonable interpretation in context, is that if God calls you to celibacy, follow that road, but it is also mighty bad luck and fortunately God calls mighty few to celibacy.

          The disciples ask Jesus if they should call people to celibacy, and the short of his answer is that they should not.

        • shaman says:

          God does, in fact, reward extra bonus holiness points to celibates. Rejecting the Church Fathers is rejecting Christ.

          Question: How does the Lord reward those who do right in His eyes?

          Answer: Psalm 128:

          1 Blessed are all who fear the Lord,
          who walk in obedience to him.
          2 You will eat the fruit of your labor;
          blessings and prosperity will be yours.
          3 Your wife will be like a fruitful vine
          within your house;
          your children will be like olive shoots
          around your table.
          4 Yes, this will be the blessing
          for the man who fears the Lord.

          5 May the Lord bless you from Zion;
          may you see the prosperity of Jerusalem
          all the days of your life.
          6 May you live to see your children’s children—
          peace be on Israel.

          Question: How did the Lord bless Job for his moral perfection?

          Answer: Job 42:10-17:

          10 After Job had prayed for his friends, the Lord restored his fortunes and gave him twice as much as he had before. 11 All his brothers and sisters and everyone who had known him before came and ate with him in his house. They comforted and consoled him over all the trouble the Lord had brought on him, and each one gave him a piece of silver and a gold ring.

          12 The Lord blessed the latter part of Job’s life more than the former part. He had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, a thousand yoke of oxen and a thousand donkeys. 13 And he also had seven sons and three daughters. 14 The first daughter he named Jemimah, the second Keziah and the third Keren-Happuch. 15 Nowhere in all the land were there found women as beautiful as Job’s daughters, and their father granted them an inheritance along with their brothers.

          16 After this, Job lived a hundred and forty years; he saw his children and their children to the fourth generation. 17 And so Job died, an old man and full of years.

          If celibacy were a superior path to family life in terms of holiness, God would not reward the righteous with large families, as that would signify a reduction in their level of righteousness. For Christianity to not descend into Cuckianity, this masochistic celibacy fetish has to be discarded. Even if the Church Fathers had had plausible justification to praise celibacy back in the day (doubtful), there’s no reason to turn that into an immutable, eternal, and absolutely unchangeable doctrine, particularly now that we see clearly that its fruits are evil and rotten.

          (“NO! OY VEY! CHRISTIANITY MUST REMAIN CUCKIANITY, FOR EVER AND EVER AND EVER!” – Official Cucktholic Position. Hence, a new religion is urgently needed, one solidly based on the Old and New Testaments, but not identical with the holiness spiraled abomination that is modern Cuckianity, which sanctifies giving birth to cuck-babies and rape-babies and retards and monsters, and sanctifies infinite blue balls and a gay clergy)

          • Mike says:

            You can say it’s a Catholic meme all you want, fact is that both the Orthodox and the Catholics agree that celibacy was and is something important in religious life. If you believe that this is a fundamentally cucked position, then just say you trust Jesus’ word itself most on this matter, and say that you (for the most part) distrust or disregard the Church Father’s position on this, that they were already holiness spiraling. Then your take becomes entirely true in my eyes. Otherwise, your are just being contradicted by Saints left and right.

            • shaman says:

              just say you trust Jesus’ word itself most on this matter, and say that you (for the most part) distrust or disregard the Church Father’s position on this, that they were already holiness spiraling.

              Exactly what I’m saying.

              • Mike says:

                Important question though, was St. Paul cucked then too? I recall a famous line from one of his epistles where he says it is “regrettable” (or something along those lines) that people need to get married. However he does also say that although it isn’t quite ideal, it is quite necessary, so that people don’t go insane. So maybe not cucked.

                I remember it now, it’s 1 Corinthians 7.

                • shaman says:

                  St. Paul was quite solid on patriarchy, including in 1 Corinthians itself (in chapters 7, 11, and 14), but unfortunately he opened the door for holiness spiraling by some of his pro-celibacy pronouncements in chapter 7. It should be understood that when reporting on Christ’s authentic doctrine, e.g. on the issue of divorce, St. Paul was spot on, but when voicing his own personal views, which occasionally he did, he was sometimes wrong – and to distinguish between St. Paul’s personal views and the views of God and Tradition, we have the rest of the Bible, where marriage is highly recommended, and celibacy not recommended.

                  NRx is now building a new religion that is heavily based on old school Christianity, but not exactly identical with it, because we seek to put safeguards in place against the holiness spiraling that killed old school Christianity, and is now killing Judaism and Islam, turning all traditional religions into homosexual bluecon cuckoldry. To un-pozz Christianity (currently it is terminally pozzed), some of the Church positions espoused in the past will have to be discarded, or else we’ll end up with the same dire problems that led to the current state of affairs.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “and is now killing Judaism and Islam”

                  Islam despite being mostly right about women (while being wrong on its kind of pro purdahish stance) was always a demonic doctrine.

                • Nikolai says:

                  “It should be understood that when reporting on Christ’s authentic doctrine, e.g. on the issue of divorce, St. Paul was spot on, but when voicing his own personal views, which occasionally he did, he was sometimes wrong”

                  Denying the inerrancy of Scripture is a very grave error. If you ditch the Church Fathers, you’re essentially ditching Christianity, as the last few centuries have shown. If you don’t venerate saints, you’ll wind up venerating demons.

                  If you ditch the Church Fathers AND you pick and choose what parts of St. Paul’s letters you have to listen to, well that necessarily leads to picking and choosing what parts of the Gospels and the Old Testament you have to listen to.

                  You then have neither Tradition nor Sola Scriptura and that leaves the door open to the progestantism we see today. Along with countless Kookanics, Glosolis and Shelby’s who think that they and they alone perfectly interpret God’s commands. Either way, not Christianity.

                  And yes of course children are a blessing, but the holiest humans to ever walk the earth were celibates. Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Paul, etc.

                  All that said, I don’t have a problem with ordaining married men. I do have a problem with blaspheming the Church Fathers and ignoring the Bible whenever it contradicts Jim.

                • jim says:

                  > Denying the inerrancy of Scripture is a very grave error.

                  Saint Jerome rejected Saint Paul. It is your Church fathers that reject scripture.

                  Ditch Saint Jerome, or ditch Saint Paul. Choose!

                  Saint Paul tells us that Bishops should ordinarily and usually be married with children. He also tells us that husbands are obligated to have sex with their wives and continue to have sex with their wives.

                  So don’t give me that pious inerrancy of scripture nonsense, when the Church has holiness spiralled its way out of scripture.

                  Saint Jerome was an evil man, and his evil doctrines have ever since borne evil fruit. Notably the current gay mafia running the Roman Catholic Church that plots together while naked in bed together in a great big pile.

                  Let us talk about what Saint Paul said, and about gay priests having sex in a great big pile.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  There is something fundamentally off putting about being forced to accept someone else’s opinion regardless of experience. I am not advocating trashing tradition for preference, but stare decisis is a double edged sword that can be used to cleave order just as readily as expanding prosperity. Point being, i think the truths of the bible are self evident, and the failings are knowable. St. Paul is given massive primacy, but this may be more because of the Council of Nicea than because he was always right.

                  In a different context, the 14th Amendment is the cause of a staggering amount of the terribleness in society today. It would be better if it hadn’t been included. That being said, it was the Warren court that turned the 14th into its lolita whore and fucked this country. To do that, they needed the FDR appointments. These were predicated on the Wilsonian millenialist travesties. The problem is compounded by generations of misinterpretation, ill will, and out right subversion of traditions. Repealing the 14th wouldn’t solve the problem, much in the same way that overturning Roe v. Wade won’t fix women.

                  I am not excoriating you or challenging the faithful here (moreso than i already do, anyway); but blind dogmatism does not seem to serve our interests.

                • shaman says:


                  I consider all the Scripture handed down to us to be divinely inspired, including some stuff that Protestants (to say nothing of Jews) don’t consider canonical, and including those bits that disagree, or seem to disagree, with Jim.

                  However, belief in Scriptural Inerrancy is neither sufficient to prevent the kooks, nor does disbelief in it necessarily result in kookery. Moreover, not all parts of Scripture are equally essential for a Godly life. Both Matthew and Tobit are inspired, but Matthew is essential, Tobit – not so much. For all intents and purposes, St. Jerome has greater authority than a random fella off the street, St. Paul has greater authority than St. Jerome, and Jesus Christ has greater authority than all of the Saints.

                  The militant atheists at Reddit are correct: The Bible contains six gorillion contradictions. To them, that totally disproves all religion, *strokes greasy neckbeard*. To me, it means that it’s a text written by humans, who are naturally fallible, but nevertheless I consider it — all of it — to be divinely inspired. And, to borrow a term commonly used in the AI world, I believe that God’s interests and ours are “aligned.” So, we work with the Scripture we’ve got in order to have civilizational prosperity, and hope that God is on our side. If a certain bit of Scripture doesn’t seem to work, we don’t ditch it, we don’t erase it off the books, but we may consider attaching lower importance to it than to the stuff that obviously does work.

                  My theistic position is that the Bible is a divinely inspired text, and that God established the Church (broadly defined) for it to serve His purposes. My atheistic position is that we need something to hold on to lest we collectively drown, and the Bible is as good as it gets, even disregarding the notion of divine inspiration completely. Both of these propositions are not incompatible with having a new religion that is based on old school Christianity, that is a continuation of the Church, but not exactly identical with its past institutions or with all of its past doctrines, because these have given way to destructive memes. New religion, not for reasons of strange schizophrenic voices screaming profanities inside one’s head, but for the perfectly rational and logical reasons of Jim, Spandrell, and other non-crackpots in NRx.

                  Possibly, that will necessitate accepting Jim (or whoever else) as a literal prophet, and his texts as Scripture; something like Joseph Smith. In fact, if all the regular Christian denominations descend to florid Satanism, and Mormonism doesn’t, then we may as well seriously reflect on the validity of Mormonism – it doesn’t contradict either the theistic or the atheistic propositions explained in the previous paragraph. Right now though, it’s better to go with OT+NT, read in light of our current empirically-derived knowledge of the human condition (EvoPsych, Game Theory, etc.), and adjusted in light of the errors that have accumulated throughout the ages, e.g. the grave error and evil heresy that is egalitarianism.

                  Where does all that leave us? Answer: With a lot of heavy lifting to do, waiting ahead of us. What we’re doing right here looks like a good start. NRx is a priesthood, and as a priesthood we’re trying to establish and coordinate our doctrine – or, if you prefer, our Red-Pilled interpretation of the Scripture we have, which is OT+NT. But the “We need a prophet” thing is not really a joke; we actually do need a prophet, someone to declare himself to be speaking for God, or Nature’s God, or both, i.e. for GNON.

                  (Hey, I don’t expect you to take someone who calls himself “MY SATANIST DADDY FISTED ME 666” as a religious authority, but Jim, the human flesh-and-blood who has singlehandedly established NRx as a priesthood, does have real potential)

                  And if not, well, we still need to figure out how to read Scripture in a most expedient manner, because the fruits of modern Cuckianity are rotten, and an urgent fixing is needed. Jim has been saying all along that we either fix Christianity or replace it. I prefer fixing it. It’s doable. If that means de-emphasizing a certain bit of Scripture, or creatively reinterpreting some of the more problematic stuff in there, so be it. As long as we hold OT+NT as the basis of our little harmless religious experimentation right here, we’re all good. God wants us to succeed. The kooks you mention could have been useful if they hadn’t been, well, kooks – but hopefully we’ll have enough normal people here to make this project, whose aim is to establish a non-pozzed, pro-civilizational version of Christianity, work.

                  And I don’t ask you to drop Catholicism; if it works for you, great. It’s just that those of us who consider modern Catholicism to be Cucktholicism (and most or all of modern Protestantism to be Poztestantism) are looking for something else, and likely we’ll have to create it ourselves.

                • Nikolai says:


                  I sincerely appreciate your entirely amicable and reasonable response. Were I reading it maybe 3 years ago, I don’t think I’d disagree with a single word. But since joining the Church, my worldview has changed somewhat.

                  I wouldn’t say Scripture contradicts itself, so much as it offers conflicting advice, but that’s just a reflection of the nature of human interaction. Ex. in situation A the best course of action is X, but in situation B which looks almost identical to A, the best course of action is the exact opposite of X. This seems contradictory at first glance, but makes more sense when you think about the little intricacies of everyday life (to say nothing of geopolitics). Or as Jim once put it, sometimes you have to turn the other cheek and sometimes you have to slaughter the women and children.

                  But where I disagree with you is that you seem to view religion as a means to an end. You want a society with strong social cohesion, where every woman isn’t a whore, where you can have a marriage as it was understood for millennia without living in constant fear of arrest for imaginary voodoo crimes, where actual criminals are swiftly dealt with and honest men have nothing to fear from law enforcement, where you can walk down your city streets without feeling like a stranger in your own country perhaps even in your own mind. In short, what our grandparents or great grandparents had.

                  These are perfectly legitimate desires and I want all these things too. But you seem to see religion as a way to establish and reinforce a sane society, whereas I see religion as an end unto itself; a well which, when properly maintained, will spring forth all these positive externalities and more.

                  “Hey, I don’t expect you to take someone who calls himself “MY SATANIST DADDY FISTED ME 666” as a religious authority”

                  In truth, you know Scripture better than I do. At least the Old Testament.

                  Basically, I just want to live in a world with the social
                  and cultural institutions of pre-reformation Europe, but with modern technology. To my understanding, this is what the theonomist branch of NRx has always advocated. Non-pozzed Christianity still exists, albeit it’s rather small and oftentimes difficult to find. If you live in a city, try out your local Latin Mass. You may be pleasantly surprised.

                  Instead of building a new church, I want to restore the one Christ Himself founded, outside of which there is no salvation. I understand this may appear to be an insurmountable task, given the current state of the Chruch, but crazier things have happened.

                • jim says:

                  > You want a society with strong social cohesion, where every woman isn’t a whore, where you can have a marriage as it was understood for millennia without living in constant fear of arrest for imaginary voodoo crimes, where actual criminals are swiftly dealt with and honest men have nothing to fear from law enforcement …

                  > These are perfectly legitimate desires and I want all these things too. But you seem to see religion as a way to establish and reinforce a sane society, whereas I see religion as an end unto itself; a well which, when properly maintained, will spring forth all these positive externalities and more.

                  The other worldly mission of the Church is like the progressive claim to care deeply about the welfare of strangers in places that they could not find on a map – a justification for doing bad things to those close to one that one should care about. If the Church does not care about its mission in this world, not likely it cares about its other worldly mission.

                  The earthly telos of the true faith is upholding these earthly good things, in the language of the Dark Englightenment, cooperate/cooperate equilibrium, and when you explain that the true mission of the faith is other worldly, you then immediately conclude that it is OK for the faith to aggressively undermine these good things, and you then proceed to torture the Gospels into extraordinary and unreasonable readings consistent with doctrines concocted, sometimes very recently concocted, by a bunch of gay priests having sex in a great big pile. Who was it told us that “I do” is the form and substance of the sacrament of marriage?

                  All of which indicates a faith unlikely to achieve the other worldly telos of the faith. By their fruits you shall know them, and your local Catholic Church is full of fruits.

                  If your faith disregards its earthly telos in the name of its other worldly telos, it is unlikely to be accomplishing its other worldly telos. Most Catholics only show up to be hatched, matched, and dispatched, and when they are matched, the priest proceeds to undermine the marriage. If you want a traditional wedding, you are likely to find that the only pastor you can find is not part of any larger Church.

                  Let us talk about Saint Paul versus Saint Jerome. One of these has to be an evil heretic. You cannot piously have them both as saints.

                  As I keep saying Saint Paul says that Bishops should normally and ordinarily be married with children, and that a married man is obligated to continue to sexually gratify his wife. It is not clear to me which of Pauline propositions you dispute – I keep seeing a blurry fog of squid ink that causes my eyes to glaze over. What is your interpretation of Paul?

                  Don’t tell me it is like the doctrine of the trinity, beyond mortal comprehension, for Saint Paul was a mortal, but I surely find your explanations of what Saint Paul is really saying beyond mortal comprehension.

                  If Christ is fully man, Jesus was a man, he had brothers, and it is natural and right that one of his brothers ran the first Christian Church, that husbands should continue to gratify their wives, that Bishops should normally and normatively be married with children, and should continue to have children while Bishops.

                  And if Bishops normally and normatively were married with children, your Church would not be run by the gay mafia.

                • shaman says:

                  By the way Nikolai,

                  And yes of course children are a blessing, but the holiest humans to ever walk the earth were celibates. Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Paul, etc.

                  The notion that Joseph and Mary never had sex was introduced by gay, homosexual, faggot theologians who took big bulky dicks up their asses and felt incredibly smug about it. Jesus Christ had literal brothers and literal sisters, and your Satanic Church Fathers, including the usual suspect known as St. Jerome, have been denying it as part of their effeminate cuckfag holiness spiral. The (majority of) Protestants are 100% right to reject this diseased doctrine.

                  From the link:

                  Jerome maintains against Helvidius three propositions:—

                  1st. That Joseph was only putatively, not really, the husband of Mary.

                  2d. That the brethren of the Lord were his cousins, not his own brethren.

                  3d. That virginity is better than the married state.

                  1. The first of these occupies ch. 3-8. It turns upon the record in Matt. i. 18-25, and especially on the words, Before they came together (c. 4), knew her not till, etc. (5-8).

                  2. The second (c. 9-17) turns upon the words first-born son (9, 10), which, Jerome argues, are applicable not only to the eldest of several, but also to an only son: and the mention of brothers and sisters, whom Jerome asserts to have been children of Mary the wife of Cleophas or Clopas (11-16); he appeals to many Church writers in support of this view (17).

                  3. In support of his preference of virginity to marriage, Jerome argues that not only Mary but Joseph also remained in the virgin state (19); that, though marriage may sometimes be a holy estate, it presents great hindrances to prayer (20), and the teaching of Scripture is that the states of virginity and continency are more accordant with God’s will than that of marriage (21, 22)

                  Jim is right: St. Jerome was an evil man, an evil tree, and his doctrines have been bearing evil fruit ever since. St. Jerome was making stuff up out of thin air, cherry-picking Scripture out of context and sadistically twisting and torturing the text like the KGB to say the exact opposite of what it actually says in a manner that would’ve made the Talmudists blush, and everything he touched immediately turned into shit.

                  It’s because of nonsense like that of St. Jerome and his fellow fags that we need a new religion.

                • Nikolai says:

                  “Let us talk about Saint Paul versus Saint Jerome. One of these has to be an evil heretic. You cannot piously have them both as saints.”

                  Just laughably absurd. If you told this to any learned Christian from the 5th century to the reformation, they’d look at you as though you had five heads. St Jerome spent his life translating all of St. Paul’s works into latin, writing commentaries on them and debating various heretics on their interpretation.

                  “It is not clear to me which of Pauline propositions you dispute – I keep seeing a blurry fog of squid ink that causes my eyes to glaze over. What is your interpretation of Paul?”

                  What makes you think I dispute any of them? My interpretation is the interpretation of Aquinas and the Church Fathers. That celibacy is a holier state than marriage. That Paul allowed married priests and bishops as a concession, not as a commandment. I cited four different sources above. How am I unclear? Did St. Paul not write 1 Corinthians 7?


                  “But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. [7] For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that.”

                  “[6] “By indulgence”: That is, by a condescension to your weakness.”

                  “I would that all men were even as myself”. Does that not include priests and bishops?

                  And even if that passage of Scripture wasn’t there, it’d still be obvious that celibacy is preferable for the reasons Aquinas cites above. You can blaspheme Mary and the Church Fathers all you want, Jesus was a lifelong celibate and Scripture repeatedly calls Christians, especially priests, to imitate Him.

                  Even Martin Luther of all people did not deny the perpetual virginity of the Virgin Mary.

                  “And if Bishops normally and normatively were married with children, your Church would not be run by the gay mafia.”

                  Give me a break. The Anglican church allows married priests and its 100x gayer than even worst of the Jesuit Order. Same goes for every mainline protestant denomination.

                  You realize the gay mafia doesn’t care about married priests right? Clerical celibacy is an ancient tradition espoused by the Church Fathers, so of course they don’t give a shit about it. The gay mafia in the recent Amazon Synod openly came out in favor of married priests.


                  I’d like to close by saying St. Jerome did literally nothing wrong and cumbrains hate him because they can’t stand the thought of someone dedicating themselves to any higher calling than cooming. Although what else should one expect from members of a church founded on adultery?

                • jim says:

                  > > “Let us talk about Saint Paul versus Saint Jerome. One of these has to be an evil heretic. You cannot piously have them both as saints.”

                  > Just laughably absurd.

                  Not an answer. If Saint Paul did not mean what he said and say what he meant, what then was he saying?

                  I am not going to allow any of your posts through until you answer that question.

                  Answer me! If Saint Paul did not mean what he said about Bishops, marriage, children, and sex, what did he mean? Saint Jerome dodged the question, and you are dodging the question.

                  Stop dodging. Do what Saint Jerome conspicuously failed to do.

                  You are snatching fragments of Saint Paul from a very different context and torturing his words to say things that are radically incompatible with what he said when talking directly about bishops, children and marriage, and when talking directly about marriage and sex. If he did not mean what he said when he was actually talking about these issues directly, what did he mean?

                  What Saint Paul said on these topics is sane, reasonable, wise and good. What Saint Jerome said is evil, malicious, hateful, and insane – and flatly contradicts Saint Paul. One or the other has to go.

                  Saint Jerome’s malice and evil is ancient. But I am pretty sure that making “I do” the sacrament of marriage comes from the bed of a much more recent pile of naked gay priests. Please dig up the origins of that one.

                  The only way you can canonize both of them is to bury what one of them said, or bury what the other one said. Which in the age of the internet is no longer a viable option. One of them has to go.

                  Pretending to keep both of them around was always hypocrisy. One or the other always had to be quietly buried. When the bible was translated, it became inconvenient to bury Saint Paul. When the internet arrived, inconvenient to bury Saint Jerome. So today, one of them has to go.

                • Mike says:

                  Woah, woah there Shaman, you dropped a bit too much of a truth-bomb on me there. Are you merely saying that Mary and Joseph weren’t virgins but that the birth of Jesus himself was still a virgin birth (ie not conceived via sex)? Or are you denying the virgin birth as well?

                  Also, in response to Jim briefly, I think what Nikolai is disputing about Paul is a few small passages from 1 Corinthians 7. As I was saying to Shaman, there is a distinct couple of passages in 1 Corinthians 7 where Paul for all intents and purposes implies that celibacy, while not being the calling for the majority of people, is pleasing:
                  “I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am……. 8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do.”

                  However, please note (as I said to Shaman) that he IMMEDIATELY follows this up by stating that most people cannot handle being celibate, so it is proper for them to marry so they don’t go insane:

                  “9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”

                  Point being, you are right to say that Paul believes marriage to be holy in the Lord’s sight, but if Paul states that he himself is superior in holiness via him being single (“I wish that all of you were as I am”) I don’t see how he isn’t implying celibacy is superior. Going from there, it doesn’t take much to stretch that statement to (as the Catholics have) “Oh, the majority of people should marry. Well, the clergy aren’t the majority of people, so that means they shouldn’t marry”.

                  Also, Orthodox bishops have been celibate almost as long as Catholic ones, although their lower clergy are not. Prots as far as I can tell let all clergy marry.

                • shaman says:


                  they can’t stand the thought of someone dedicating themselves to any higher calling than cooming.

                  A strawman, the result of crimestop.

                  What we can’t stand is granting celibacy higher status than normal married life, because that leads to blue-pilled and unhealthy doctrines about male-female relations, such as have been plaguing the Church for a long while. When celibacy is considered to be holier than marriage, a whole host of bad fruits start growing (cuckoldry is tolerated and indirectly encouraged, gays run the Church from unhygienic bedrooms where scat parties doth regularly transpire, and — most crucially — heterosexuality is devastatingly vilified), as has been argued at length here.

                  We see all that happening in front of our noses, we recognize what causes it, and we seek to fix it. Telling us that “Saint Jerome did nothing wrong” is telling us that we must not endeavor to fix the problem; the next step is denial of there even being a problem, as indeed you are denying that the elevation of celibacy above marriage has led to catastrophic results for healthy male-female relations. Sadly, then, you’ve chosen the side of Satan, the liar.


                  Did not deny the virgin conception of Jesus. I deny the insane idea that Mary and Joseph have lived their whole married life in perpetual celibacy, which mad idea is both contradicted by Scripture itself, and is transparently intended to elevate the status of virginity up to the high heavens, as Satanic Church Fathers such as e.g. Saint Jerome designed.

                • alf says:

                  I’d like to close by saying St. Jerome did literally nothing wrong and cumbrains hate him because they can’t stand the thought of someone dedicating themselves to any higher calling than cooming.

                  Oooh wait a minute. Nikolai, have you dedicated yourself to a higher calling than cooming? Is this just another case of identity politics gone nuts?

                  What is going on is obvious of course. Children make you immortal, remaining celibate is failing in attaining immortality. Celibacy is a display of weakness. St Paul was correct in his interpretation that some men simply prefer the celibate way and that this is OK, but that it is NOT the way for most men, since God built us to have children, to attain immortality.

                  Then what is the role of st Jerome? Well, he did the same thing all leftists do: elevating weakness to a virtue. St Jerome interprets the Darwinistic dead end of celibacy as a strength, just like Progs interpret diversity and sodomy as a strength, thereby undermining non-celibates as Progs undermine whites and straights.

                  Do you want holiness spirals? ‘Cos that’s how you get holiness spirals.

                • ten says:

                  These are deep waters in which i do not belong – but when theologians debate a thing called “perpetual virginity”, they do not mean “lifelong mundane sexlessness”. They mean something of the sort of 1) the state of virginity has spiritual significance other than that of pragmatic paternity certainty etc, and that 2) Mary, the ideal woman and mother of God, our merciful mother, maintains this state until the end of times, not something as retardedly trivial as if joseph banged his wife, which we for many reasons must assume he did – scripture says so and otherwise he was a fucking fag and our faith would not be around, so he banged his wife good.

                • Reverend Deshawnte Liquori "The Pitbull Warlord" Jackson says:

                  Nah. Unfortunately, effete nerdy theologians, who deserve to be stuffed into their own lockers after school and/or have their faces shoved into toilets while the water is flushed (a so-called “swirlie”) during lunch break, do indeed very much passionately argue that Joseph the Carpenter literally never fucked his early-teen-married wife Mary, because he was her “guardian” and a “holy man,” blahblahblah stupid gay crap.

                  If Saint Jerome were alive today, he would be making #MeToo accusations against himself on Tumblr and uploading videos of himself grievously sobbing into “Velvet Soft” ass-wipes about Climate Change to a YouTube channel with 37 subscribers who all have gay dads (who raped them).

  21. Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

    OT excerpt from new book by Trump’s eldest son:

    “I knew that when it came down to it, all the morons in the House and Senate … would throw me in jail themselves if they had the power to do it. They just wanted to get my father out of office and punish anyone who supported him — starting with me and my family.”

    I will answer other comments later as time permits.

    • jim says:

      Yes, Trump gets it. If the Democrats are ever allowed to return to power, they are going to imprison, and eventally kill, Trump and his family.

      And eventually, kill everyone.

      As I am fond of saying, we have walked this path before. It always ends in murder, and usually enormous mass murder. History does not repeat, but it rhymes.

      • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

        another OT. The Brookings Institution, via The Atlantic, channels Boldmug:

        “Too Much Democracy is Bad for Democracy”

        The whole thing is stupid and not worth reading in detail, I post it mainly for the title, but they propose to put party before democracy and leave the candidate selection more in the hands of Suitable Professionals, so as to avoid “populism”.

        2020 will be fun.

        • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

          On second look, the article is completely hilarious when read in full, like Moldbug on drugs doing a spoken-word extemporized impersonation of a Democrat.

          As if on cue to also channel Jim, they compare the democracy problem to a lack of peer review and refer to another Brookings masterpiece from 2017,

          “Re-inserting peer review in the American presidential nomination process”

          • The Cominator says:

            This is the priesthood being pissy that they have lost control and that they know the mob hates them and put Trump in… Social Democracy is a sacred sacrament to the Cathedral but only insofar as people who do not seriously fuck with leftist/cathedral plans obtain office. Then the Cathedral should override the election.

            Moldbug truly hates Democracy, Jim truly hates Democracy but I think Ji thinks the monarch should somewhat have the confidence of the realm’s productive freeholders and of course the soldiers.

  22. shaman says:

    Seems that someone — either a Jewish troll, or Judaizing Protestant, or LARPagan troll — expects me to engage in Christian apologia against heresies, one such heresy being that Christians should observe the Old Testament’s ritual purity laws and dietary laws.

    “I_Never_Knew_You” quotes me and writes:

    And Christians are not obligated to keep the Biblical ritual purity laws, anyway, just as Christians should not observe the Biblical dietary laws.

    “Til heaven and earth pass away, not a jot nor tittle shall pass from the law til all be fulfilled.”

    Jesus said that. He also warned that he would turn away those (like you Shaman) that preach iniquity (lawlessness).

    Jesus was very clear, the law applies to God’s people, forever.

    1 John 5 might provide you with clarity, although I suspect you are on the side of the deceiver, as is the Catholic Church.

    Okay then, let’s do this. In the discussion with Eli, I’ve established that Jesus did not preach anything radically outside Jewish tradition. (The discussion is not yet over, by the way) Here I will establish that the purity aspects of Mosaic Law are fulfilled through Jesus Christ, and that God no longer expects His followers to observe them, if ever He did. I’m not going to prove here that Jesus was the Messiah according to Old Testament prophesies, or that his mission was intended for the whole world rather than merely for the Jews; these are easy enough for me to prove also, but outside the scope of this specific discussion. Here, we merely discuss whether or not Jesus could have had authority to do away with ritual worship.

    First, let’s see what makes Moses unique, in contrast to regular prophets:

    Exodus 33:

    The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend. Then Moses would return to the camp, but his young aide Joshua son of Nun did not leave the tent.

    Numbers 12:

    5 Then the Lord came down in a pillar of cloud; he stood at the entrance to the tent and summoned Aaron and Miriam. When the two of them stepped forward, 6 he said, “Listen to my words:

    “When there is a prophet among you,
    I, the Lord, reveal myself to them in visions,
    I speak to them in dreams.
    7 But this is not true of my servant Moses;
    he is faithful in all my house.
    8 With him I speak face to face,
    clearly and not in riddles;
    he sees the form of the Lord.
    Why then were you not afraid
    to speak against my servant Moses?”

    Deuteronomy 34:

    10 Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face, 11 who did all those signs and wonders the Lord sent him to do in Egypt—to Pharaoh and to all his officials and to his whole land. 12 For no one has ever shown the mighty power or performed the awesome deeds that Moses did in the sight of all Israel.

    All of these verses establish one thing very clearly: Not every prophet who comes by has the same authority as the authority of Moses. A regular prophet does not see God face to face, does not speak with God as one speaks with a friend, but receives divine revelation in the form of “visions,” “dreams,” and “riddles.” Moses could establish the law; regular prophets could not.

    Here’s the twist, though; we were promised that there would arrive another prophet with the same authority!

    Deuteronomy 18:

    18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him. 19 I myself will call to account anyone who does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name.

    These two verses alone are sufficient to dispel the orthodox Jewish (and Judaizing Protestant) notion that God’s Law was given once and for all, and would never again be renewed or amended. Because if that were the case, why would another prophet like Moses be needed? Now ask any orthodox Jew to name a prophet “like Moses,” and — disregarding the explicit divine promise quoted here — he will tell you that there was no prophet like Moses, nor, he will imply, will there ever be one. So again I ask: What is the meaning of another prophet “like Moses,” if not to turn people to God’s true will, and to instruct them in God’s true commandments? If one Moses (and one Law) had been enough, there would have been no promise of another prophet with similar authority (and, by extension, another Law).

    Ask an orthodox Jew what it means that another prophet like Moses will arrive, and see him twisting himself into knots in a Talmudic fashion and torturing the text to make it say the opposite of what it very clearly says.

    Okay, so what would be the nature of Second Moses’ mission?

    Jeremiah 31:

    31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day when I took hold of their hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; for they abode not in my covenant, and I disregarded them, saith the Lord. 33 For this is my covenant which I will make with the house of Israel; after those days, saith the Lord, I will surely put my laws into their mind, and write them on their hearts; and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people. 34 And they shall not at all teach every one his fellow citizen, and every one his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them: for I will be merciful to their iniquities, and their sins I will remember no more.

    A new covenant of following the spirit of the law rather than the dead letter of the law; a covenant of Faith and Grace instead of the old covenant in which divine favor is bestowed by observing the Mosaic rites. A new covenant surely can only be established by a new Moses, rather than by any regular prophet.

    A further confirmation is seen in Ezekiel 20:

    25 Moreover I gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not have life;

    Well, clearly another prophet like Moses is needed to set things straight – to turn people away from the “bad laws” by which a person can “not live” and to true knowledge of the Lord.

    That the Israelite ritual worship, which is the source and telos of both the purity (cleanliness and uncleanliness) laws and the dietary laws, is unappealing to God and fundamentally futile, as He expects something altogether different from His worshipers, has been explicitly repeated or otherwise alluded to a great number of times throughout the Old Testament. Judaizers can ignore these verses all they want, and that’s precisely what they do; and yet here they are, for everyone’s edification.

    Amos 5:

    21 “I hate, I despise your religious festivals;
    your assemblies are a stench to me.
    22 Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings,
    I will not accept them.
    Though you bring choice fellowship offerings,
    I will have no regard for them.

    23 Away with the noise of your songs!
    I will not listen to the music of your harps.
    24 But let justice roll on like a river,
    righteousness like a never-failing stream!
    25 “Did you bring me sacrifices and offerings
    forty years in the wilderness, people of Israel?

    Hosea 2:

    11 I will stop all her celebrations:
    her yearly festivals, her New Moons,
    her Sabbath days—all her appointed festivals.

    Hosea 6:

    6 For I desire mercy, not sacrifice,
    and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.

    Hosea 14:

    2 Take with you words, and turn to the Lord: say unto him, Take away all iniquity, and receive us graciously: so will we render the calves of our lips.

    Micah 6:

    6 With what shall I come before the Lord
    and bow down before the exalted God?
    Shall I come before him with burnt offerings,
    with calves a year old?
    7 Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams,
    with ten thousand rivers of olive oil?
    Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression,
    the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?
    8 He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
    And what does the Lord require of you?
    To act justly and to love mercy
    and to walk humbly with your God.

    Isaiah 1:

    10 Hear the word of the Lord,
    you rulers of Sodom;
    listen to the instruction of our God,
    you people of Gomorrah!
    11 “The multitude of your sacrifices—
    what are they to me?” says the Lord.
    “I have more than enough of burnt offerings,
    of rams and the fat of fattened animals;
    I have no pleasure
    in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats.

    12 When you come to appear before me,
    who has asked this of you,
    this trampling of my courts?
    13 Stop bringing meaningless offerings!
    Your incense is detestable to me.
    New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations—
    I cannot bear your worthless assemblies.
    14 Your New Moon feasts and your appointed festivals
    I hate with all my being.
    They have become a burden to me;
    I am weary of bearing them.

    Isaiah 40:

    16 Lebanon is not sufficient for altar fires,
    nor its animals enough for burnt offerings.

    Isaiah 66 (see also Psalm 24:3-4):

    1 This is what the Lord says:
    “Heaven is my throne,
    and the earth is my footstool.
    Where is the house you will build for me?
    Where will my resting place be?
    2 Has not my hand made all these things,
    and so they came into being?”
    declares the Lord.
    “These are the ones I look on with favor:
    those who are humble and contrite in spirit,
    and who tremble at my word.
    3 But whoever sacrifices a bull
    is like one who kills a person,
    and whoever offers a lamb
    is like one who breaks a dog’s neck;
    whoever makes a grain offering
    is like one who presents pig’s blood,
    and whoever burns memorial incense
    is like one who worships an idol.
    They have chosen their own ways,
    and they delight in their abominations;
    4 so I also will choose harsh treatment for them
    and will bring on them what they dread.
    For when I called, no one answered,
    when I spoke, no one listened.
    They did evil in my sight
    and chose what displeases me.”

    Jeremiah 7:

    9 “‘Will you steal and murder, commit adultery and perjury, burn incense to Baal and follow other gods you have not known, 10 and then come and stand before me in this house, which bears my Name, and say, “We are safe”—safe to do all these detestable things? 11 Has this house, which bears my Name, become a den of robbers to you? But I have been watching! declares the Lord.

    Jeremiah 14:

    12 Although they fast, I will not listen to their cry; though they offer burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them. Instead, I will destroy them with the sword, famine and plague.”

    Malachi 1:

    10 “Oh, that one of you would shut the temple doors, so that you would not light useless fires on my altar! I am not pleased with you,” says the Lord Almighty, “and I will accept no offering from your hands. 11 My name will be great among the nations, from where the sun rises to where it sets. In every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to me, because my name will be great among the nations,” says the Lord Almighty.

    Psalm 50:

    7 “Listen, my people, and I will speak;
    I will testify against you, Israel:
    I am God, your God.
    8 I bring no charges against you concerning your sacrifices
    or concerning your burnt offerings, which are ever before me.

    9 I have no need of a bull from your stall
    or of goats from your pens,
    10 for every animal of the forest is mine,
    and the cattle on a thousand hills.
    11 I know every bird in the mountains,
    and the insects in the fields are mine.
    12 If I were hungry I would not tell you,
    for the world is mine, and all that is in it.
    13 Do I eat the flesh of bulls
    or drink the blood of goats?

    Psalm 51:

    15 Open my lips, Lord,
    and my mouth will declare your praise.
    16 You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it;
    you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings.

    17 My sacrifice, O God, is a broken spirit;
    a broken and contrite heart
    you, God, will not despise.

    Psalm 69:

    30 I will praise God’s name in song
    and glorify him with thanksgiving.
    31 This will please the Lord more than an ox,
    more than a bull with its horns and hooves.

    Proverbs 21:

    3 To do what is right and just
    is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice.

    These verses, and some others (less explicit) not quoted here, are all familiar to those who’ve actually read the Bible, to say nothing of those who’ve memorized vast segments thereof. We see clearly that God is displeased with the Israelite rituals, has a thoroughly negative attitude towards their sacrifices, regards not their Temple and ceremonies, and as such, doesn’t care whatsoever about the Mosaic statutes of ritual purity and impurity, of which the dietary laws are but an extension. Ritual purity is needed for ritual sacrifice; no ritual sacrifice, no ritual purity. Ask an orthodox Jew why eating pork was forbidden, and you won’t hear a reply more complex than “God said so.” But there is logic to everything; eating pork was forbidden because its flesh, like other kinds of flesh, is unfit for ritual sacrifice, and therefore by eating it, you make yourself unfit to conduct and participate in ritual sacrifice; it ritually defiles you, hence you can’t worship God according to the ancient Israelite form.

    But God doesn’t care for the Israelite form of ritual sacrifice, and if you have no intention of practicing it, then the prohibition of pork consumption simply doesn’t apply to you.

    All of that is obvious enough, and whoever tells you otherwise is lying to you and misleading you. The authority of Moses, like the authority of Abraham, and that of all the prophets, was based on receiving it from God, not from man. The Second Moses mentioned earlier — the one who can renew and amend the law given at Sinai — likewise receives his authority directly from God, and not from anything else. And, being like Moses, has divine authority and divine approval to set forth a different kind of law, a new covenant. It is in this light that the following verses, and some others, are to be understood:

    Matthew 12:

    1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.”

    3 He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5 Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent? 6 I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. 7 If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. 8 For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”

    Matthew 15:

    16 “Are you still so dull?” Jesus asked them. 17 “Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18 But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.”

    Mark 2:

    23 One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. 24 The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?”

    25 He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? 26 In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.”

    27 Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28 So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”

    Luke 6:

    1 One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and his disciples began to pick some heads of grain, rub them in their hands and eat the kernels. 2 Some of the Pharisees asked, “Why are you doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?”

    3 Jesus answered them, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He entered the house of God, and taking the consecrated bread, he ate what is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.” 5 Then Jesus said to them, “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”

    Christianity is the fulfillment of ritual worship; it does away with the dead letter of the law in favor of its spirit, Jesus having an authority no smaller (indeed, greater) than Moses. This notion is rejected by Judaizers, who contend that Jesus could not have had authority on par with Moses’, and that therefore all parts of Mosaic Law are valid today – in explicit contradiction of Deuteronomy 18:18, where a prophet like Moses is promised; who, being like Moses, has divine authority and divine approval to establish a new covenant unlike the previous one (Jeremiah 31:31-32) and to replace the bad statutes (Ezekiel 20:25). Such is the Messiah, the Son of Man, Jesus Christ.

    This again is alluded to in Deuteronomy 10:

    14 To the Lord your God belong the heavens, even the highest heavens, the earth and everything in it. 15 Yet the Lord set his affection on your ancestors and loved them, and he chose you, their descendants, above all the nations—as it is today. 16 Circumcise your hearts, therefore, and do not be stiff-necked any longer. 17 For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes.

    It is not the circumcision of the flesh that God desires, but the circumcision of the heart; Christianity is the circumcision of the heart. This point has been amply established by Saint Paul, e.g.:

    Philippians 3:

    1 Further, my brothers and sisters, rejoice in the Lord! It is no trouble for me to write the same things to you again, and it is a safeguard for you. 2 Watch out for those dogs, those evildoers, those mutilators of the flesh. 3 For it is we who are the circumcision, we who serve God by his Spirit, who boast in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh— 4 though I myself have reasons for such confidence.

    If someone else thinks they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless.

    7 But whatever were gains to me I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. 8 What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith.

    Go ahead and contradict my argument, Mr. “I_Never_Knew_You.”

    • jim says:

      > Jeremiah 7:
      > 9 “‘Will you steal and murder, commit adultery and perjury, burn incense to Baal and follow other gods you have not known, 10 and then come and stand before me in this house, which bears my Name, and say, “We are safe”—safe to do all these detestable things?

      When the Jews were expelled from Israel by the Romans, this was because they had in fact stolen and murdered, while faithfully and legalistically following the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law. Indeed, what pissed off the Romans was that they were so damned righteous and holy about doing bad things.

      As for perjury and worshiping false gods, I am not aware that they did that in the lead up to that expulsion.

      • info says:

        What Jesus called swallowing the camel and straining out a gnat. Cancelling matters of Justice and Mercy in effect by not only torturing scripture but add rules and regulations not even existing in the OT in order to facilitate evil:

    • shaman says:

      I’d like to add more citations from the OT reflecting the futility of and the negative attitude towards sacrifices, so that those who argue that God intended for religion to be based on sacrificial rites — and hence ritual purity and impurity — will perhaps see the error of their ways. The commandments are supposed to be in line with Natural Law, are intended to facilitate life (Leviticus 18:5; see also 2 Samuel 14:14) rather than to obstruct it. The sheer number is sufficient to establish the point.

      1 Samuel 15:

      22 And Samuel said,
      “Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices,
      as in obeying the voice of the Lord?
      Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice,
      and to hearken than the fat of rams.

      23 For rebellion is as the sin of divination,
      and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.
      Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
      he has also rejected you from being king.”

      Hosea 8:

      13 Though they offer sacrifices as gifts to me,
      and though they eat the meat,
      the Lord is not pleased with them.

      Now he will remember their wickedness
      and punish their sins:
      They will return to Egypt.
      14 Israel has forgotten their Maker
      and built palaces;
      Judah has fortified many towns.
      But I will send fire on their cities
      that will consume their fortresses.”

      Hosea 9:

      3 They will not remain in the Lord’s land;
      Ephraim will return to Egypt
      and eat unclean food in Assyria.
      4 They will not pour out wine offerings to the Lord,
      nor will their sacrifices please him.
      Such sacrifices will be to them like the bread of mourners;
      all who eat them will be unclean.
      This food will be for themselves;
      it will not come into the temple of the Lord.

      Jeremiah 6:

      19 Hear, you earth:
      I am bringing disaster on this people,
      the fruit of their schemes,
      because they have not listened to my words
      and have rejected my law.
      20 What do I care about incense from Sheba
      or sweet calamus from a distant land?
      Your burnt offerings are not acceptable;
      your sacrifices do not please me.”

      Jeremiah 7:

      21 Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: “Add your burnt offerings to your sacrifices, and eat the flesh. 22 For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. 23 But this command I gave them, ‘Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people; and walk in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you.’ 24 But they did not obey or incline their ear, but walked in their own counsels and the stubbornness of their evil hearts, and went backward and not forward.

      Haggai 2:

      14 Then Haggai said, “So is it with this people, and with this nation before me, says the Lord; and so with every work of their hands; and what they offer there is unclean.

      Psalm 40:

      6 Sacrifice and offering you do not desire,
      but you have given me an open ear.
      Burnt offering and sin offering
      you have not required.

      7 Then I said, “Here I am;
      in the scroll of the book it is written of me.
      8 I delight to do your will, O my God;
      your law is within my heart.”

      Proverbs 15:

      The LORD detests the sacrifice of the wicked, but the prayer of the upright pleases him.

      Proverbs 21:

      The sacrifice of the wicked is detestable– how much more so when brought with evil intent!

      Ecclestiastes 5:

      1 Guard your steps when you go to the house of God; to draw near to listen is better than to offer the sacrifice of fools; for they do not know that they are doing evil.

      Sirach 34:

      18 If one sacrifices from what has been wrongfully obtained, the offering is blemished;
      the gifts of the lawless are not acceptable.
      19 The Most High is not pleased with the offerings of the ungodly;
      and he is not propitiated for sins by a multitude of sacrifices.

      Sirach 35:

      1 Keeping the Law is worth many offerings; it is a fellowship offering in itself. 2 Returning a kindness is like a grain offering; giving to the poor is like a thanksgiving offering. 3 Keeping away from sin will please the Lord and make atonement for sin.

      Despite all that, among Second Temple Jewry, the focus of religion shifted to a holiness spiral of legalistic superstitions, of obsession with meat and dairy, blood contamination, and bizarre Sabbath violations; even though God had made it amply clear that He is not at all concerned about the sacrificial aspects of religion (which sacrificial aspects are the basis of purity and impurity laws), the Jews, and particularly the Pharisees, made a whole show of zealously observing dietary and ritual laws, while conspicuously failing to observe anything that might promote a cooperate-cooperate equilibrium with Greek neighbors and Roman policemen. The Temple did not have to be destroyed; the nation did not have to be exiled; these things happened for a reason. Orthodox Jews, unlike Christians, do not have a satisfactory answer as to why all that happened.

    • ten says:

      Thank you for posts in this spirit; much appreciated.

    • I_Never_Knew-You says:


      It’s a pity you didn’t save yourself a whole lot of time and just address what Jesus actually said, here is what he said:

      ‘The Fulfillment of the Law
      17Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. 18For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.…’

      For the slower readers, fulfillment does not mean abandonment or termination of the laws, it means that Jesus literally filled them full, with the loss of his life as one perfect sacrifice, thereby replacing the need for animal sacrifices.

      What else did he do? You didn’t highlight it yourself, although you did quote it (surprise, surprise):

      ‘I will surely put my laws into their mind, and write them on their hearts; and I will be to them a God’

      Jesus sent us the Comforter, literally God’s Spirit, to help us to know God’s will. Interestingly, Jesus was also a recipient of the Holy Spirit, immediately after his baptism.

      1 John 5 explains the process we must follow:

      ‘1Everyone believing that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone loving the One having begotten Him also loves the one having been begotten from Him. 2By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments. 3For this is the love of God, that we should keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome. 4For everyone having been born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory having overcome the world: our faith.

      5Now who is the one overcoming the world, except the one believing that Jesus is the Son of God?’

      1. Believe that Jesus is the Christ, the begotten son of God.
      2. Love God and Jesus.
      3. We love God and keep his commandments (i.e. the law).
      4. That is the way to love God, to keep His commandments, they’re not difficult.
      5. Faith overcomes the world.
      6. Faith is believing God sent His Son Jesus to die for us.

      So, Jesus died so that when humans sin (which all do, although those with the Holy Spirit do not find it burdensome to keep to the law) their sins do not condemn them to eternal death at Judgement Day (that’s what it means to not be under the law any more, that’s how our debt record is blotted out).

      But Jesus did not die to free us all to sin (and sin is defined in scripture as lawlessness) whenever we want, and to ignore all of God’s commands. Nor to remove the earthly penalties for breaking the law. It’s entirely righteous to protect society/nation by killing an adulterer, whilst at the same time hoping that he/she repents of their sin before mortal death, so that at Judgement Day their eternal life is assured. Likewise for sodomites and murderers and Sabbath breakers etc. God gave us His laws to ensure a stable nation, with righteous rules on marriage, the food we can eat, curing diseases, waging warfare, lending money/goods/slaves, property, tithes, helping the poor and widows. It’s a long list, but only 613 laws, hardly a large number by comparison with today’s ridiculous bloated statute books.

      The only change is the removal of the need to sacrifice animals.

      You may have read that ‘God is love’. How do we know what that means?

      ‘And we have come to know and believe the love that God has for us. God is love; whoever abides in love abides in God, and God in him.’

      God literally lives in me, via His Spirit, it’s inside me, guiding me, helping me to know Him better and His will.

      But what is this ‘love’, which is ‘agape’ in Greek. It’s an amazing revelation:

      ’26 agápē – properly, love which centers in moral preference. So too in secular ancient Greek, 26 (agápē) focuses on preference; likewise the verb form (25 /agapáō) in antiquity meant “to prefer” (TDNT, 7). In the NT, 26 (agápē) typically refers to divine love (= what God prefers). ‘

      Agape is literally what God prefers. How do we know what He prefers? Well, he helpfully told us back in Deuteronomy and Leviticus when he gave the world His laws. So God IS what He prefers, and He is love, and guess what, we are commanded to love our neighbours and to love God (both are also ‘agape’). So we don’t love them by any fluffy ways, or by being nice, we love them by obeying God’s commands relating to neighbours: not stealing from them, murdering them, coveting their things, and so on. Perfect.

      Who would be so foolish to try to argue that those laws no longer apply? I can imagine deceivers telling us otherwise, but not those with the Spirit of God within them.

      You highlighted that ‘The Sabbath was made for man’. Yes, indeed, a wonderful blessing to have this day set aside for rest and worship and prayer. God felt it was so important, He put it on tablets of stone with the other nine big commands. I assume you’re an firm advocate of observing the Sabbath each Saturday therefore? Or did you fall for the bisexual pagan Constantine’s move to Sun-day worship? Surely you’re not that easily duped? Plenty are though, they don’t fear Jehovah one iota, and are lacking the Holy Spirit, sadly lost. But obviously, if you’re happy to ditch the Sabbath command, you would struggle to then retain any of the other Big Nine. Hypocrites might try I suppose.

      You also ignored Jesus’ own warnings against those preaching iniquity (lawlessness) which is very dangerous, as it guarantees he’ll turn you away on Judgement Day, so if there was any doubt that this issue is THE BIG ONE for Jehovah and Jesus, surely that sentence would leave no doubt?

      Just to be clear, following the law does not earn salvation, but the deep desire to obey the law comes as result of God being within us, and letting us know what He wants, by placing His laws in our hearts and minds.

      Eventually, when Jesus comes to rule with the saved on earth, all laws will be followed, including God’s feast days, which are wonderful to observe, much more meaningful than the pagan abominations of Christmas and Easter. Revelation and other scripture refers to al nations observing the feast days.

      For the most part, your argument was with some imaginary Jewish person I think, but I will be curious to see if you agree with my elaboration, and please remember, don’t dismiss of disagree with Jesus’ own words on the subject, as that makes you look really silly, or a deceiver.

      Address Jesus’ words, rather than misinterpreting Paul.

      • shaman says:


        I’m not interested in having a long conversation with you, because the arguments put forth by people on the schizophrenia spectrum — while often amusing — do not deserve serious consideration. You are not wanted here, and not respected here. Maybe you can have a conversation with the demons in your head, instead?

        Nevertheless, I’ll go over some of your deceptions and lies for everyone else’s edification.

        For the slower readers, fulfillment does not mean abandonment or termination of the laws

        Right: It means that in Jesus Christ the ritual aspects of the law have been completed and accomplished, hence the Jews and the rest of humanity need not observe them; as Jim said above, Jesus did it so you won’t have to.

        But Jesus did not die to free us all to sin (and sin is defined in scripture as lawlessness)

        You can keep saying “lawlessness,” “lawlessness,” “lawlessness,” “lawlessness,” “lawlessness,” “lawlessness,” “lawlessness” all you want, and it will remain a lie. First, sin is defined as transgression or violation. To sin against X is to commit a transgression against X. Secondly, nobody is advocating lawlessness. Christianity, which has nothing to do with your demonic single-member-religion, observes the spirit of the law, rather than the dead letter of the law, which spirit of the law is manifested in Natural Law, and reflected in Old Testament commandments that aren’t concerned with ritual purity and impurity, or with legalistic technicalities.

        ignore all of God’s commands.

        Nobody’s ignoring anything.

        Nor to remove the earthly penalties for breaking the law. It’s entirely righteous to protect society/nation by killing an adulterer


        Likewise for sodomites and murderers and Sabbath breakers etc. God gave us His laws to ensure a stable nation, with righteous rules on marriage, the food we can eat, curing diseases, waging warfare, lending money/goods/slaves, property, tithes, helping the poor and widows.

        You are lumping together things that are unlike.

        It’s a long list, but only 613 laws

        Orthodox Jewish meme; it’s fewer than 613. You did not count the commandments yourself, instead relying on what the rabbis tell you. And of the approximately 600 commandments there are, one third deal with Temple sacrifices and practices. As for the other 400 or so, many of them no longer apply due to historical reasons (e.g., various ethnicities have disappeared), and many of them no longer apply because they had been fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Perhaps someone should make a list of the approximately 600 commandments of the Pentateuch, and explain which ones are relevant today and which ones aren’t.

        The only change is the removal of the need to sacrifice animals.

        No, the change is that ritual law and legalism are no longer valid. This includes the sacrifice of animals, also the dietary laws, the ritual purity and defilement laws, and everything that is of the letter rather than of the spirit.

        God literally lives in me, via His Spirit, it’s inside me, guiding me, helping me to know Him better and His will.

        It’s not God that’s inside of you; it’s schizophrenia.

        I assume you’re an firm advocate of observing the Sabbath each Saturday therefore? Or did you fall for the bisexual pagan Constantine’s move to Sun-day worship?

        The spirit of the law is allowing one’s household at least one day of rest per week; whether it’s Saturday, Sunday, or Tuesday doesn’t matter.

        You’re not getting any more replies from me, Glosoli.

        Keep screeching.

        • jim says:

          By their fruits you will know them. The fruits of legalism have been at best underwhelming, at worst suicidal and democidal.

          Attempting to deduce ought from ought gets you into obviously wicked and stupid territory mighty fast, regardless of how reasonable and authoritative your starting point is. After a few steps of deducing ought from ought, you find yourself some place that smells very wrong.

        • I_Never_Knew_You says:


          Clearly you are content to ignore Jesus’ own words.
          That’s a shame, but typical of the Churchians of today.
          Not a single piece of scripture in your reply, just your view. Youc an keep it, your opinion means diddly squat.

          >Perhaps someone should make a list of the approximately 600 commandments of the Pentateuch, and explain which ones are relevant today and which ones aren’t.

          I’m just about to start on that with a brother.

          May God allow some readers to know Him and His will. Amen.

          • jim says:

            People commonly get strange meanings for the words of Jesus by attacking his words like a lawyer trying to break a contract, taking one phrase from him talking to one person about one subject, and another phrase from him talking to another person about another subject.

            The words of Jesus are, taken in the context of the questions people asked him and the reasons they were asking these questions, clear, intelligible, and sane. When he gives a trick answer, it is because someone has asked him a trick question.

            That “not one jot or tittle shall perish from the law” has to be understood in the context that people are condemning Jesus and his followers for not being legalistic. You cannot, in that context, run off with it and deduce legalism.

            You, on the other hand, are floridly insane, projecting your evil and insane delusions onto Jesus.

            Others, however, are just nuts.

          • I_Never_Knew_You says:

            ’17And the dragon was angry with the woman, and he went to make to war with the rest of her children keeping the commandments of God and holding the testimony of Jesus.’

            ’11Blessed are you when they shall insult you and shall persecute you, and lying shall say all kinds of evil against you on account of Me. 12Rejoice and exult, because great is your reward in the heavens; for thus they persecuted the prophets before you.’

            ’19Whoever then shall break one of the least of these commandments and shall teach others the same, he will be called least in the kingdom of the heavens; but whoever shall keep and shall teach them, he will be called great in the kingdom of the heavens. 20For I say to you that unless your righteousness shall abound above that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall never enter into the kingdom of the heavens. ‘

            ‘9Therefore pray you like this:

            ‘Our Father in the heavens,

            hallowed be Your name!

            10Your kingdom come.

            Your will be done

            as in heaven, so ALSO upon earth.’

            ’21Not everyone saying to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of My Father in the heavens. 22Many will say to Me in that the day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23And then I will declare unto them, ‘I never knew you; depart you from Me, those working lawlessness.’

            ’49And having stretched out His hand to His disciples, He said, “Behold, My mother and My brothers. 50For whoever shall do the will of My Father who is in the heavens, he is My brother and sister and mother.”

            ‘“Every plant that My Heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up. 14Leave them! They are blind guides of the blind.d And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.”

            Don’t be led by a blind man into a pit. Time is short, repent, turn to Jehovah and His Son.

            • jim says:

              You are preaching a Jewish heresy of Christianity, which is as unchristian as progressivism itself, but has far fewer adherents.

              In fact I suspect you are the only adherent, which is an indication of florid insanity.

              • I_Never_Knew_You says:

                Every piece of scripture above is the literal words of Christ himself, including his Revelation to John. I just added a warning about being led into a pit by a blind man.

                The fact you call these verses heresies means I declare victory, on behalf of the Lord, who was, of course, Jewish, and as we all know, salvation is of the Jews.

                People reading should know you are a servant of Satan, along the same lines as the bisexual pagan Constantine.

                (For a former friend, this might make him smile: Jesus was literally a hybrid. Miss you brother, for some odd reason).

                Can you rescue my answer to Rocket 7, it vanished, then my 2nd attempt was refused as a 2nd attempt. Thanks.

                • The Cominator says:

                  You are quoting the bible out of context though and to prove… what point?

                • jim says:

                  Like Nikolai, I_Never_Knew_You simply assumes that the bible supports him, and if tells us that if we disagree with him, we are rejecting God.

                  But he has a lot more evidence for that claim that Nikolai does. Nikolai is apt to tell us that whatever doctrine came out last week from a bed with a big pile of naked gay priests in it comes directly from the New Testament, and if we doubt it we are doubting the New Testament and the Church fathers.

                  Gnosticism, on the other hand, has plausible scriptural support, and it clearly has overwhelming empirical support. Christian answers to the problem of evil are not terribly persuasive.

                  But Gnosticism simply is not Christian, is not Christianity, and Gnostics have a really bad record of bad conduct and being generally harmful.

                  On the gripping hand, right now a Church run by the gay mafia is doing a lot more damage than Gnosticism.

                  OK, Christian answers to the problem of evil are not very persuasive, but every morning that there is a good sunrise, I watch the sunrise, drink the coffee my wife made for me, and am persuaded anyway.

                • Starman says:


                  You refused to answer my RedPill on women question, FBI shill.

                • shaman says:

                  One possible Christian solution to the problem of evil is the proposition that, by consistently following Christ, it’s possible for a civilization to gradually diminish the extent of evil within it – indeed, that were it not for various anti-Christian religions and heresies such as (respectively) Islam and Puritanism, the world today would be so much better, thanks precisely to the positive pro-civilizational influence of legitimate Christianity itself.

                  This argument is particularly compelling in light of the fact that without Christianity there would not have been an Industrial Revolution; alone among the religions of the world, Christianity facilitates the kind inter-group and inter-personal cooperation that makes scientific and technological progress possible. No Christianity, no Francis Bacon, no Robert Boyle, no Scientific Method, no Royal Society. When Christianity is firmly dominant, everything is getting gradually better, people feel hopeful and optimistic, and Gnosticism then becomes rather unappealing. Evil is fading, under these circumstances.

                • jim says:

                  Quite so.

                  But the puritans were hostile to the scientific method, and their holier than God ideological descendants are today hostile in the same way for the same reasons. And, infamously, the pope stuck his oar into the dispute about the Ptolemaic and Copernican systems, and looked like an idiot for so doing. The Copernican system correctly predicted that Venus would show phases like the moon, and Ptolemaic system incorrectly predicted that it would not – more precisely, it predicted the wrong phases at the wrong parts of its orbit.

                  Christianity, rightly interpreted (Christ as the incarnation of the Logos) supports the scientific method, and Christianity has been generally less destructive of science than its competitors, in particular less destructive than the current doctrine that there is no objective truth. But actually existent Christianity has not been all that supportive of the scientific method. The Biblical commandments on speaking truth do not directly address the issues raised Robert Boyle in the The Sceptical Chymist, which address how the community should support truth. Robert Boyle addresses the madness of crowds, whereas the Bible focuses on individual lying, slander, and perjury, and only very peripherally addresses the madness of crowds.

                  The Bible worries about Ann lying to Bob about Carol. Boyle worries about Ann believing Carol, and Carol believing Ann, when neither of them actually know whereof they speak. Boyle is worried about argument from consensus being substituted for argument from empirical evidence, argument from consensus falsely purporting to be argument from empirical evidence.

                  A classic example being this graph, where all the graph from 1870 to 1975 is quite obviously pulled out of their ass and the graph from 1970 to 1979 is based on fragmentary and incomplete data.

      • Starman says:


        I wonder why you can’t answer a redpill on women question?

        • I_never_knew-you says:

          Ask it.

          • Starman says:


            Answer this multiple choice question. Remember, multiple choice questions cannot be obfuscated. So choose one.

            A 12-year old female has sexual fantasies of:
            A) Being an independent womyn astronomerette and attracting men with her professional credential.
            B) Getting married to a dependable programmer.
            C) Getting beaten and raped by a train of tatted up thugs.
            D) … wait a minute, only pedophiles think 12 year old children have sexual fantasies.

    • Jacob V says:

      Proof-texting Old Testament quotes about x,y, z in the law ‘not pleasing to God’ out of the context of it being *wickedness* that made those things not pleasing to God isn’t impressive (especially when I know a half dozen Old Testament prophecies indicating those aspects of the Law to some degree were expected to be restored and practiced during the end times). But a lot of nice effort went into collecting all of those, I’ll give you that. The Jeremiah verse about a New Covenant and your contextualizing Moses and Deuteronomy 18:18 is probably the most persuasive, so great job there, as with your previous contextualizing Jesus’s moral teachings as not being too radically different from scripture before him.

      Christianity has taken a lot of the Old Testament out of context from the beginning. The generous way some scholars call it is a “messianic” perspective on scripture, wherein Christians interpret the entire Old Testament as pointing to Christ. As examples, Psalm 45 and Psalm 110 clearly reference the Davidic King as a “God” and “Lord” who held both Kingly and Priestly authority like Melchizedek (evident by the fact that David and Solomon had authority over the Levites in priestly affairs as they saw fit), while the New Testament conveniently re-interprets both those Psalms to be about Christ.

      What would have been more persuasive and impressive than proof-texting the Old Testament would have been to collect all the New Testament verses that point to Gentiles not being under the Israelite law and covenants (e.g. ‘ordinances nailed to the cross’), as those are plentiful. The Book of Acts is clear that non-Jews are only under some aspects of the old law (see Acts 21:18-26 as a good example of Paul supporting Jews to still keep their traditions, but Gentiles not to do so).

      Acts 21:24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.

      25 [But] As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from [consuming] blood, and from strangled [animals], and from fornication [Acts 15:20].

      (As a personal religious update: I have gone Mormon Fundamentalist in recent years; God is alive and well, though it is clear that whites have a hard time with group cohesion even with similar religious views.

      After knowing the original Mormon temple doctrine for several years I am still very impressed with it: While the LDS Church recently removed the temple covenant for a woman to ‘hearken to’ / ‘obey’ her husband, while he covenanted to obey God, any Fundamentalist interested in the original ritual will know that a core aspect of the original doctrine was for a woman to covenant for their husband to be their god. While a Mormon male’s goal is to attain to rulership / godhood as a King and Priest unto God (e.g. Revelation 1:6), a woman’s is to attain to being a Queen and Priestess “unto her husband”, her authority derived from her union in marriage. The Eternal Family / Celestial Marriage teaching definitely goes a long way to reversing the Celibacy Fetish heresy that has plagued Christianity from almost the beginning. And Mormonism’s British Israelism-ish belief, identifying European Whites as “lost Ephraimites” and thus just as much “God’s Chosen People” as the Jews, isn’t bad either.)

      • Jacob V says:

        For those interested in the (unfortunate) recent changes to the Mormon Church’s temple ceremonies that were praised by Feminists:

        ” GONE: women’s promise to hearken to their husbands, as the husbands hearken directly to the Lord. Men are no longer intermediaries between women and God in the temple.
        EXPANDED: the role of Eve, who previously had no dialogue after the expulsion from Eden, and is now purportedly more loquacious than Satan.
        UNITED: women and men covenanting together to serve God, with the same promises, rather than covenanting separately with slightly different wording.”

        “Gender equality in the language of the sealing ceremony, where the bride and groom now apparently make the same promises to each other”

        Other significant changes not mentioned in this article include that women are no longer expected to veil their faces during Temple prayer rituals; also that women are no longer anointed to become “a Queen and Priestess unto your husband” but Queen and Priestess “unto God” like the men.

        “One woman, who attended a temple ceremony in Philadelphia on Wednesday morning, was stunned by the elimination of many “sexist” elements.”

        • Bob says:

          You are larping. You have no respect for the endowment and thus, no faith. Most of you’ve said is true and valid, but you’ve said much that should not be said outside the temple. I don’t blame you for larping to get a great wife or wives with many children, but for the sake of the faith that is bringing you a happy lifestyle, don’t talk about what should only be spoken of in the temple.

        • Bob says:

          Hey Jacob. I wrote in haste. I’m sorry for any offense I’ve caused, and I apologize for what I’ve said. It’s not true and I shouldn’t have said it.

        • Jacob V says:

          No offense taken Bob. It can be jarring figuring out what should and should not be talked about when it comes to the Mormon temple ritual. There are certain things you covenant not to reveal in the ceremony, and I respect those covenants.

          I am not “larping” but raised in the faith and from Mormon pioneer stock, a descendant of Hyrum Smith. Fundamentalism is the “reactionary” path for Mormonism. Finding out what Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and John Taylor taught and believed, and how to best to live and perpetuate those principles. Doctrine, revelation, authority, and history are all important.

          If you get into the history, [most of] the things I mentioned you can find the apostles of Joseph Smith were not shy about talking about publicly. In my historical writings on the temple doctrine I do go further than what they would have been comfortable with, but in the spirit of understanding the ritual and its history, rather than to degrade it.

          • Frederick Algernon says:

            OK… what just happened…

          • Bob says:

            Yes, it was my misunderstanding. I’m glad you can represent Hyrum’s descendants, holding true to the faith.

            It is a shame that the most recent Temple changes were so feminist. I think the falling LDS birthrates reflect the watering down of doctrine and am emphasis on inclusion.

            I’ve tried to think of why that came to be and want to ask how you think so many members adopted equality as the 0th article of faith. I think BYU is to blame. It needs professors who are establishment-trained to run its programs, so it attracts leftist converts from the heart of the cathedral. They churn out excellent accountants and engineers, but also preach their progressive beliefs. The religion and church history classes are especially bad. I had two church history and religion professors in my BYU ward who were ardent leftists and lukewarm in their faith, often taking about their constant, serious doubts.

            The BYU grads eventually filled up all the bureaucratic offices and many general authority positions, so we now have President Nelson saying to reporters that women should focus on having children, but anonymous Ensign editors writing articles on how diversity is actually unity. The top top leaders are fairly traditional, the middle leadership and half the members are very liberal, and the other half are sorta redpilled.

            I have a friend convinced that we’re going to be given Temple gay marriage as a stumbling block and have to wait for the Church to be cleansed to enjoy the fullness of the gospel as a church. I think we just need an inquisition.

            • Jacob V says:

              Falling Mormon birthrates are evidence of weaker patriarchy. Headship is still somewhat taught but not consistently. Also, birth control is no longer preached against (Boyd K. Packer kept on subtly teaching against birth control up until his death, but he is the only one in recent years I can recall doing so). I agree that outside academia likely is what corrupted BYU. What BYU is today demonstrates how poisonous academia is even at a religious university. I agree with Jim’s prescription: minimize your sons’ exposure, and keep your daughters as far away as possible.

              I see the LDS Church looking for status by promoting refugee resettlement, illegal immigration, cozying up with the NAACP, supporting gay pride parades, etc. I was not surprised but disappointed to see Governor Gary Herbert this week write a letter begging Trump to allow more refugees to come to Utah.

              I thought the November 2015 policy against baptisms of kids with homosexual parents was a good line in the sand against the Left. But then the abrupt removal of the policy 7 months ago, coupled with the quiet handbook change no longer defining same-sex marriage as apostasy was not a good sign.

              I am waiting for the second church that Joseph Smith laid the foundation for to come forth (D&C 77:11). Joseph Smith’s close followers understood he taught there was higher priesthood for a higher organization above the Church of Christ that would eventually be established: a family order founded upon patriarchal priesthood. Brigham Young tried it in 1847 but it didn’t work out (he said the people were too wicked for it). Splinter groups have also attempted it without success. I hope we’ll see the day that it comes forth.

              • Frederick Algernon says:

                Do you two chaps have any thoughts on the North Mexico atrocities?

                • Bob says:

                  The ancestor of some of the victims murdered my friend’s ancestor in the 70s. To evade prison, the guy fled to Mexico with his wives. Also, a polygamist, so not mainstream LDS. It’s still a tragedy, though it won’t dent our coreligionists’ civic nationalism.

                  On a related note, back when the cartels took over that Mexican state capital, I talked to some friends about cartels taking over a US city with the same terrorism of families. They all said it was impossible cause muh gunz and we’d retaliate by destroying them in Mexico. The US and LDS nonresponse unfortunately won’t dent their bravado.

              • Jacob V says:

                A small segment of Mormon doomsayers have a tendency to want live south of the border because of the doom and destruction expected to befall the United States (also because of the history of the United States’ persecution of polygamy).

                But these murders (like others) show that being white and living in a NAM country is like painting a target on your back. However hypothetically bad things could get in the United States, I don’t have an imagination capable of believing things in the near future will ever be worse here.

                • Bob says:

                  Jacob V, what do you think about the Book of Mormon’s case for kings?  I think a good case can be made.

                  On the one hand, 2 Ne 10:11 explicitly states the gentiles won’t have a king.  Hard to get around that, I think.

                  On the other hand, when you pay attention to what happened under the Nephite kings and under the Nephite judges, the kings look better in every way, despite the prophets talking about how undesirable kings are.

                  King Noah is used as the example of why kings are bad.  He led his people to do bad things, but he was the first wicked king in four hundred years.  If he’s their worst, and the only one they complain about, then I’d say monarchy has a good track record among the Nephites.

                  Additionally, a number of righteous kings are described and praised.  The Nephi’s in Jacob 1, Jarom 1:7, King Mosiah, King Benjamin, and Captain Moroni when he acted as dictator.

                  In the chapters where we are warned against the problems kings cause, it’s easy to see that those problems are present during the reign of the judges, and are sometimes worse.

                  Mosiah 29:7  We’re warned about the wars of succession under kings.  And yet, there’s a civil war under the first chief judge, two chapters later.

                  Mosiah 29:13  We’re told kings would be great if they were always just men, but since they’re not, we should elect judges.  But how many of the judges in Alma were just?  The chief judges were mostly ok, but the lower judges were corrupted as early as under the second chief judge, Pahoran.

                  Mosiah 29:17  We’re told how much wickedness King Noah caused.  But there’s also the concurrent story of Alma the Elder under their wicked king.  They were persecuted by the king for praying out loud, but it did not lead them to wickedness.

                  Mosiah 29:21  You can’t dethrone an iniquitous king, but the same turned out to be true for the chief judges.  When the Gadiantons got their chief judge in, he had to be assasinated by his brother, which led to another civil war, which only ended because of the famine Nephi caused.

                  Mosiah 29:23  All governments destroy those who don’t obey them.  Assuming representative gov wouldn’t was naive and turned out to be incorrect.

                  Mosiah 29:26  Governing according to public opinion causes problems we’re already familiar with.  Unsurprisingly, the Nehors, a rival church, appeared immediately after the king stepped down.  They later influenced the people to get the government to do bad things, like have the Christians killed (Alma 14:16).

                  Mosiah 29:27  We’re told the people do not often want wickedness and when they do, they’re ripe to be destroyed.  However, the Nephites were righteous for over 200 years under kings (Jarom 1:13) and only the wicked “had” to be destroyed (Omni 1:5).  Then they were righteous again for another hundred years, I think.  Under the elected judges, it took only 100 years before they completely self-destructed.

                  Mosiah 29:29  The judges weren’t judged by higher or lower judges.  That never worked.  They were judged by the secret combinations and the whole government succumbed to a group that belonged to a different religion.

                  Mosiah 29:36  Supposedly, wickedness is greater under kings, but it all went to crap within one generation of representative government.

                  In Mosiah 23, Alma refuses to be a king because they lead the people to be wicked.  They are promptly conquered and given a wicked king, who tries and fails to lead the people into wickedness.  This is the same Alma who thought he could convince King Noah to spare Abinadi and that the Lamanite king would keep his word to free them.  I don’t think Alma is a good authority on kings.

                  In Mosiah 26, the king refuses to judge the people on purely religious matters and sends that back to the prophet.  Additionally, it explicitly says, “Now King Mosiah had given Alma the authority over the church.”  Rather reactionary, I’d say.

                  Interestingly, there were no secret combinations under Nephite kings.  The Lamanites under a king succeeded in getting rid of the secret combinations, even when they had taken over the representative Nephite gov in Helaman 6.

                  When an anti-Christ, Sherem, appeared under a king, he was unsuccesful.  When Nehor appeared right after the monarch stepped down, he succeeded in starting a rival church that led to civil wars and wickedness.  On the other hand, Korihor was unsuccesful under the judges, so maybe this isn’t that clear.

                  Even if the Book of Mormon argues against kings, it certainly provides fodder for arguments against representative government, for reasons reactionaries already know.

                • Jacob V says:

                  Those are some great references to argue for the preferability of kings. Thanks for taking the time to share. The way I interpret 2 Nephi 10:11 is that the context is condemnation of wicked kings who would take away the rights of the people, and that it was not meant to condemn divinely sanctioned kings that are blessed by God (as the Millennium Jesus Christ will rule as King of Kings and Lord of Lords).

                  As with every faith, scripture should be interpreted with tradition, not against it. The Theocratic ideal taught in early Mormonism is one of my favorite “lost teachings” of our faith. There are two excellent chapters on the subject in “Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power” that show from very early on Joseph Smith’s teachings and revelations supported “theocratic ethics”, though they were not fully unfolded until the last year of his life.

                  In the Council of Fifty minutes recently made available, JS defines his version of Theocracy (“Theodemocracy”) as being the voice of the people agreeing to the voice of God, with the context being that the voice of God is given through the King and the people should accept it as law. Nauvoo Mormons even argued that Theocracy by itself didn’t necessarily violate the First Amendment, only if the ruling religion prevented the free belief of other faiths.

                  If you haven’t read it before, I recommend his editorial “The Government of God” published in the July 15, 1842 issue of the Times and Seasons, his first public article promoting Theocracy, about the time he began to teach about end-time “Kingdom of God” foreseen by Daniel as necessitating Theocracy as part of the “Restitution of All Things.”


                • The Cominator says:

                  Theocracy = priest rule. If you think it can work you haven’t been paying much attention.

                • info says:

                  @The Cominator

                  A true Theocracy is only possible with the 2nd coming. When Jesus Christ directly rules from his capital at Jerusalem.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Yes but until then it will not work.

                • Jacob V says:

                  I understand that is how “Theocracy” is defined in a non-Mormon context. In the Mormon context, “Theocracy” was rule by the divinely appointed King, who also happened to be the Prophet and Priest. They were sustained as “Prophet, Priest, and King” under God, yet it was clear that King was the highest of those offices:

                  “I will advance from Prophet to Priest, and then to King, not to the kingdoms of this but of the Most High God.” (Joseph Smith, 16 July 1843)

                  “Let us use the term ‘proper source’ instead of ‘king’ and it will be all understood and no person can take advantage. A man can preach through all the world and use words which the devil cannot detect.” (Joseph Smith, 18 April 1844)

                  Instead of an elite Priesthood, Mormonism promoted a universal Priesthood of every male. Every Mormon male if worthy had a share of “kingly power” pertaining to his own family, under the “one man” who held the title of “Prophet, Priest, and King” (Brigham Young generally would delegate the ‘priest’ duties of the Temple to his first counselor [cf. Heber C. Kimball being in charge of administering the Mormon temple ritual], and ‘prophet’ duties to his second counselor [cf. Jedediah M. Grant being assigned to the “Mormon Reformation” of preaching repentance to the people]).

                  The Mormon Theocracy in early Utah worked pretty well until it was crushed by the US government. Still, its eugenic legacy lasted over a hundred years.

            • The Cominator says:

              Mainstream LDS is now pozzed. The Mormon elders will be marching in pride parades and slutwalks soon enough. The strong Nevertrump element among Mormons foretold this.

              • info says:

                Human endeavours will fail. God’s actions however is unstoppable. (Acts 5:38-39).

                Pozzed churches will fall. Heresies will fail. But the church of God endures.

            • info says:

              @The Contaminator


  23. info says:

    This is offtopic. Given the dire states of Boers. What is their best options for survival?

    • jim says:

      Leave or reconquer. They are going to be killed. And the Cathedral is not going to allow them to reconquer, but if Trump succeeds in cutting the (anti)American empire loose, the opportunity to reconquer will become available.

      • Bob says:

        If the antiAmerican empire won’t stop a reconquest, any of you guys want to charter a boat? We can swing past Mexico for some larger toys, pick up friends in Europe, then head down south to the fight. No straw deaths, if there’s a good old war of conquest to be had.

    • Dave says:

      Move to Orania. Regard blacks as dangerous fauna, not cheap labor. Pay white people to clean the house, cook meals, and mow the lawn, or do it yourself. Only true apartheid can save the Boers.

      I suppose the most painful part is leaving behind black, colored, and Indian friends to be hacked to death by starving mobs. You cannot save them; they will have find or found their own Oranias.

  24. Frederick Algernon says:

    So here was an experiment:

    I was mildly surprised. I am putting out a call to the prolific among us to post some concise RP tests so I, and potentially others, do not have to make up questions on the fly. Some memes are born great. Some memes are conferred greatness. Some memes get greatness when they are thrust upon people.

    • Not Tom says:

      What surprised you? I don’t see anything surprising there. /pol/ is heavily infiltrated.

      • Frederick Algernon says:

        The Dutchman and the burger both “passed” the test. That is what mildly surprised me.

    • Anonymous says:

      We have committed our forces. The battle awaits us. May almighty God grant us glorious victory.

    • Bob says:

      How effective are the different types of redpill questions? I know a guy who worked in army intelligence who can answer the women question, but csn’t answer any question about race. I know a guy who can answer questions about race, but not about women. Is it just necessary to do both?

      • Bob says:

        On second thought, the wq is used to weed out those in official capacities, like feds, whose HR departments don’t let them get offscript, which script can’t be written to include thought crimes. So sure, in personal conversation people can pass one or the other question, but not while online acting as a shill. Right?

        • The Cominator says:

          Exaggerated stupid parody “racism” is allowed by the powers that be for shilling purpose. The woman question is so essential to the progressive religion (and when the progressive leftism and the Cathedral 1st rose with Woodrow Wilson it was just as racist as the German National Socialist Workers Party… I know this may sound like Dems are the real racist but in this case it is absolute historical fact) and project that nobody in the Cathedral can even speak of it.

          This is why I stubbornly cling to my minority opinion that Jordan Peterson is from the POV of the progressive “faith” a poison heresy that will destroy the progressive faith in anyone who listens to him.

  25. Frederick Algernon says:

    This guy describes how many countries in SAmerica have suffered the same exact attacks by leftists then veers wide of the mark in terms of explaining what they mean.

    • Mister Grumpus says:

      How do you go about “measuring” how big a deal this Chile thing actually is?

      • Frederick Algernon says:

        1) Chile is a right wingish nation in a region lousy with left wing nations. If they go hard left, a government level purity spiral is possible. This has grave ramifications for the whole hemisphere.

        2) According to the author, the unrest follows a pattern or script that has been occuring in very similar ways. This seems to imply a coordinated and concerted effort by some centralized force or entity. This implies that their is a proto-war occuring. It then becomes paramount to identify the central actor(s) in order to combat them directly.

        3) Watching and waiting, unfortunately, seems to be our only recourse at the moment. From my perspective, the issue of importance rests on whether Brazil will be fighting a unidirectional war or an omnidirectional war in the next 10 years.

        • jim says:

          All conflicts are between elites. The current Chilean conflict is between the professoriat and the Chilean government, hence the government wisely shut the universities. But shutting them is not enough. Needs to purge the professoriat. Find your enemies, and arrest them. The government needs to make sure the men who pay taxes and enforce order get pussy. They need to disempower the group that is trying to overthrow them, and empower the men on whom they rely for taxes and order.

          To solve the Chilean problem, close the schools and the universities, not as a temporary measure, which the president has wisely done, but as part of reconstruction of the economy to reduce the power of the academic gatekeepers. Set up a system for filtering the smart fraction that disempowers the professoriat, which is teaching girls to be whores, and boys to be thieves. Fix the credentialing system to filter for good character, as well as smarts.

          Also the current system of price controls, which does not in fact control prices, is a flashpoint. If you go through the motions of controlling prices, people promptly demand that you actually control prices.

          With the schools shut down, this is going to quietly fade away – only to come back when he re-opens the schools. Purge the professoriat, and disempower the gatekeepers. Redevelop the universities into offices, housing, and shopping centers.

          Politically set prices politicized the economy, encourages people to think that they can grab stuff. Minor concessions in the vague direction of Venezuelan socialism provoke demand for actual Venezuelan socialism.

          Elite defection is a problem. You need large numbers of respectable, hard working, married, property owning, armed males on your side. The collapse of marriage and fertility in Chile means that the elite just does not have footsoldiers on its side. The regime does not look after the men who maintain order and create wealth. They don’t get pussy and children, so have no stake in maintaining the status quo. If you are the status quo, this is bad news.

          The collapse of fertility and marriage means more alienated men, isolated from the society, the economy, and the male hierarchy. It is also an indication of the rising power of the professoriat. And the rising professoriat, feeling its oats, is grabbing for more power.

          If the current elite wants to stay in power, needs to keep the universities closed, and eventually re-open them with far fewer professors and students. Needs to channel the economy around the gatekeepers so that far fewer people want to go to university, and the benefits of going to university are far less. Soldiers and police need to get more pussy, professors less.

          After the president said “close the universities”, the next thing he should have said is “How many police and soldiers have wives and children?”

          And the third thing he should have said is “How long can we keep the universities closed, and how can we make sure that when they finally re-open they are considerably smaller, less powerful, less important in people’s lives and plans, and less wealthy?”

          If he does not gut the professoriat, the professoriat is going to gut the current ruling elite. It is them or him. They intend to overthrow and purge the current ruling elite. The current ruling elite needs to overthrown and purge them.

          • Bob says:

            Does the ruler get wives and children for the police and army the same way you get it for any man in the country, ie coverture and patriarchy, or do you add to that things that give the police and army higher status?

          • Anonymous 2 says:

            No safe spaces for the campus dwellers.

  26. White Man says:

    I like your analogy of “risen killer apes” and from a visceral standpoint that is probably true. But in ape politics it isn’t always the strongest or most intelligent ape that rises to the top, but the most clever. Many fences have been torn down, cast aside taking us away from a system where society worked like a well lubricated machine. And we have been brought to this by a lot of empty heads who imagine themselves our betters. Without any understanding of what they have ruined or why it existed in the first place and only reaped change for the sake if change. It will take strength and resolve to restore order. We are not quite ready, but we are getting there.

    • G-D says:


      • jim says:

        Deleted for once again telling us that boring repetitious official cathedral memes are actually hard hitting subversive extreme right wing secret revelations.

        You said that before, and we have heard those memes before.

        And it is unresponsive to White Man’s point – you are swerving away from his conversation to the unrelated payload you are trying to push, like Cathy Newman’s passive aggressive “What you are really saying is …”.

        No it is entirely unrelated to what White Man was really saying.

        • G-D says:


          • jim says:


            Answer Starman’s question.

            If you don’t like any of the choices, critique his multiple choice that twelve year old girls do not dream about any of these cases. Specify explicitly the case he failed to nominate. Tell us the kind of person that twelve year old girls actually dream about, and why your chosen example shows innocent twelve year old dreams. It is unclear what your chosen example is intended to prove.

            I would interpret your chosen example the same way I interpret “Cinderella”, preselection fantasy, consistent with my oft repeated claim that underage girls always go for alpha males with adult female pre-selection, that preselection is disproportionately important to horrifyingly young girls. You presumably have a different interpretation, but evade telling us what it supposedly demonstrates.

            • G-D says:

              [*deleted – again, for the exact same reason as before*]

              • jim says:

                You are telling us, or rather assuming as self evident and obvious, that our enemies do not even pretend to take America’s officially unofficial state religion seriously, at least when talking in private, that the reason they do evil things is not because we have an evil and demonic state religion, but because our rulers lack sincere faith in official belief and official virtue.

                I would love to debate this claim with you, but I am just not going to allow you to assume it as self evident and obvious.

                Let’s debate this claim. Respond to my claims that our enemies do stuff that is not only evil, but self destructive, because of their faith.

                Let us start with my oft repeated claim that Pol Pot was a saint.

                similarly here.

                Or if HR does not allow you to talk about Pol Pot, since he was abruptly retconned from saintliness and wisdom personified, to Ronald Raygun’s puppet, let us talk about Obamacare.

                • Re: Pol Pot and evil. Near/far could also be used in time, not just space. Far: long-term goals. Near: the methods used right now to reach them. So the usual what end justifies what means stuff. Evil people commit evil acts in the near time for good goals in the far time. Does it follow that you recognize a good guy more by his near-time means, methods, than by his far-time goals?

                • jim says:

                  Of course. I can tell who is a good man in one minute. Other people don’t seem to be as perceptive, and when I was younger, I was not as perceptive as I am now.

                  Evil people have a guard on themselves to stop their evil and malice from showing through, but I can see the guard cutting in and out when the interaction strays towards their secret evil, as though a shadow passes over their face.

                  Goodness shows up near and quickly, evil hides, but you can see it hiding. And noble, but far off, goals, like caring about people he does not know and who are unlike himself, are standard hiding places. But in personal interaction, I can see the mask slide over his face in an instant, and I instantly know he intends something he does not wish me to know.

                  To detect evil in text, over the internet, is harder and slower. Caring for people far away in distance and time is a tell. Another good, very good tell, is the lie. If someone says what he does not genuinely believe, he intends you harm, and you can detect his lack of belief by the arguments he uses – thus, for example, those who supposedly argued that Zimmerman attacked Trayvon would instead use arguments justifying Trayvon’s attack on Zimmerman, betraying that they simply approved of darker skinned people attacking lighter skinned people. Whenever a global warmer says “Climate Change”, you can tell he is covering his ass. And, of course, any time someone presupposes consensus in the face of people who conspicuously fails to agree with that consensus, as for example the famous Troofer argument “Jet fuel does not melt steel”, without actually presenting any evidence that any steel melted, or that building seven fell onto its own footprint. You can immediately tell that they are all knowingly lying for evil purposes without knowing a thing about Zimmerman killing Trayvon, the 911 attack, or global warming. To figure out why they are lying, what their evil and malicious plot is, you do have to know a little about the topic – to spot what they are failing to talk about. Thus troofers never mention the suspicious misconduct FBI or Mueller, which one would suppose is the one thread of real evidence for their theories, therefore agents for the FBI. Warmists never acknowledge the absolutely inconsequential effect of green energy, therefore, even if you don’t know how every green energy project turns out in practice, you can conclude that they want to shake down the grid (carbon credits) and don’t care about destroying western civilization, or actively desire the destruction of western civilization. And, of course, a lot of them are watermelons, who just want a justification for socialism so that they starve and enslave the workers and the farmers. They are the ones that say “green jobs”, meaning government jobs. The carbon credits greenies are primarily in it for the shakedown, but the watermelon greenies are primarily in it to destroy the people that they hate. The Paris accord was in part motivated by that, by desire to hurt class enemies, though it was primarily motivated by desire to destroy the economy of flyover country in order to move white male working class voters into federal electorates with a large excess of Democratic party voters. It made absolutely no sense in terms of its supposed purpose, just as “green energy” makes no sense in terms of its supposed purpose.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Evil people commit evil acts in the near time for good goals in the far time.”

                  Careful this is generally true but its also the kind of thinking that has the political right showing mercy in victory…

                  We cannot make that mistake this time (of course it will come down to the decision of likely Trump or his son but the advice he should be getting is that unless no mercy is shown that in the future the left will takeover and all your descendents will be murdered), other then Suharto its always been leftists who have thoroughly wiped themselves out but the problem is they take millions of innocents with them. So let us understand that whatever the score total of leftist who have to get on the choppers after they start a civil war and lose… that it is not evil but justice that they die.

                • @jim let’s test evil-detection: or another source for the same videio:

                  I don’t think this man, Lancet editor Richard Horton is a bureaucratic bugman driven by an NPCish autopilot, there is something in his facial expression and the eyes that looks like pure malice to me, as if someone making a cruel joke. A 100% absolutely would not buy a used car from him vibe. What do you think?

                • jim says:

                  Yes, evil, but harder to detect the evil, because the person he intends to harm is not right in front of him. If the person was right there, I would be able to see the evil intent much more easily.

                • I WUZ says:


                • jim says:

                  Deleted for lying about what I said.

                  Also deleted because your version of what I said presupposes our supposedly shared agreement that Marxism-Leninism is true.

                  If you want to discuss Lenist theories of imperialist oppression, please respond in the thread on the topic after first familiarizing yourself with the reactionary and anarcho capitalist concept of mobile banditry and stationary banditry.

                  And by “respond” I mean respond, not just glibly assume that Marxism Leninism is true and everyone else in the thread agrees that it is true. Reply to their accounts of what happened, explaining why their story is wrong and Lenin’s story is true. Acknowledge that there is not universal agreement on the self evident truth of Marxism Leninism.

                • I WUZ says:

                  I don’t assume that Marxist-Leninism is true, [*rest deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  If you don’t believe Marxism Leninism, you must disagree with it on some point of fact. Every time Trump makes a speech to businessmen, he makes a point rejecting the most stupid factual claims of Marxist economics and/or Marxist class theory. On what points do you agree with him?

                  If you believe Marxism Leninism to be true but don’t assume Marxism Leninism to be true, make an actual factual argument for Marxism-Leninism from economics or history against one of the many arguments I have made, and one of the many items of evidence I and others have presented, for example in the recent thread on colonial empires, that violates your holy catechism.

                  Responses of the form “I am on your side, I am not on the side of Marxism Leninism” will be silently deleted. You are on our side but you believe all the factual claims of Marxism Leninism while disagreeing with the entire reactionary canon?

                • REDS UNDER THE BED says:

                  In all fairness, my reading of Marxism/Leninism/Communism source materials consists entirely of The Communist Manifesto and bits and pieces of Das Kapital. So it’s fair to say that I’m a low-information not-a-Marxist-Leninist.

                  That in no way mitigates my position that you are an enormous cocksucker:

                  “When it comes to Trump you may ask me a question and I’ll give you an answer which might seem strange. I tell you he’s the best American president,” Assad said, according to a translation. “Why? Not because his policies are good, but because he is the most transparent president.”

                  “All American presidents commit crimes and end up taking the Nobel Prize and appear as a defender of human rights and the ‘unique’ and ‘brilliant’ American or Western principles. But all they are is a group of criminals who only represent the interests of the American lobbies of large corporations in weapons, oil and others,” he continued. “Trump speaks with the transparency to say ‘We want the oil’.”


                  Oh, American foreign policy is driven entirely by oil? No fookin’ way, m8.

                • jim says:

                  I asked you to disagree with one single point of Marxism Leninism, and you did not.

                  I asked you to make evidence based argument against one single factual claim by reaction, libertarianism, Trump’s National Capitalism, etc, that contradicts Marxism Leninism, and you did not. Your unfailing response to all our factual claims is that everyone, including us, agrees with every jot and tittle of Marxism Leninism, therefore debate, evidence, and argument is not needed. To disagree with any detail, however obscure, minor, absurd, and unintelligible, of Marxism Leninism is supposedly, “ha ha, too absurd” to warrant rebuttal.

                  (Though in your latest comment, you did in fact give a rebuttal, though not in the specific areas I asked for. You are improving.)

                  You are a lying commie, and you are a high information commie, because you are aware of and faithful to every single jot and tittle of Marxism-Leninism, and adhere to every jot and tittle with religious fidelity, in the face of a hostile audience, and even when some now obsolete microdetail of Marxism Leninism is being quietly abandoned and unofficially ignored by the Cathedral like Lenin’s theory of imperialism. No low information vulgar Marxist would be triggered by non Lenist accounts of imperialism. For a low information Marxist “Imperialism bad” suffices.

                  And when Trump, unlike Bush, takes the oil, he is heading head first into the outrage of the Cathedral that attempted to genocide the Alawites, but was so damned holy it let ISIS take the oil. The Leninist account of imperialism is falsified both by the old version (white man’s burden) and the new version (“liberal democracy”), both of whom were so damned holy that they impoverished their supposed beneficiaries by not letting western businesses effectively develop the dominated societies.

                  If we have a Trump autocoup the Leninist account may well become an accurate description of imperialism by Trump’s National Capitalism, but it was a wildly inaccurate description of earlier forms of imperialism.

    • jim says:

      > I like your analogy of “risen killer apes”

      It is not an analogy, but a simple fact. Chimps and men make war, therefore the common ancestor of chimp and man made war. War creates evolutionary pressure for extended cooperation, hence killer apes are apt to rise on a thousand genocides.

      • Jsd says:

        Jim, in regards to your evil detection ability (I cannot reply to the actual post above), is Jordan Peterson evil? My sensors just never picked up on it but Vox Day seems convinced.

        • jim says:

          Jordan Peterson is not on our side, for he toys with the truth without actually speaking it. But he is not evil. More that he is weak – he wants to speak the truth, but dares not.

          • ten says:

            Weak in character or weak in position?

            They threw every label they had on him, hoping one would stick, with which they could take him down. They didn’t stick right and he kept standing.

            How much truth could he speak before the labels started to stick, taking him down?

            Is there a good reason to fight for truths that will undo whatever good influence he might otherwise excert?

            EG faith goldy – she is a likeable enough woman and her “error” in petersons eyes was being chummy with the wrong crowd. Had he had her on his panel the nazi collaborator label WOULD stick. It took her down, it would take him down. Vox day thinks this is his duty and he is a demonic liar for letting goldy go, which in my opinion is like putting your head under the treads of a tank, just because you dislike the tank.

            (i get tired by my own JBP apologism, too – sorry. I think jim has a sound view on JBP while many commenters do not)

            • jim says:

              Weak in position. Hard for a man in Jordan Peterson’s position to speak the truth.

              But he is not speaking the truth.

  27. Pooch says:

    I think the Bible is about due for some new updated material. The “New” testament has become too old, just like the old testament before it. And that “new” new testament should be written by jim.

    • White Man says:

      Something needs to be done, and soon. NT was based on loving thy neighbor as thyself. And now it seems to have swung too far.

      • ten says:

        “Love thy neighbour as thyself”, the LORD said, so as to tell godly men in certain terms that they can not cheat, push out, or fuck over their neighbour, that their neighbour deserves justice and benevolence. This can never go too far, can never swing too far.

        Then, stinking satanic communists, enlightenment homos and assorted cucks instead said they have the right to take your stuff and rape you to death, that everyone is your neighbour, and that you may not defend yourself from evil, to which the godly answer is easy; execution of all perpetrators.

        • The Cominator says:

          “Then, stinking satanic communists, enlightenment homos and assorted cucks instead said they have the right to take your stuff and rape you to death, that everyone is your neighbour, and that you may not defend yourself from evil, to which the godly answer is easy; execution of all perpetrators.”

          Deus Vult.

    • info says:

      Canon is closed.

  28. Groucho says:

    Our political weapon is ridicule.

    Mock the woke.

    Moke the Wock


  29. Mike says:

    >The Peace of Westphalia aims for a world of sovereign and independent nations who protect their citizens, respect their neighbors, and honor the differences that make each country special and unique.

    How do you juxtapose this with European states from 1648-1800 going well outside of their domestic borders and building up vast empires PRIOR to the era of “New Imperialism”, in which the West started doing imperialism as an exercise in spreading faggy ideologies, rather than just as good old Moldbuggian power politics?

    Please note, I’m not arguing that this imperialism was bad, if I was than you’d be right to out me as an anti-imperialist commie faggot who probably loves Nelson Mandela. What I am saying though is I don’t see how pursuing empire can be in line with your assertion that the Peace of Westphalia sought a world of sovereign and independent nations. Seeking to conquer other nations is the exact opposite of “sovereignty” and “independence”, at least, for the particular nations being conquered.

    • jim says:

      You presuppose prog history.

      From 1648 to 1800, the Europeans were not building empires.

      Rather, European pirates and mobile bandits in Asia were transitioning from mobile banditry to stationary banditry.

      Then, in the early nineteenth century, the left found these bandits embarrassing, and decided on “white man’s burden”, and the resulting empires were projected backwards.

      • BC says:

        >Then, in the early nineteenth century, the left found these bandits embarrassing, and decided on “white man’s burden”, and the resulting empires were projected backwards.

        It’s always interesting how these conquerors and explorers were the ones paying the king a share of the wealth they brought in instead of the King paying them to conquer new areas. That struck me as very odd as child first learning history. In the light of the idea that they were mobile bandits basically paying the crown off to leave them alone and legitimatize their actives makes a lot more sense.

        • Atavistic Morality says:

          I don’t know too much about the Anglo perspective, but Jim’s description is definitely much more realistic than talking about imperialism.

          As a Spaniard, blood of the pioneer European explorers and conquerors, I can say that Pizarro and Cortés were definitely not trying to “build an empire”, they were just looking for gold and adventure.

          It’s recorded that at some point Pizarro drew a line on the sand and told his men something like: “This way to go to Panamá, to be poor, the other way to Perú, to be rich; make your choice”.

          That’s definitely not the mindset of someone building an empire, though I’m going to disagree on the description, pirates implies plenty of things they were not. Pirates are cowards, not adventurers or conquerors, they focus on abusing merchants who cannot protect themselves. Those men didn’t give a shit and braved empires with very few (as few as 13 in this case).

          I wouldn’t call legitimacy “paying the King off” though. It’s much better to pay him tribute and be recognized as a hero of your fatherland rather than founding your own and opposing him, that way can enjoy the fame and the wealth back home where you want it and you can enjoy it. It’s worthless to have tons of gold if you only have apes and coconut trees as companionship and it’s dangerous and unwise to fight your boss for just a bit of gold.

      • I don’t really understand why treaties between Christian European powers would have anything to do with how they treated the Guarani in Paraguay. They weren’t universalists. Nobody was talking about a global world of sovereign nations (AFAIK), but a Europe / Christendom of sovereign rulers. Sovereign rulers, not sovereign nations in the modern sense.

        • Mike says:

          Well that was kind of the answer I was expecting from Jim to be honest, that Westphalia was referring to sovereign states within Europe respecting other sovereign states within Europe, that all shared a sort of similar history, religion, ethnicity, and genes (at least to some extent or another).

          And as I noted in what I originally said, we all know how efficient and well-run these early overseas territories were. So it is obvious that whatever you think the reason for them being created was (in Jim’s case transition from mobile banditry to stationary banditry) the reason certainly was not universalisim or some other faggy ideology, because if that was the case the overseas territories would have immediately became terrible to live in.

    • White Man says:

      @Mike, Whole volumes could be written to answer your question. Western Civilization expansion is generally accepted to start around 1500. There various European countries were in competition over trade. Portugal and Spain had an edge due to sea power. England’s goal was to maintain balance and established itself in North America to prevent Spain from gaining advantage. I believe one of the motivators to reach the East Indies was opium. The decline in colonialism seems to coincide with the post French revolution and the fall of monarchies. I could write a wall of text on it like shaman does but that’s it in a nutshell.

      • G-D says:


        • jim says:

          Lenin’s theory of colonialism and imperialism deleted without attempt to refute it, since no one cares about it any more and it was always just too silly.

          Not going to debate that tired old lie here. Off topic because our enemies are not running on it any more and are quietly letting it be forgotten.

        • Starman says:


          What’s the matter fed? Unable to answer my simple multiple choice question on women?

          • G-D says:

            Answered; silently deleted. Jim plays dirty and you’re a santorum of the variety of santorum as so famously coined by acerbic homosexual Dan Savage.

            • jim says:

              I don’t silently delete, except when it is the same as something that has already been deleted with the same explanation several times, or if it is merely a boring, unimaginative, and unfunny insult,

              You never answer anything, and should you actually answer, I would most certainly allow it.

              Answer his question!

              You have not answered his question.

              If you lie that you answered it and I silently deleted your answer, answer on Dissenter, the uncensorable comment section of the interenet, on Dissenter’s comment section for this blog post.

              If I silently deleted something that purported to be an answer, it is because instead of answering, you used his question as a hook on which to hang a repetition of something that had already been deleted with the same explanation far too many times.

              • G-D says:


                • jim says:

                  Not an answer to Starman’s question.

                  He anticipated that you would give such an evasive non answer and ruled out that kind of answer in advance.

                  And then specifically ruled it out a second time.

                • G-D says:

                  Yes, I know very well that you ruled out “that kind of answer” in advance.

                  But you are telling me that I did not in fact see what I personally saw with my very own eyes.

                  And as that is a level of coercion I simply cannot abide, I more fully appreciate my Founding Fathers’ wisdom with each passing day.

                • jim says:

                  We all see very young girls going ga-ga over men famous for girls going ga-ga over them. Our interpretation of this phenomenon evidently differs from yours. We think it is the same phenomenon as them going ga-ga over Charles Manson, hence irrelevant to Starman’s question. “Cinderella” is a preselection sex fantasy, but Snow White’s prince kills the evil step mother in a grossly horrible fashion. In stories targeted at boys, the hero dispatches the bad guy with a sword or a gun.

                  Answer Starman’s question. Or, if it is an unfair question, adequately explain why it is unfair. That girls go ga-ga over fame, especially famous female pre-selection, is not a demonstration that they do not go ga-ga over lawbreaking, violence, and cruelty. “Cinderella” does not falsify the lesson of “Snow White”.

                  If someone asks you about the propensity of the alpha male in stories targeted at girls to do bad things, often bad things to the female protagonist herself, that Cinderella’s prince seems reasonably kindly and peaceable is not relevant. Cinderella did not get the hots because he was kindly and peaceable.

                • I WUZ says:


                • jim says:


                  You are evading Starman’s question, not answering it but changing the subject.

                  If you want to change the subject and call it an answer, you are going to have to explain why Starman’s question was a bad question.

                  I already explained at great length why this “answer” is not an answer, and giving the same answer all over again just wastes my time and yours.

                • I WUZ says:

                  [*deleted for all the usual reasons*]

            • Anonymous 2 says:

              “acerbic homosexual Dan Savage.”

              Having a homosexual advise the public on relationships is just another sign of the times, by the way. Meteor-san, please hurry.

    • The Cominator says:

      If you intend to conquer a country outright because its weak and no major allies fine, but don’t start moralfagging about human rights, the rights of papists, muslims etc. in some other country you don’t have an interest in conquering…

      • White Man says:

        If you’re referring to Israelstein, I would prefer the US opt out entirely and let Ishmael and Isaac sort out their family squabbles like good brothers should.

        • The funny thing is that the US is aiding both sides. I think they would find an agreement if furthering the struggle would not attract handouts from the US to both sides.

          • White Man says:

            You can blame Eisenhower’s military industrial complex for that. We like to wet our beak.

        • Not Tom says:

          If you’re referring to Israelstein, I would prefer the US opt out entirely and let Ishmael and Isaac sort out their family squabbles like good brothers should.

          So would Israel. You think they don’t dream of being free from the Cathedral?

          But what a lot of people mean when they say this is: stop aiding the Red Empire in Israel, but continue aiding the Blue Empire. Don’t give them any aid or sell them any weapons, but continue pressuring them to have gays in the military, prevent women from marrying young, and stop defending their territory or creating buffer zones.

          If both influences disappeared from Israel, then they would probably begin ethnic cleansing and subsequently, having done so, pay virtually no attention to the United States. If only Arlington influence disappears from Israel, and Foggy Bottom influence remains, then they likely go the way of Rhodesia. They really do not want to go the way of Rhodesia and are politically savvy enough to maintain connections with Arlington until such time as they can eliminate the Foggy Bottom influence.

          You want Israel to stop lobbying in the USA? Great, help them secede permanently from the Cathedral.

          • WM says:

            @Tom, You miss-understand me. I want to stay out of Palestine’s and Israel’s business entirely. Please specify meaning of eliminate “foggy bottom”.

            • The Cominator says:

              “Foggy Bottom” in this case is the a metonym for the State Department (while in the literal sense it is the neighborhood in the District of Corruption the State Department is in).

              You need to lurk moar and read more.

            • Not Tom says:

              And Arlington is the Military-Industrial Complex.

              Do you understand? The United States are a power struggle between two empires: one that is insane, evil and destructive, and another that is craven, corrupt, and ossified. Israel lobbies and gets chummy with the latter in order to gain limited protection from the former.

              You see the latter – Arlington – and only the latter. You want the latter to go away. That is a leftist meme, they also want only the Arlington-Israel alliance to go away so that Foggy Bottom can complete its agenda of destruction.

              Eliminate the Foggy Bottom influence and the Arlington shenanigans will largely disappear because they would be unnecessary. Israel is perfectly capable of doing its own bombing.

      • jim says:

        Moral fagging about your state religion will be permitted only after the sovereign declares war. or issues letters of marque and reprisal. Any premature moral fagging will result in a visit from the inquisition asking why the priesthood is running its own foreign policy.

  30. White Man says:

    Paul laid the groundwork for Christianity being open to gentiles in order to bring jews back to god. He believed jews would be jealous at gentiles worshiping their god. Constantine adopted Christianity to bring different tribes of people together. Under any Abrahamic religion, you must acknowledge that jews are the chosen of god. So that when jews push for change, they have already won over you. Jews have decided the legacy of whiteness must end. At the rate the U.S. is going, this country will be a latin country with 10 years, if not already so. What to do: ?

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      Being God’s chosen people doesn’t mean you get to boss others around. It means you are an example for others; one that involves living and working together while others descend into insane death cults. Falling into a death cult yourself rather obviously voids the agreement.

      • White Man says:

        Agreed. The 10 Commandments were a positive for humanity as well as the sermon on the mount. This new generation of jews who claim we are cattle will get us all killed eventually. When the “minorities” start their cleansing spree, they probably wont take the time to ask if your a jew. If you look white, you’re white.

      • jim says:

        Observing the letter of the law while violating the spirit directly got the Jews killed by the Romans.

        In the pursuit of power over gentiles many of them have assimilated to the death cult of progressivism, which will likely end in progressives throwing them to the wolves. There is ample evidence that trooferism is FBI shills starting the process of dumping prog Jews in favor of prog dot Indians.

        Time and time again, a treasonous elite hires Jews to do its dirty work against their subjects, and then when things go pear shaped, blames the Jewish pawnbroker and the Jewish distiller.

        Ignoring the tenth commandment in favor of esoteric and extreme interpretations of the rule about contamination by blood, led to Jews ignoring the commandment on coveting, and then the commandment on murder, and then being terribly righteous about it led to them being slaughtered and expelled by the Romans. Today, it is time for them to stop worrying about cheese, and start worrying about the tenth commandment. Every progressive Jew is in massive violation of the tenth commandment. It got them killed the in Roman times, and the way the wind blows, may well get them killed again. Trooferism is an indication that our elite is preparing to do what so many elites have done before so many times.

        • White Man says:

          Some may be willing scape goats. The lure of wealth and power is strong. After listening to Ignateve, that is a man with conviction, not a puppet. If there is an elite behind the curtain, waiting to put all this on israel’s head, that must be a clever one. But still, you cannot lead a person where they are not already willing to go.

          • jim says:

            Ignateve? Noel Ignatiev?

            The Jew who thinks he is going to genocide whites?

            Suicidally deluded. He is as crazy as the Jews who thought they could defeat Rome.

            Sucked into progressivism. The arc of history, he thinks, is on his side.

            No it is not. We have been through this time and time again. History does not repeat, but it rhymes. He is being set up to take the blame when things go pear shaped, and is playing into it by deserving a substantial part of the blame.

            He thinks history is on his side because he want to exterminate those near him, supposedly in favor of strangers who live far away, and thinks that this is very holy of him, and that his superior holiness will give him victory, as Jews thought that superior holiness would give them victory over the Romans.

            • White Man says:

              By trooferism, I’m understanding you to think the elite is losing control of what the masses believe to be reality and will soon need a fall guy? Or maybe I read you wrong. If so, you must have a high degree of confidence that we will come out on top. I’m not so sure. The numbers are way down. And I don’t see us replenishing too fast. I understood that to be your motive for early marriage.

              • jim says:

                > you to think the elite is losing control of what the masses believe to be reality and will soon need a fall guy?

                Exactly so. The elite is already readying the tactic that previous treasonous elites have so often used before. They are already acting to set up the Jews as their fall guy, and a great many Jews are enthusiastically walking right into the role set up for them.

                As before, the letter of the law killeth, but the spirit of the law giveth life. And the spirit of the law is that progressivism violates the tenth commandment, and the tenth commandment matters more than cheese crumbs.

                • Mr.P says:

                  To wit: This afternoon, watched the documentary “Zero Days” about Stuxnet.

                  Beware of hard-hitting documentaries speaking truth to USG power.

                  This one, to Jim’s point, is all about setting up Israel Jews as USG fall guy.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  “Beware of hard-hitting documentaries speaking truth to USG power.”

                  Can you elaborate on this statement? I watched the documentary. It seemed informative, but the tech involved was very far over my head.

                • jim says:

                  There are no hard hitting documentaries speaking truth to power, and if they purport to be so, they are telling USG lies.

          • jim says:

            Ignateve? Noel Ignatiev?

            The Jew who thinks he is going to genocide whites?

            Suicidally deluded. He is as crazy as the Jews who thought they could defeat Rome.

            Sucked into progressivism. The arc of history, he thinks, is on his side.

            No it is not. We have been through this time and time again. History does not repeat, but it rhymes. He is being set up to take the blame when things go pear shaped, and is playing into it by deserving a substantial part of the blame.

            He thinks history is on his side because he want to exterminate those near him, supposedly in favor of strangers who live far away, and thinks that this is very holy of him, and that his superior holiness will give him victory, as Jews thought that superior holiness would give them victory over the Romans.

            He is part of a setup to blame the Jews, as much as the troofers are. And it is not hard to find Jews deserving of some substantial part of the blame, but paying too much attention to Jews means you are looking at the matador’s cape, when you should be looking at the matador’s sword.

            Sooner or later he is going to get a helicopter tour to the Pacific, but there are quite a lot of non Jews that also need helicopter tours, and my concern is that if we pay too much attention to Neol Ignatiev, other people who need helicopter tours will not get them, while the mob is distracted by knocking over a Jewish distillery.

            • White Man says:

              Are you saying the “sword” is our own people, progressives? We are our own worst enemy scenario. I’ve considered such a notion.

              • Not Tom says:

                Progressives aren’t our own people. They may look like our own people, but they are heretics turned death cult.

                • White Man says:

                  Agreed. Regressive’s would be a more fitting word to a death cult.

              • jim says:

                Jews always walk into this under their own power. They get set up to take the blame, but with great and irritating self righteousness they walk into blameworthy roles that have been set up for them.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  Jews are the attack dogs progressives sic on their enemies. If someone puts the dogs to you, do you blame the dogs? No, you blame the master, and you shoot the master and the dogs both. You don’t go killing everyone’s family dog and ignore that the owner was the real threat.

                  Unless, of course, you are using the dogs as scapegoats. “Oh, no, I didn’t attack you. It was all those dogs. We have to do something about all these dog attacks.”

                • White Man says:

                  @shadow, Attack dogs? Let’s throw-back to ’67 and view that thought in light of the attempted sinking of USS Liberty. Who was master in that scenario in your view, LBJ?

                • jim says:

                  When you send a warship into battle zone, without informing either of the participants, what do you think is going to happen? (And if you had informed the participants, fog of war would still ensue.) In this sense, LBJ was the master. USS Liberty distracts us from the evil done by George Soros and Victoria Nuland.

                • White Man says:

                  To characterize them as attack dogs would imply the notion of mindless beast and therefore exculpate them from morality. They know right from wrong as demonstrated by their religious writings. Oh, I forgot we are just cattle to them.

                • White Man says:

                  @Jim, Liberty was a non offensive listening vessel in international waters. Flying an oversized US flag on a clear blue day. I’ve heard the Israeli control tower tapes. There was no mistake. The surviving veterans claim it was a deliberate attack. I’ve seen the interviews. Now what?

                • jim says:

                  Fog of war.

                  Did not look inoffensive. If they had disguised it as a fishing boat, or a tour ship, or some such, then it would look inoffensive. Go into a war zone looking suspicious, people are going to kill you on suspicion. That is war.

                  When Trump sent his men to kill Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi he informed Russia and Turkey where they were going to be, and told them that the mission was not hostile and not in conflict with Russian or Turkish interests. What did LBJ do?

                  If Trump had not informed Russia or Turkey, and they opened fire, no one would have been surprised, least of all Trump.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  The USS Liberty was not attacked by US Jews, it was attacked by Israelis, Israel being another country that US Jews hate and want to destroy. We are not talking about Israel, we are talking about USG court Jews. Do not change the subject.

                • White Man says:

                  @shadow, You’re right, I have strayed off topic. My mistake.

                • White Man says:

                  @Jim, You’re an intelligent man. Perhaps you need to research this further. The Israeli control tower made a positive ID on the vessels hull number via flyby. There was no mistake. They also jammed the transmissions for help after the attack.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Since this topic has been brought up…

                  The attack on the Liberty was very likely deliberate in full knowledge it was a US ship (as the Israeli pilots were circling the ship for a long time without attacking) but likely LBJ or the CIA was using the liberty to monitor Israeli communications and pass the info on to the Arabs for whatever reason.

                  Golda Meir (for I’m sure the decision to actually order the attack was taken at the highest level in Israel) decided that whatever intel the Liberty was passing was so dangerous as it was worth taking the risk the US wouldn’t declare war.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Correction Golda Meir wasn’t the Israeli PM during the Six Day War that was Levi Eshkol.

                • White Man says:

                  @Jim, You spoke of fall-guys earlier. What makes you so sure that this “Bag-Daddy” character ever existed. We’ll never know now because he is in the ocean, probably next to Bin Ladin. Nice touch though having a dog as hero. This is the stuff of movies.

                • jim says:

                  He demonstrated his existence most forcefully, confiscating an ocean of oil from various people who were distinctly unhappy about that, and a horde of fertile age women.

                • White Man says:

                  @Commietater, That’s conjecture on your part. Who we were for or against. Why would we pass intel to Egypt. As a military leader we see our role as monitoring hot-spots in the world. That is what we did. There is no way for you to know if or who we share intelligence with.

                • jim says:

                  B, in the comment linked by Shaman, plausibly concludes that whatever LBJ intended, the USS Liberty was on a hostile spying mission against Israel and for the Arabs. This was not necessarily top government policy, but was spy agency policy.

                  I doubt that at the time the Israelis had information that it was on a hostile spying mission against Israel. But it looked suspicious, and when a suspicious ship goes into a war zone …

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  Just some context: the US pivot towards Israel was subsequent to ’67. It developed slowly until ’79 when Two Pillars collapsed. Despite loudmouth congressional ‘tards proclaim, the IC and the DoD have always been and remain very leery of Israel. This doesn’t mean they do not support them often, nor does it mean that they aren’t lousy with Israeli spies.

                  Also, USG gives an immense amount of money to Egypt and have done so for a long time, though it seems to have gone down of late.

            • White Man says:

              Well, I agree he’s crazy but, if rabbi Noel, is so far off base, why is not the whole jewish community, ADL and the like stepping out to denounce him? After listening to him on youtube I had to see if this guy was legit and read his book “Race Traitor”. Not good!

              • Not Tom says:

                if rabbi Noel, is so far off base, why is not the whole jewish community, ADL and the like stepping out to denounce him?

                Because the ADL represents progressives, not Jews. The Jews say this openly. A few examples that I just pulled right now from a Google search:


                I don’t expect you to read all of those from start to finish, and actually wouldn’t recommend it as they tend to be tinged with the usual Jewish paranoia and loggorhea. But just skim them briefly and the common thread is obvious: there is a massive and widening split between Zionist Jews and Progressive Jews. They aren’t the same people.

                Yes, the Zionist Jews tend to be “Israel first”, but as long as Trump makes occasional approving grunts in Israel’s direction and doesn’t hand over gobs of cash and military-grade weapons to Palestine and Iran, they love the man and think he’s their savior, and are at least as economically and socially conservative as any white gentile boomer.

                The Progressive Jews are just… progressive. If not for their semitic last names and big noses, you literally would not be able to tell them apart from any other SWPL or Democrat voter, because they do not deviate one inch from the progressive narrative. Not the same people; might as well be a different race entirely, and sort of are when you consider actual countries of origin (former Soviet bloc states vs. older Eastern European and Prussian Empire stock).

                • White Man says:

                  Understand. There are various semite factions each with their political agenda. The orthodox jews seem to lean conservative with a live and let live approach to other groups. That is the way. All peoples need their customs and living space. The forced multicult cult cannot work. It will only end badly. I suspect jews are reading this blog. To those, whites want to live in peace. No one is out to get you.

                • Not Tom says:

                  whites want to live in peace

                  But they don’t. As Jim says, whites are wolf to whites. Whites want to form packs, and live in peace with their packs, and go to war against other packs. Progressives are overwhelmingly white, and want to exterminate all of the bad whites.

                  Attempts to create an identity based entirely on whiteness will fail because they do not have a mechanism to filter out white liberals, who clearly do not want to be left alone or live in peace, clearly thrive on their hatred of you.

                  The solution to this is (was) Westphalian sovereignty, and pre-Catholic Christian theology. If all you have is whiteness, you are lost in the desert.

                • White Man says:

                  @Tom, Whites don’t have a monopoly in wolf: Rwanda. You could make the same argument about any group. Every wolf suffers it’s fleas. The string pullers believed Westphalian sovereignty led to nationalism. So globalization was a rejection of westphalia. Nationalism was labeled the boggy man for both world wars. I say people need their living space and their customs.

                • Not Tom says:

                  I say people need their living space and their customs.

                  That is a much, much better articulation of the sovereignty doctrine. Congratulations, you’ve passed your first lesson and are well on your way to graduating from wignattery.

                  Just don’t mistake “white people” for a single people. I can promise you that you have very little in common with the French or Danish, and they wouldn’t want to live with a million of you, nor would you want to live with a million of them. Yes, it’s far more tolerable than a million Africans or Central Americans or Indians, but you are still alien to each other and will eventually grow to hate each other and fight each other, because you do not share history or customs.

                  What wignats clumsily try to express through assertions about whiteness is actually American-ness, but it sounds almost as incoherent because the term “American” is not only corrupted by outright foreigners and holiness-spiraling progressives, but also the “melting pot” of white nations that never really consolidated. So what you actually want is something lower than white, even lower than white American: your tribe is Appalachian, New England, New France, and so on. Those are the “nations”, they all happen to be white but together they do not form a white nation, they are held together as an Empire (formerly a Republic).

            • The Cominator says:

              >Bringing up the USS Liberty here

              You have to go back.


              • White Man says:

                @Comintator, What, you want me to watch a youtube video now. Can’t you just summarize here the main points

                • The Cominator says:

                  Its a short youtube video that says you talk like a fag and your shit is retarded.

                  Attacking Israel as opposed to leftist jews marks you as either a leftist or stupid.

                • White Man says:

                  @Commietater, lol, Straight and to the point! I like it. Saves me time too. You sound like a pro-semite shill. Why don’t you reread the Commie Manifesto since you don’t like what a write.

                • White Man says:

                  @Shilltater, That a pic of your mom, I’ll pass. Haven’t had dinner yet.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  Pro-semite shill? Sounds like a glow-in-the-dark nagger. Time to answer the woman question, fed.

                • White Man says:

                  @shadow, Not this again. I’m not a fed. You know I could accuse this of being some sort of honeypot to trap political dissidents. But, this seems better than 4 or 8 chan for the time being. And actually some of you seem educated. But think what you want. Why should I go on the defensive.

                • shaman says:

                  Hey Dot Indian Man (or “DIM,” for short),

                  Why didn’t you answer Jim’s repeated questions about Zimmerman/Trayvon and Kate’s Wall?

                • White Man says:

                  @shaman, Oh, I’m an Indian now? I do like curry. Doesn’t change that fact that I am actually white. The questions posed, I was not on that day. I took it as rhetorical. The Zimmerman thing was awhile back. He shot the skittles guy after getting his head slammed in the pavement. Self defense. The wall girl was killed by an illegal. She has a jewish sounding last name, so you guys should be up in arms over it. As to the wall, we probably need one. But, we also need to stop employing illegals. Do I pass?

              • The Cominator says:

                @Frederick Algernon

                Based and Billy Madison pilled.


  31. Niiiidriveevof says:

    What follows is the tradcath assessment of the Jim program given here. Disputes first, agreements and support lower down.

    (1) The peace of Westphalia is impossible to accept per se. Yes with heathens, but never with heretics. Anyone who is baptized, is subject to our law – those baptized who aren’t Catholics are fugitives and rebels, deserving death if obstinate. There can be temporary toleration of heretic powers – and we cannot break faith with them, like Mohammedans do – but it is never a peace before victory, only a truce. There is no Christianity without the power of the keys, and no authority is safe once one adopts the principle that the greatest princes in the world should, when speaking with each other, ignore that divinely-instituted authority. There is an unbroken line from cuius regio eius religio to moral relativism, and to banishing God from government entirely.

    (2) Catholic (and Greek) philosophy leads inevitably, in principle, to a “one world government” – call it the Empire, or call it Christendom. Neither “states” nor “nations” are naturally “sovereign” – sovereignty is a sort of half-anti-concept. In a natural society, there are many authorities with many jurisdictions. Not only the King, the Bishop, and each Paterfamilias, but cities each with their own traditional forms, guilds, some crimes under the jurisdiction of local courts, others under the clergy’s, others reserved to higher places. The Church is not one thing among others in civil society, it itself contains both the lay and clerical hierarchies. All authorities flow from three sources in principle: the Emperor, the Pope, and Nature, and each of those from God. But it is wrong, greedy, and proud for the King or the Pope to grasp at everything under them, trying to rationalize those lower ranks, codifying laws, leveling differences between peoples. That has the consequences which have been discussed on this blog.

    All the arguments against anarchy and in favor of government at the scale of cities and peoples also apply at the scale of the whole world. Only, with extreme decentralization (that word is usually also an anti-concept), because of the great differences between peoples.

    (3) It is far from established that men evolved from apes and that Galileo was right. Both of those positions were historically established by false consensus and similar unscientific dishonesty, and, the arguments in their favor are insufficient at best.

    (4) Clerical celibacy is, as far as I can tell, the normative tradition, with exceptions only tolerated in times and places. And clerical continence was even more universal: that is, even where priests had wives from before ordination, they were obliged to not have sex. The primary reason for this – dedicating the sacred – will escape a merely functionalist/natural account of religion. Being a role model paterfamilias is the job of the lay elites – the clergy have a separate role. It is true that our clergy fought feminism far less than they should have.

    If you want to argue otherwise, have to cite your sources. A lot of assertions on this subject, a lot of abuse of St. Jerome, never any sources. Sola scriptura is not going to cut it – the communion of the saints has to back you up on your interpretation.

    (5) The Jim program for marriage is, in the important respects, the same as the normative Catholic teaching on marriage. There are some details that bear discussion. Over-emphasis on the woman’s consent to the detriment of her father’s has been a big problem for us, and the “full Jim” has not been the mainstream for some time. Our doctrine that the consent of the spouses is the form and matter of the sacrament does, I think, need re-clarification. The way I figure it is, the woman’s consent is part of the form *normally*, but various circumstances (like being a slut) can substitute for her consent, as Deuteronomy 20 and other parts of the law prove. I agree that the father’s refusal normally invalidates a marriage: a matter of natural law which we have lately neglected to enforce in canon law.

    Husbands do not have natively the authority to punish their wives (or children) with death. But, for a case like adultery, the law can give him that authority. It can also tolerate him doing it wrongfully, just as it can tolerate brothels.

    For a man to lie with a whore is fornication and has never been counted otherwise. Likewise remarriage after divorce.

    Consummation of marriage after betrothal but before the exchange of consent is a doubtful case. The mainstream has called it fornication, but there is a little room to argue the other side, as far as I can see. Exposing bastard infants (as in, leaving them to die) is probably not possible to justify, but death is a valid penalty for the adulterous wife pregnant with the bastard, and that is one line of thought to consider.

    (6) The given interpretation of “turn the other cheek” is, more or less, the traditional interpretation. The 1582 Rheims commentary says, on that verse: “Here also the Anabaptists gather of the letter, that it is not lawful to go to law for our right; as Luther also upon this place held, that Christians might not resist the Turk; whereas by this, as that which followeth, patience only is signified, and a will to suffer more, rather than to revenge: for neither did Christ nor St. Paul follow the letter, by turning the other cheek.” In other words: It just means to be patient; don’t be holier than Christ; pacifism is heretical.

    St. John Chrysostom on the same verse, says: “Wherefore He not only forbade you to be angry when smitten, but even enjoined you to satiate the other’s desire, that so neither may the former blow appear to have befallen you against your will. For thus, lost as he may be to shame, you will be able to smite him with a mortal blow, rather than if you had smitten him with your hand; or if his shamelessness be still greater, you will make him gentle in proportion.” In other words: Have patience today, to vanquish your enemies tomorrow. Incompatible with pacifist interpretation.

    The given interpretation of the good Samaritan is, broadly, also correct. Yes, it’s obligatory to love your neighbor as yourself (“as” meaning, “less than, but like”). Yes, as St. Cyril of Alexandria says, “neither Priest nor Levite became neighbor to the sufferer, but he only who had compassion on him.” But Christ also said “Go, and do thou in like manner” – so doing good only to those who do good to us is not good enough (“Do good to them that hate you.”). There’s where it gets more indefinite – who should we become neighbor to?

    What does prevent it from being universalist is the doctrine of the order of charity. Galatians 6:10 has “Let us work good to all men, but especially to those who are of the household of the faith,” and I Timothy 5:8 has “If any man have not care of his own, and especially of those of his house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” So this is the doctrine that man doesn’t owe charity to all equally, but to God first, then himself, then his family, then his countrymen, last the foreigner; and a Catholic before a non-Catholic. These inequalities will all continue even in heaven. Cf.

    • The Cominator says:

      Which is why the Restored state needs to destroy the Donatist papacy for good if it gets an opportunity and force the heretic tradhomo church into the Orthodox Church.

      Not the top priority but the meddlesome international and anti-civilizational nature of Catholicism is stated here.

      • kawaii_kike says:

        The teachings of the Catholic Church are mostly in line with the goals of the Restoration. Just kill all the faggot/leftist priests and the Church will sort itself out.
        The differences listed above are relatively minor.

    • jim says:

      > (1) The peace of Westphalia is impossible to accept per se. Yes with heathens, but never with heretics. Anyone who is baptized, is subject to our law – those baptized who aren’t Catholics are fugitives and rebels, deserving death if obstinate.

      And how did that work out?

      As soon as the Pope asserted that he, rather than Kings and lords, got to appoint bishops and priests, you got the great schism, and eventually the sack of Rome. Your doctrine was de-facto abandoned when the rivers of blood it had so regularly unleashed finally and predictably washed over the Vatican itself.

      If multiple states, multiple state religions. We would like them to be mostly Christian, and the Christian ones in fellowship and communion with each other, and in this sense, one universal Christendom, but if you want a priest in Russia to be subject to a priest in Rome, this did not fly a thousand years ago, and even less will it fly today.

      Preserving and recovering the working social technologies of the past also means remembering past lessons on what did not work. Universal state religion in a world of multiple states never worked. The doctrine you proclaim failed immediately, often failed with gigantic bloodshed, and continued to fail all the way to the sack of Rome, after which enormous bloodshed right in the Vatican it was de-facto quietly abandoned. One state, one state religion.

      > (2) Catholic (and Greek) philosophy leads inevitably, in principle, to a “one world government”

      We don’t have the elite manpower to establish one world government. The American empire has inevitably and predictably become the anti American empire, as the Turkish empire became the anti Turkish empire. Ataturk had to cut the Turkish empire loose, as Trump is trying to cut the American Empire loose. Come the restoration, we may well have to abandon California, at least until we have had a couple of generations of elite fertility. If we hang on to California, and I have fond memories of the California of a couple of decades past, it is going to be tense. It would be nice to keep Berkeley and Stanford, if we demolished all the newer buildings and reduced the student population to few percent of current numbers. Maybe keep some rump states in California.

      > (3) It is far from established that men evolved from apes and that Galileo was right. Both of those positions were historically established by false consensus and similar unscientific dishonesty, and, the arguments in their favor are insufficient at best.

      We have the complete and continuous horse sequence, all the way from a small forest dwelling omnivore with somewhat human hands to the plains running modern horse with small vestiges of the hand. No missing links and no punctuated equilibrium. Smooth and continuous evolution all the way. Inside the dolphn fin is not the fish fin, but a remarkably human hand.

      If horses, so also men.

      Galileo turned his telescope to the sky, and saw that Venus had phases like the moon, falsifying the Ptolemaic system. When the Pope stuck his oar into that quarrel, he got the ridicule he deserved, as Saint Augustine predicted.

      > (4) Clerical celibacy is, as far as I can tell, the normative tradition, with exceptions only tolerated in times and places. And clerical continence was even more universal: that is, even where priests had wives from before ordination, they were obliged to not have sex.

      Saint Jerome was an evil man, a poison tree that has brought forth poison fruit ever since.

      Saint Paul expected and recommended that Bishops should normally and usually be monogamously married with children. Saint Paul also told us that a married man is obligated to have sex with his wife.

      Ditch Saint Jerome, or ditch Saint Paul.

      > If you want to argue otherwise, have to cite your sources.

      New Testament, and that the gay mafia has been notoriously influential in the Church since the eleventh century.

      > (5) … Our doctrine that the consent of the spouses is the form and matter of the sacrament does, I think, need re-clarification.

      How old is this doctrine? I will bet you one milliBTC that consent was not form and substance of the sacrament until the twentieth century.

      That we still say “With this ring I thee wed” suggests that until very recently, marriage was a sacrament administered unilaterally by the husband, not by the priest nor the wife.

      I bet you cannot find old sources sacramentalizing consent – they will be plausibly stretched to say that consent was necessary for the sacrament, but they will not say that consent was the sacrament. My expectation is that the sacrament was taken away from the husband some time twentieth century.

      > (6) …doing good only to those who do good to us is not good enough (“Do good to them that hate you.”). There’s where it gets more indefinite – who should we become neighbor to?

      We do good to those that hate us when there is a plausible prospect that they will stop hating us, we return good for evil in order to reach cooperate/cooperate equilibrium. If it does not work, stop doing it. If it does not work, the other guy is evil, and you are empowering and enabling evil.

      • info says:

        Augustine also along with Jerome had similar negative views on sex in general including in wedlock. That such a union is only for reproduction and doing so for pleasure is lustful and adulterous especially in his debate like Julian at the time.

        In contradiction to 1 Corin 7 and the Song of Solomon.

        This puritanical pro-frigidity meme has haunted Christianity ever since. In spite of denials in the effect of “have no understanding of actual Christianity”

        • shaman says:

          If you want to be really pissed off, read the apocryphal, holiness spiraled “Acts of Paul and Thecla.” A puritanical heresy more damaging than everything produced by the Frankfurt School, combined.

          • info says:

            It looks like SJWism has been present among those so called “ascetics” already.

            Who wrote those “apocrypha”. Along with Augustine and Jerome. The 1st pearl clutchers in regards to sexuality.

            After sinning in promiscuity and sodomy. Jumping from one end of retardation to another.

            Remaining equally and unhealthily obsessed with sex.

            Just like our current culture. The puritanism and so called “sexual revolution” 2 sides of the same coin.

            Akin to how nowadays beautiful women portrayed in art even tastefully is “hypersexualization” or “objectification” whilst celebrating child gender mutilation and child drag queens or drag queen story hours.

            Boxing us in false binaries.

            Never arriving at the healthy golden mean.

            • shaman says:

              In the Bible, the only reason to abstain from marital sex is the maintenance of ritual purity, which, as we’ve seen, has been fulfilled through Jesus Christ.

              We see it in Exodus 19, when the people are about to receive the Ten Commandments:

              12 And you shall set bounds for the people round about, saying, ‘Take heed that you do not go up into the mountain or touch the border of it; whoever touches the mountain shall be put to death; 13 no hand shall touch him, but he shall be stoned or shot; whether beast or man, he shall not live.’ When the trumpet sounds a long blast, they shall come up to the mountain.” 14 So Moses went down from the mountain to the people, and consecrated the people; and they washed their garments. 15 And he said to the people, “Be ready by the third day; do not go near a woman.

              Notice that they should not go near a woman for 2 days due to ritual defilement; that’s the same reason given in Leviticus 15:19-33 to avoid intimate relations with a menstruating woman. Contrary to the blatant lies of the rabbis, it is not prohibited per se; what is prohibited is being ritually defiled by menstrual blood, and going to the Temple while in such a state of ritual defilement (verse 31). If one is not going to the Temple, the prohibition does not apply.

              The orthodox Jewish interpretation of Leviticus 15:19-33 completely disregards the plain meaning of the text, which prohibits those who touch a menstruating woman from going to the Tabernacle i.e. the Temple while in such a state of ritual impurity, and falsely construe it as a prohibition under all circumstances, which it emphatically isn’t. Since Jews don’t usually read the Bible, and just believe whatever nonsense the rabbis tell them, 99.9% of Jews have no idea what the text even says here.

              In similar vein, we famously read about King David in 1 Samuel 21:

              3 Now then, what have you at hand? Give me five loaves of bread, or whatever is here.” 4 And the priest answered David, “I have no common bread at hand, but there is holy bread; if only the young men have kept themselves from women.” 5 And David answered the priest, “Of a truth women have been kept from us as always when I go on an expedition; the vessels of the young men are holy, even when it is a common journey; how much more today will their vessels be holy?” 6 So the priest gave him the holy bread; for there was no bread there but the bread of the Presence, which is removed from before the Lord, to be replaced by hot bread on the day it is taken away.

              Once again, the prohibition of sexual intercourse is exclusively for reasons of ritual impurity. Otherwise, there is no suggestion or implication that sexual relations are “bad.” People who give themselves “bonus holiness points” for abstaining from sex have evidently not read the book in a serious manner.

              And since Jews have misinterpreted everything related to ritual impurity, torturing the text to come up with prohibitions that aren’t there, Jesus had to fulfill in his own mission all of these commandments once and for all, so that they won’t be valid anymore.

              • info says:

                Agreed. Although I fail to see a direct line to so called ascetics like Augustine.

                Unless due to such talmuldic lies ended up taking up the anti-sex holy spiral memes.

            • shaman says:

              The relevant section in Leviticus 15:

              24 And if any man lies with her, and her impurity is on him, he shall be unclean seven days; and every bed on which he lies shall be unclean.


              31 “Thus you shall keep the people of Israel separate from their uncleanness, lest they die in their uncleanness by defiling my tabernacle that is in their midst.”

              Notice that there is no sweeping prohibition of sexual intimacy with a menstruating woman, contrary to what any orthodox Jew will confidently tell you; the strict prohibition is against entering and defiling the Temple while in a state of menstruation-induced ritual impurity.

              And again, as Jim often says, the Jewish purity spiraling about blood contamination of various kinds has been disastrous, which is why it had to be done away with. You give an orthodox Jew one sane commandment, and he derives 300 different insane prohibitions therefrom, without any basis in the original; and then the essence of the religion is all but forgotten.

            • shaman says:

              We don’t usually know who the authors of apocryphal writings are, but often enough it’s members of the mainstream religion itself. The Protoevangelium of James is an apocryphal text telling us that Mary remained a virgin her whole life; despite not being part of our regular Scripture, it was used by St. Jerome to “substantiate” his insane pro-celibacy arguments.

              Likewise, the apocryphal Shepherd of Hermas, in Mandate 4, tells us:

              4 I say to him, “Sir, permit me to ask thee a few more questions” “Say on,” saith he. “Sir,” say I, “if a man who has a wife that is faithful in the Lord detect her in adultery, doth the husband sin in living with her?”

              5 “So long as he is ignorant,” saith he, “he sinneth not; but if the husband know of her sin, and the wife repent not, but continue in her fornication, and her husband live with her, he makes himself responsible for her sin and an accomplice in her adultery.”

              6 “What then, Sir,” say I, “shall the husband do, if the wife continue in this case?” “Let him divorce her,” saith he, “and let the husband abide alone: but if after divorcing his wife he shall marry another, he likewise committeth adultery.”

              7 “If then, Sir,” say I, “after the wife is divorced, she repent and desire to return to her own husband, shall she not be received?”

              8 “Certainly,” saith he, “if the husband receiveth her not, he sinneth and bringeth great sin upon himself; nay, one who hath sinned and repented must be received, yet not often; for there is but one repentance for the servants of God. For the sake of her repentance therefore the husband ought not to marry. This is the manner of acting enjoined on husband and wife.

              9 Not only,” saith he, “is it adultery, if a man pollute his flesh, but whosoever doeth things like unto the heathen committeth adultery. If therefore in such deeds as these likewise a man continue and repent not, keep away from him, and live not with him. Otherwise, thou also art a partaker of his sin.

              10 For this cause ye were enjoined to remain single, whether husband or wife; for in such cases repentance is possible.

              Catch that? This is classic holiness spiraling. Jesus explicitly permitted divorce on account of adultery; so what does the writer of the Shepherd do? He tells us that remarriage to a different woman after you divorce your first wife is forbidden; you must “abide alone” after kicking out the cheating whore, and if at some point your ex-wife supposedly “repents” of cucking you, then certainly you must take her back.

              I’m not making this up!

              The thing is, the Shepherd was considered as authoritative by some Church Fathers; had it been canonized, Christianity would officially be Cuckianity. Well, they exercised good and sound judgment by ultimately excluding the text, but it goes to demonstrate how holiness spiraling works. St. Jerome argued from the Protoevangelium that celibacy is desirable to God (not just clerical celibacy; we’re talking in general here), and any other holiness spiraling faggot could easily use the Shepherd to argue that it’s impermissible to marry another woman after divorce on account of adultery.

              Notably, despite the Shepherd being excluded from Scripture, Catholics don’t permit remarriage (though annulment may be granted, sometimes), taking a holiness spiraled stance that doesn’t accord with the Scripture we consider canonical. Even though the Shepherd is considered “spurious” and apocryphal, the Catholics adhere to its doctrine about divorce, practicing Cuckianity. Then Nikolai tells us that if we deem some Scripture as less important than other Scripture, we are in “great error.”

              By their fruits, we know them. If the fruit is cuckoldry, as in the Shepherd of Hermas and Roman Catholicism, we know that it’s not from God, but from Satan. Poisonous fruits are borne by poisonous trees, and this doctrine is cyanide.

              • shaman says:

                Actually, let me correct myself: Not so much members of mainstream religion, as entryists into it, e.g. St. Jerome, who was an entryist that successfully managed to sneak in and subsequently turned the healthy teachings of Jesus Christ and St. Paul into a holiness spiraled version of themselves, using both rabbinic textual torture and an appeal to works that we now regard as apocrypha, such as the Protoevangelium.

    • In (1) you completely confuse spiritual and secular authority. It is pretty much Cesaropapism 101. I don’t even know if it worths discussing things on this level, but I will give a shot:

      The Church, the Fishers of Men have authority over people. Kings have authority over land. CREI was not about forcible conversion but about subjects not of the King’s confession leaving the land. So yeah, Kings not being in communion with the Pope is bad, they are violating the Pope’s authority over themselves as persons. So would any random guy. But it is entirely independent of the fact that they have the right to make their own rules about everything including religious practice over the land they rule. Not over people but over land. People who disagree with the rules can leave. The Church has no authority over land except land they own but in general not – that is rendered unto Caesar.

    • Not Tom says:

      I’m struck by how closely the “Trad Cath” position resembles Talmudic legalism.

      “Oh, we can’t have that social technology, because of this unprincipled exception. And I disagree with your interpretation of that over there, it clearly means something different from what it says in plain language. Also, when we say consent doesn’t matter, what we really mean is that other things can substitute for explicit consent. And you can’t have any of those other things either because rabble rabble rabble blah blahdy blah”.

      Hey guy, I’ll give two shits what Catholics have to say about morality and governance when, or rather if, you manage to solve the out-of-control homosexual problem in your own church. Until then, I’m not only not buying what you’re selling, I’m muting all your commercials and tearing down your stupid billboards.

    • shaman says:


      I agree with the Catholic position that life begins exactly at conception and not a day later – it’s the only position that actually makes sense.

      I disagree with the Catholic position that, as a corollary to the above, it is never justified to commit pre-birth infanticide (abortion). You see, we don’t currently have the technology to turn mentally and/or physically defective mutants into normal people. Maybe in a hundred or so years, we will have such technology, but currently we don’t. It is also not currently possible to genetically engineer someone whose DNA isn’t 50% yours to have a DNA that is 50% yours.

      Does that mean that ‘tards, cripples, psychos, monstrosities, rape-babies, cuck-babies, etc., etc., should always be inflicted on fathers who vehemently don’t want them? You say, “Yes, because otherwise it would be murder.” I say, “No, because I and my loved ones are more important than even a trillion random people whose very (vile) existence is highly harmful for the lives of me and my loved ones. My country should not be flooded with a trillion Africans, nor should my household or the households of my neighbors be made to accommodate any number of malignant people.”

      The same logic that leads you to bring forth retards and cuck-babies into the world leads your clergy to welcome trillions of homicidally hostile rapeugees into Europe. If the boys from tha hood showz up to rape your wife, would you keep the rape-baby? Yes, you would, and that’s cuckoldry at its most grotesque.

      The Bible itself is silent about abortive filicide (as it is silent about masturbation, by the way; twisting verses out of context won’t do, as I’ve memorized the whole thing) – which is not to say that it outright condones abortive filicide, or fapping for that matter; however, if it were prohibited, then either Mosaic Law or one of the Prophets or Jesus or Paul would have said so. None of them said so.

      Exodus 21:

      22 “When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

      If, while fighting some guy, you accidentally hit and cause someone else’s wife (not the wife of the guy you’re fighting, but a totally random woman) to miscarry, you are to pay a fine, determined by the husband and the judges. Only if you kill the woman herself, have you committed murder.

      Since causing someone else’s wife to miscarry is explicitly not considered murder according to Mosaic Law, but a much lesser offense, it means that “ABORTION IS MURDER” is a totally un-Biblical stance. The Bible says nothing about abortive filicide, i.e. killing your own fetus; and since causing a random woman to miscarry without any major physical complications is explicitly not murder, and the punishment for committing such a crime is paying a fine to the husband, just like a regular offense of a property damage type, it plainly means that making your own wife miscarry (i.e. abortion) is regarded as if you damage your own property, which is obviously allowed, though not encouraged.

      The spirit and plain meaning of the Biblical Old Testament law, then, are that you, the husband, have a life-and-death authority over your wife’s fetus, because that fetus is your property. You are not supposed to damage your own property, but you have a right to do that.

      Talmudic screeching from #Triggered Trad-Caths in 3… 2… 1…

      • polifugue says:

        By the above logic, it would thus follow that killing one’s child or wife should be punishable by fine. If the child or wife is merely property, then someone killing your wife or child is merely a property crime.

        Causing an accidental miscarriage amounting to an appropriate fine is an acceptable punishment, as we don’t want to put people in prison for that type of accident.

        If you admit that life begins at conception, then you have to admit all of the morals and ethics that a person has when he is nine months in the womb is the same if he is nine months out of the womb.

        Now, if a man wishes to kill a rape baby, retard, monstrosity, etc., I am NOT necessarily against one taking such an action. However, it’s still killing a child.

        There are instances when killing children is acceptable, such as wartime. There are numerous examples of killing children in scripture, and as by Adam’s fall, no one has the right to live. But don’t go as far as to try to pretend that it isn’t killing children.

        Remember, people are going to have to believe in the religion for the religion to work. Its fine if you want to create the atheist reactionary church, it’s sad that it’s the only church willing to take power in today’s world.

        But at the end of the day, we are the ones who are going to absorb NRX, because Jim’s blog doesn’t believe in God the way Progressives believe in equality. After all, this blog ADMITS that atheistic Darwinism isn’t enough.

        • jim says:

          > By the above logic, it would thus follow that killing one’s child or wife should be punishable by fine. If the child or wife is merely property, then someone killing your wife or child is merely a property crime.

          This presupposes the prog theory that property does not matter, so taking it does not matter.

          Does matter.

          • polifugue says:

            I agree. Didn’t intend to imply that property doesn’t matter.

            The fact that killing another’s wife and children is not just a “property crime” like arson or larceny doesn’t mean that the wife and children aren’t property.

            Shaman isn’t exactly wrong here; it’s more so I was a bit offended by his sharp tongue.

        • shaman says:

          Have you fully grasped the very first sentence in my post, which said:

          I agree with the Catholic position that life begins exactly at conception and not a day later – it’s the only position that actually makes sense.


          I never disputed that abortion is killing a person; the Catholics are perfectly to correct to argue this position. What they are not correct about is their inference: “And therefore having an abortion is akin to murder.” This may confuse you at first, until you realize that murder means unjustified killing, and that abortion may not necessarily be unjustified.

          You write:

          By the above logic, it would thus follow that killing one’s child or wife should be punishable by fine. If the child or wife is merely property, then someone killing your wife or child is merely a property crime.

          There is a fundamental moral difference between someone committing uxoricide and filicide versus someone killing someone else’s wife or child. In the former case, it is sometimes acceptable to kill one’s own wife or child. In the latter case, “eye for an eye.” Someone can be a person, and property, simultaneously. Thus, if you kill someone else’s wife, you commit an offense against his property, and murder – at once! In contrast, if you kill your own wife, for instance in flagrante delicto, then you destroy your own property (which is permissible, of course), and you commit a killing that can be easily justified, thus not murder. The same pretty much applies to everyone who’s your property, although it’s regulated by various laws concerning treatment of one’s property.

          Causing an accidental miscarriage amounting to an appropriate fine is an acceptable punishment, as we don’t want to put people in prison for that type of accident.

          We’re talking Biblical law here; imprisonment was not commanded by it, although it was used nevertheless. Regardless, that causing a random woman to miscarry is explicitly not murder, and does not justify “an eye for an eye,” means that abortion — a husband killing the fetus, in his own wife’s womb, whom he owns — is likewise not murder, and merely amounts to the destruction of one’s own property.

          If you admit that life begins at conception, then you have to admit all of the morals and ethics that a person has when he is nine months in the womb is the same if he is nine months out of the womb.

          Sure. Filicide is sometimes justified. It’s a very consistent position.

          by Adam’s fall, no one has the right to live.

          Strange doctrine. I’d say that most people do indeed have a right to live (whatever “right” even means), but that some don’t. And I argue that in addition to enemies and certain classes of criminals, those who are under your own ownership may also be killed, if there’s justification, which sometimes there is.

          Remember, people are going to have to believe in the religion for the religion to work. Its fine if you want to create the atheist reactionary church, it’s sad that it’s the only church willing to take power in today’s world.

          But at the end of the day, we are the ones who are going to absorb NRX, because Jim’s blog doesn’t believe in God the way Progressives believe in equality. After all, this blog ADMITS that atheistic Darwinism isn’t enough.

          What’s your point about atheism? I’m arguing Biblical morality here, and am not an atheist. My point is that “life begins at conception” (correct) doesn’t mean that rape-babies, cuck-babies, retards, etc., should be suffered to be born. Based on Exodus 21:22-23, this position is in line with fetuses being the property of their father, and as such, it may be justified for him to kill them.

          • polifugue says:

            Ok, thanks, I think I just misunderstood your position.

            I don’t disagree.

          • info says:

            The unfortunate fact of roman infanticide at the time is that it disproportionately killed girls. Leading to a critical shortage of women.

            Whilst christians rescued many of them and converted many women. Ensuing a surplus of women and combined with high fertility took over Roman Empire.

            • Dave says:

              Looking around today’s world, I see high rates of female infanticide wherever women are free agents in countries that lack a comprehensive welfare state. A daughter bound to obedience is a family asset — you can trade her for an obedient wife for one of your sons, whereas liberated females are useless eaters at all ages. This problem is not self-correcting, as the vast surplus of thirsty men means women can slut it up as long as they want and still land a husband.

              The early Christians rescued and raised many abandoned baby girls, but you can’t repeat that trick today because the unfortunate girls are ripped out of the womb before their lungs are ready to breathe.

            • Allah says:

              In earlier times, Romans solved that problem by taking the women of their enemies. They could’ve taken the surplus women of Christians if they so wished but they didn’t, why? They liked boys and orgies more? They couldn’t possibly violate the individuality of the poor women?

              • jim says:

                The Roman capacity to control women seems to have collapsed some time between The Republic and the Empire. It is not clear why or how. But we see complaints that even slave women were uncontrollable.

                The phrase “who will guard the guards?” was originally uttered in reference to locking your concubines in a dungeon.

                Observed control of women in modern day societies relies on female elders, female kin, and female friends, keeping an eye on each other, and ratting out misconduct to the female kin of the male who has authority over the misbehaving woman.

                The answer to the question, in societies that have some success in guarding women, is that the female kin and female friends will guard the guards.

                It looks like the Christians had higher reproductive success and cooperate/cooperate equilibrium between wives and husbands, because older Christian women guarded the younger Christian women. Similarly, today’s Mormons.

                • Allah says:

                  Observed control of women in modern day societies relies entirely on men preventing each other from controlling their own women. Do family matriarchs drag you to jail and take your stuff for disobeying your woman? No, it is men who are really concerned about the safety and well-being of other men’s women.

                  “Guarding” women is a lie that as you say, the next generation ended up believing. They need to be kept on close watch not because they’ll be in mortal danger otherwise, it’s because they really want to be with other men.

                • jim says:

                  Women keeping an eye on each other has limited effectiveness if society fails to back the patriarch, and society backing the patriarch has limited effectiveness if the women back each other.

                • Allah says:

                  Empty statement. Obviously, if everyone backs you it is better than if only some do.

                  Do women actually back each other? If they do, why is misbehavior impossible to prevent provided you can do anything to your woman with no obstruction from other men?

                • jim says:

                  I observe good women and bad women, and I allow my wife to only associate with good women. This has a surprisingly large impact on female behavior and female association. One male who does a half assed job of faking alpha issues a disapproval, and no end of women suddenly start striving to be seen as good.

                • Allah says:

                  Isn’t your wife dead? Or did you get a new one?

                  Anyways, you are being unresponsive. We agree that women can be coerced with shame and ostracization. My claim is that this is an inferior substitute to physical control and punishment used only because other men make physical control unavailable, and it is enough to prevent female misbehavior regardless of how much women resist it individually or collectively. Do you disagree with this? Why?

                • jim says:

                  Got a new wife. Girlfriends were too much drama.

                  Physical coercion has limited effectiveness unless the female community keeps an eye on each other. Chicks are always wandering off on some entirely plausible excuse.

                  The eyes that they keep on each other have to be backed by coercive male authority, and male authority has to be empowered by chicks keeping an eye on each other.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Physical coercion has limited effectiveness unless the female community keeps an eye on each other.”

                  LOL relying on female gossip about each other is not a good system. The intel agent in Turkey is right, the most important thing is to bring back beatings. Most women are subconsciously unhappy they don’t get beatings occasionally. Bondage porn is not generally popular among men, its wildly popular among women. And its not just that they want the subjugation they want the beatings.

                  Also from a more redpilled age (though it was a controversial song even at the time).


                • jim says:

                  Yes, but you have to know, before you can beat. And for this, you need female to female gossip.

                • jim says:

                  Agreed you need beatings, but beatings do not suffice. You also need support from her friends.

                  Nature inherently gives women more power than men, and men dominate the woman the way lion tamer dominates lions.

                  It is a dance. You succeed in dominating them because they are not really trying too hard to avoid being dominated.

                • info says:

                  @The Cominator

                  The early Christians have shunning. Per the example of Paul in regards to a sexually immoral man.


                  I see no explicit mention of beatings at all.

                  God-fearing women holding each other accountable seems to be the norm per Jim’s argument.

                • BC says:

                  >I see no explicit mention of beatings at all.

                  Women demand beatings. A friend of mine got in between a man who was beating his girlfriend in public once. The girl attack him for getting in the way.

                • shaman says:

                  A friend of mine got in between a man who was beating his girlfriend in public once.

                  That should have spelled the end of your friendship.

                • BC says:

                  >That should have spelled the end of your friendship.

                  Why? This was close to 15 years ago back when I everyone I knew was blue pilled. We learned all learned the hard way that the media and our parents had lied to us about real life. I stumbled onto NRX because I’d learned from direct observation and my freinds that everything I was being told was a pack of lies.

                • shaman says:

                  I’ve viscerally despised white knights ever since kindergarten & wanted to see them run over with trucks, but I guess not everyone’s instincts are as healthy and pro-social as mine.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  I’ve crossed the spectrum myself, but the whiteknight bullshit was always an act. It always is. Sometimes it is an act with deep feeling behind it. The reality is that women crave the badness they experience.

                  OT. When are you going to assassinate the sand nigger, shaman. He is a curse.

                • shaman says:

                  Well, he posts infrequently and his posts contain little content besides low-effort concern trolling and cheap boasting (*yawn* – so boring), but I’ll keep an eye on his villainy if that’s necessary.

                • info says:



                • Allah says:

                  If you’re saying it’s simply impossible to know what women are up to, you should elaborate on that. I’m just not convinced that it’s impossible to control women by yourself given there is no intervention by deeply concerned men. Can you not think of anything? It could be mighty difficult for the average man now, but in a society where this is taken as the norm I’m not so sure.

                • jim says:

                  I have managed to control some women. It is dangerous, illegal, and difficult. But women like it.

        • >By the above logic, it would thus follow that killing one’s child or wife should be punishable by fine.

          Remember weregild? To be fair I found it very weird that one could get away with murder just by paying a fine. Sounded like a very light punishment. Then Nick Szabo wrote some articles about similar customs among certain groups of American Indians. I have some Eastern Euro examples too.

          So weregild is certainly weird to us who are used to an-eye-for-an-eye logic of punishment but if it popped up it different places, maybe some benefit of doubt should be given to it and examined how exactly it worked.

          For example I wonder if weregild was not about punishing a person but making one clan pay damages to another clan, more in the direction of civil tort than criminal justice. And perhaps punishment would have been internally done by the clan. Dunno.

          • info says:

            The end of weregild is when Christianity became a strong enough influence and that states were powerful enough that Lex Talonis can be properly enforced.

            Initially on highway robbery and banditry. Before detective work came into being via former criminal which enabled better detection of petty murderers.

      • White Man says:

        The bible does mention “spilling thy seed on the ground” as was the case of Oneg. But his intent was to deny his wife’s inheritance. I oppose abortion. And see it as one of the factors that has caused the decline of white people in the US.

        • shaman says:

          The bible does mention “spilling thy seed on the ground” as was the case of Oneg.

          Onan’s crime was refusal to procreate with Tamar by cumming outside of her rather than inside of her, thus refraining from his important obligation to fulfill their levirate marriage (Genesis 38):

          8 Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.” 9 But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the Lord’s sight; so the Lord put him to death also.

          It has nothing to do with regular fapping – not even remotely similar.

          Other relevant verses are:

          Leviticus 15:

          16 “‘When a man has an emission of semen, he must bathe his whole body with water, and he will be unclean till evening. 17 Any clothing or leather that has semen on it must be washed with water, and it will be unclean till evening. 18 When a man has sexual relations with a woman and there is an emission of semen, both of them must bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening.

          No prohibition.

          Deuteronomy 23:

          9 When you are encamped against your enemies, keep away from everything impure. 10 If one of your men is unclean because of a nocturnal emission, he is to go outside the camp and stay there. 11 But as evening approaches he is to wash himself, and at sunset he may return to the camp.

          You should not spill semen on yourself when you’re engage in warfare against your enemies, or if you do so, then go outside till the evening and wash yourself. No prohibition of fapping in general.

          And Christians are not obligated to keep the Biblical ritual purity laws, anyway, just as Christians should not observe the Biblical dietary laws. Hence this is a moot point.

          Note that this is not intended as fap-endorsement; but when I say that the Bible is silent about masturbation (per se), it’s because it is factually so, and any lies to the contrary, like all lies, are of the Devil. If you think that fapping is bad, then by all means, abstain from it and voice your enthusiastic support for the #NoFap internet sub-culture; just don’t falsely claim that “This is what the Bible commands,” for it commands no such thing.

          • White Man says:

            @shaman, Very good. You definitely know your fapping law. I’d award you a PhD, but I’m just a Dot Indian. And a fed.

            • Frederick Algernon says:

              Don’t be a butthurt faggot. I warned you what would happen and encouraged you to lurk moar. FWIW i don’t think you are a dotdotdot, but i do think you are a bogstandard WN; heart in the right place (if a little back and to the left) but brain off galavanting elsewhere. I can give you 14 reasons why you and i could be m80s, but in this place you have a lot to learn, and you set yourself back by taking on your betters over minor quibbles and orthogonal issues.

              Lurk moar, friend. Go back and read the Jim catalog starting in ~2017 and read the comments as well. You could have a place here. Earn it.

              • White Man says:

                Lighten up Fred, this isn’t your blog.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  Then stop embarrassing my team with your /pol/ tier tautological stupidity.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I love 4chan /pol but oldschool wignats (who are often shills notice the frequent spamming of “Zion Don” posts) are not what makes /pol great.

                  8chan /pol (it will come back) was unique in that it had some genuinely intelligent and nonshill wignatish types (not sure why this happened).

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  I’ve been a /pol/tard for a long time, and a bro before that, but at least i don’t shit where i eat. This fag can’t into hierarchy.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Imagine you are a longtime member of a certain social club. Sometime you have never met comes in and starts talking smack to all of the members. A few members politely tell him that he’s welcome to stay, but needs to shut the hell up.

                  His response: “oh lighten up, loser, it’s not YOUR club”.

                  Does this sound like prosocial behavior to you? If this club were a nightclub, the bouncer would have already thrown you (probably literally thrown) out onto the curb.

                  This is what I mean when I say “low status”. Even the more autistic commenters tend to understand when they’re skating on thin ice.

                • White Man says:

                  @Fred, Take it easy now. Look at you, white nighting it for all these lads. Good show. But, they’re resilient lads and can fight their own battles. Besides, I just saw it as harmless banter. I understand you have been here for a bit and have found your home. No worries mate. Stiff upper lip. Have some tea and crumpets and relax a bit.

                • jim says:

                  You are just trying to create trouble, and you use memes such as “white knighting” without real comprehension of the ideas those shibboleths represent – which shows you are presenting yourself as one thing, when in reality you are another thing – such as a dot Indian employed by the FBI.

                • White Man says:

                  @Tom, Now if I did nothing but lurk, how would you know I even read your musings. Communication is a multipath endeavor. To inform or persuade. You give your opinion, I provide feedback. You then adjust your opinion until you have persuaded me to your point. Besides how could I read King Fredricks posts today if I’m busy reviewing posts back to 2017 as he suggested?

                • Not Tom says:

                  Besides how could I read King Fredricks posts today if I’m busy reviewing posts back to 2017 as he suggested?

                  Not necessary. The request was to read just Jim’s posts going back a few years (or even a few months), then read the comments without interjecting yourself, then eventually join the conversation when you understand what’s going on. That is, in fact, what most regular commenters here did themselves.

                  You do show some engagement with the ideas so I’ll cut you some slack. But really, it is not important to us to know that you are reading. Jim gets some 30k uniques a day, IIRC. We see our memes penetrating into the alt right and even the mainstream right. We know that people are reading.

                  Communication is a two-way street but social hierarchy is not. As of right now, you’re at the bottom of the totem pole. If you want to be treated with respect, earn it. Before you’ve earned it, probably a good idea to lay off any personal attacks, even if you feel slighted. That’s how status works. FA and I can mock each other, if we so choose; you, the noob, may not. Didn’t we all learn this system by third grade?

                • White Man says:

                  @Tom, Respect is earned both ways. I suggest you reread your own post and see who needs to work on their social skills. Reading between your lines I see: you are not wanted here, you are not needed here, I have imagined authority here, and a hint of fear of losing ones hierarchy. Don’t be so defensive. Besides earlier posts you claim I am a wolf. How do you expect a wolf to behave.

                • jim says:

                  Nobody here is interested in earning the respect of someone who sounds curiously like a dot Indian FBI employee.

                  You keep mangling the memes and shibboleths that you randomly decorate your comments with, indicating that you need to read and understand more before commenting. You are trying to pass as one of us, and keep screwing up. You need to understand our memes and shibboleths before superficially aping them.

                  You are coming from another place, and concealing what place you come from. This self concealment does not inspire confidence. Who are you. What are you? You have to earn our respect. Nobody has to earn your respect. You are not one of us, you are outgroup. You are making an effort to understand our memes and shibboleths, but will not be treated as ingroup until you have better understanding. You are not CR, you are doing better than he is, but you still persistently outgroup yourself by your incomprehension.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  You are more like a coydog than a wolf.

                • shaman says:


                  The question on everyone’s mind is: what’s your age?

                • Anonymous says:

                  White Man is doing standard D&C, against Not Tom and Frederick Algernon in particular.

                • Not Tom says:

                  White Man is doing standard D&C, against Not Tom and Frederick Algernon in particular.

                  Rather incompetently, I might add.

                  [“White Man”]: Respect is earned both ways.

                  If not a dot-Indian, as some suspect, then you are what Vox would call a gamma. Why would you think that we are looking to earn your respect? Who the hell are you, newfag, and why should we care?

                  Reading between your lines I see: you are not wanted here, you are not needed here

                  You’re confusing antipathy with indifference. 100% on the “not needed”, but as for “not wanted”, that is really up to you to decide.

                  I have imagined authority here, and a hint of fear of losing ones hierarchy

                  Not even close. The only authority here is Jim’s. I might have influence, but you are nowhere near bright enough or charismatic enough to threaten it. Thinking otherwise is, again, as Vox would say, gamma.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “If not a dot-Indian, as some suspect, then you are what Vox would call a gamma.”

                  Eh lets not pretend that Teddy Spaghetti’s autistic and contrived socio-sexual hierarchy has any basis in reality.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  They’re allusions, Michael!

                • Anonymous says:

                  Vox Day’s gamma maps very well to a set of behaviors that I readily observe in real life.

                  Cominator, my son, it is time for you to go outside.

                • jim says:

                  Vox Day’s analysis will not get you laid, and is less useful in understanding disputes on the internet than he believes.

                  His analysis is corrupted by the fact that he has a purple pill understanding of female sexual nature, as people who fail to accept evopsych and natural selection frequently do, failing to swallow the red pill in its entirety, and his wife is a groupie, whose nature he is reluctant to fully and correctly understand.

                  His analysis of social justice warriors is useful and valuable, though it needs to be placed in the context of the holiness spiral, the struggle within the progressive elite, and the ensuing ever leftwards motion of the overton window.

                  From the point of view of an individual, what matters is that the members of the priestly class in any group or organization are going to try to take it over with weaponized holiness, and when you are dealing with such a takeover bid, his analysis of the situation and the necessary tactics is dead on and extremely valuable to everyone.

                  But his sociosexual hierarchy is ultimately a collection of rationalizations for avoiding an accurate understanding of female nature in general, and his wife’s nature in particular. His main routine application of that analysis is internet disputes, which it fogs, rather than clarifies. That one frequently sees a set of behaviors that fit a category does not necessarily imply that that category is useful in understanding, predicting, or dealing with those behaviors. Categorizing people as gammas is not very predictive, and is useless in dealing with them. He always ends up cutting off contact, indicating failure of prediction and management.

                  The category that is useful for deciding whether to cut off contact is “evil”, not “gamma”/

                • Not Tom says:

                  Eh lets not pretend that Teddy Spaghetti’s autistic and contrived socio-sexual hierarchy has any basis in reality.

                  I’m not. But he is right to identify the pattern of behavior and give it a name, no matter how silly the name is. Ankle-biters with feminine psychology who cannot bear their own low status, so they hallucinate themselves as being much more important and successful, and go around demanding respect from people who could not care less about their respect. They also never get the hint, and never pipe down until it’s too late.

                  Call it what you want, but it’s a real thing and I’m seeing it here. Entering a community of strangers and telling them what it takes to earn your respect is the height of social retardation.

                • jim says:

                  > it’s a real thing and I’m seeing it here. Entering a community of strangers and telling them what it takes to earn your respect is the height of social retardation

                  “White male” is displaying other problem behaviors which the category “gamma” fails to predict. The category groups unlike people together, and incorrectly groups problem behaviors.

                • Anonymous says:


                  Hierarchy of needs applies. Getting laid is secondary to identifying real life behaviors that lead another man to take a swing at you. One good hit ends the game forever.

                  What you say otherwise is true and observable.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Categorizing people as gammas is not very predictive, and is useless in dealing with them.

                  This is not entirely true. It is a useful heuristic for the interval of a few seconds up to fifteen minutes in which another person decides to use physical violence. After this time you can use other tactics.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Categorizing people as gammas is not very predictive, and is useless in dealing with them. He always ends up cutting off contact, indicating failure of prediction and management.

                  I agree with everything you said. I don’t support his hierarchy as a concept, and I know it’s based on autoethnography rather than genuine observation of others.

                  While we’re on the subject, though, how do you recommend dealing with people who:
                  – Make frequent and primarily negative contributions
                  – Act as though they believe they’re the smartest guy in the room
                  – Think they’re entitled to respect
                  – Think others want to please them
                  – Humblebrag often
                  – Don’t take the hint when warned about their conduct
                  – Are prone to anti-social behavior when confronted; and
                  – Tend to hold grudges and snipe frequently?

                • jim says:

                  You are describing the impacts of a grab bag of bad behaviors, not describing the inward causes of those bad behaviors, or even the bad behaviors themselves.

                  You deal with bad behavior in a way specific to that bad behavior, to the person misbehaving, and the situation.

                • Not Tom says:

                  You consider there to be no value at all at identifying patterns of bad behavior that are frequently found together and identifying common techniques for dealing with them?

                  It can obviously be taken too far, like the DSM. But saying we shouldn’t notice patterns of behavior doesn’t sound right to me either.

                • jim says:

                  The categorization is not working for Vox Day in his internet interactions. He encounters one bad behavior, projects another that is not in fact present, fails to detect a third that is present, and goes off in the wrong direction.

              • The Cominator says:

                So called gamma behavior maps very well to the more negative aspects of Teddy Spaghetti’s personality that he doesn’t like about himself.

                There is no typical gamma personality that matches to a low place in the male status hierarchy as distinct from Omega personality.

                Vox’s Gamma theory also atrributes dark triad traits (like deception) to so called gammas… but low status tends to be inversely correlated with dark triad traits and spergs/autists rarely lie and aren’t good at it.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >Teddy Spaghetti

                  You were kicked off his forum, yes?

                • The Cominator says:

                  Actually no. I’ve only posted on his forum probably a grand total of seven times though.

                • ten says:

                  I think you are right about him projecting the entire thing, and his “sigma” mary sue superpower ego trip is worse still, like stuff me and my friends made up when we were twelve and making custom rules for dungeons and dragons. (oh shit pants dropped)

                  If anything, many of the people he calls gammas are actually alphas, but in nerdy, low value hierarchies, the coolest and smartest dude in the crappy gang that noone likes.

          • kawaii_kike says:

            Onan’s crime was not ejaculating into his wife, so does this support a prohibition against contraception? Will contraception be outlawed come the Restoration?

            We have to get those birth rates up amirite

            • shaman says:

              Contraception may or may not be banned, but that has nothing to do with Onan’s reneging on his obligation to fulfill his levirate marriage to his dead brother’s widow. God killed him for depriving his brother of progeny, and not for anything else.

              Onan’s short episode keeps being misused to prohibit things totally unrelated to it; those things may or may not be bad things, but they have nothing to do with Onan’s story.

            • jim says:

              You are torturing the bible to support the anti sex holiness spiraled version, or have been misled by someone else’s bible torture.

              It has been repeatedly demonstrated that if men have the opportunity to be patriarchs, they will move heaven and earth to have substantial families. Nothing else moves the needle by more than background noise, not even war and famine. We have had condoms and sponges since the late bronze age. It does not move the needle, though social acceptance of sexual deviancy has a surprisingly large effect – but even that, not very large.

              I suspect that tolerance of deviancy primarily has effect by increasing and reflecting tolerance of feral women.

              The two high fertility white groups in US, FDLS and Amish, both allow contraception, and are not terribly worried by heterosexual male activities.

          • I_Never_Knew_You says:

            >And Christians are not obligated to keep the Biblical ritual purity laws, anyway, just as Christians should not observe the Biblical dietary laws.

            >Til heaven and earth pass away, not a jot nor tittle shall pass from the law til all be fulfilled.

            Jesus said that. He also warned that he would turn away those (like you Shaman) that preach iniquity (lawlessness).

            Jesus was very clear, the law applies to God’s people, forever.

            1 John 5 might provide you with clarity, although I suspect you are on the side of the deceiver, as is the Catholic Church.

            • jim says:

              > Jesus was very clear, the law applies to God’s people, forever.


              1. The jots and tittles have not passed away, but trying to deduce right action legalistically from jots and tittles was leading the Jews horribly and disastrously astray, and Jesus unequivocally condemned this, saying it would give them death, which it did.

              2. Christ fulfilled the law so you don’t have to.

              When Jesus said “not one jot and tittle shall pass away” but conspicuously declined to instruct his followers to actually follow ever jot and tittle he was speaking ambiguously, because his time had not yet come.

              And if you find Jesus ambiguous, Saint Paul made it absolutely clear. Christians are not required to follow the letter of the law, and jots and tittles legalism is condemned.

              God works through what Aristotle called material and efficient causation, and if Christ is, among other things, the incarnation of the logos right understanding of truth and right action must be based on understanding the way material and efficient causes act, the copybook headings, not on torturing commas, jots, and tittles.

              The trouble with jots and tittles is that with a sufficiently large supply of jots and tittles, you can always find a legalistic justification for doing the bad things that you want to do, and then when someone complains about the bad things you are doing, you double down on keeping cheese crumbs and meat juice separate. Which is what got the Jews expelled from Israel, and is a substantial part of what causes them to keep getting expelled from various places. Jews are always worrying about cheese crumbs as they massively violate the tenth commandment, and they worry about cheese crumbs twice as much when they violate commandments five to nine.

            • Starman says:


              Let’s see if you can do what Jesus Christ can do… answer a RedPill on women question.

            • info says:

              The entire sacrificial system is a shadow of jesus’ sacrifice. And when the real thing comes the shadow passes away. Along with ritual purity laws. Even as ritual purity laws is very useful for hygiene and disease control.


              Hence the laws of ritual purity of sacrifice and the ministry of the ark of the covenant is abolished.

              • jim says:

                Ritual purity needed to be abolished, for it was substituted for actual purity. To avoid walking on ground contaminated with the blood of chickens sacrificed to pagan god, the Jews got themselves covered in the wrongfully spilled blood of a Roman cop whom they killed in the course of performing his duty to enforce a necessary and just Roman law.

                Ritual purity would have prevented Peter from talking to a good and pious man. It had become legalistic, and divorced from genuine purity. Whenever Orthodox Jews make some terrible concession to modernity and progressivism, they double down on cheese crumbs.

                We continue to observe the rule on burying our poop and washing our hands before meals, but we justify it by material and efficient causation, not on a lengthy chain of talmudic interpreters.

            • info says:

              For this reason also God showed this vision to Peter declaring ritual purity abolished :

      • kawaii_kike says:

        I’m having trouble shaking the feeling that abortion is inherently evil, but I suppose your first point that abortions can be justified and therefore not all abortions are murder, makes sense.

        However, it doesn’t seem very fair to declare open season on “tards, cripples, psychos, monstrosities, rape-babies, and cuck-babies”. A mans wife and children are his property but more importantly they belong to God and ultimately God decides who he imbues with life. Life cannot be taken unless there’s a justification and being a retard,cripple, or otherwise inconvenience does not justify taking someone’s life.

        Only a moral violation against God’s law justifies a killing. Even if abortion is a lesser offense than murder, it is still taking a life and requires justification. Maybe rape/cuck-babies could be killed, but even they could be given up for adoption.

        There have been a few saints who were retards and cripples, so clearly God cares for them just like he cares for normal people.

        • shaman says:

          I don’t argue that you have justification to break into your neighbor’s home and slay his retard son. I do maintain that if your own wife’s fetus is a malignant entity (retards, cuck-babies, rape-babies, monsters, etc., being malignant entities), then it may be justified for you to kill it, because if you don’t do so, you’re bound to inflict misery on yourself, your wife, your normal children, your close family, your community, and others. If you let your property wreak havoc on yourself and society, your conduct is both anti-social and self-destructive; and such fetuses, being your property, are a havoc for which you’re responsible.

          Of course, if you wish to keep the limbless abomination, then by all means do so and suffer the consequences; but telling fathers that their wives must bring forth these monsters is destructive holiness spiraling, and it’s no wonder that celibate and childless (“totally not gay!”) priests are the ones who preach this doctrine.

          • Not Tom says:

            Right, this works like any other property law. I can park my car in my own backyard, smash it up with a baseball bat, pour gasoline on it and light it on fire. You cannot do that to my car, even if I was going to do it anyway.

            • I_Never_Knew_You says:

              >Right, this works like any other property law.

              Doesn’t take long for you lot to slide into the murder of infants does it? Why not sacrifice the remains to Baal, no point in half measures. Never seen a video of the joy in a Down’s Syndrome child’s life, and his parents too? You’d hack it out of the womb and throw it away like trash.

              >I do maintain that if your own wife’s fetus is a malignant entity (retards, cuck-babies, rape-babies, monsters, etc., being malignant entities), then it may be justified for you to kill it, because if you don’t do so, you’re bound to inflict misery on yourself, your wife, your normal children, your close family, your community, and others.

              This must be the white pill Jim refers to in the post. You make up your own rules and decide who and when to kill. Always easier if it’s defenseless kids of course. Lacking faith, and not actually believing the Bible is true, you’d not even think to turn to God for healing would you?

              • The Cominator says:

                I took a strong stance against bastardcide but with unsalvagable genetic defectives best aborted when the defect is detected.

              • Frederick Algernon says:

                How many kids do you have?

                How much experience do you have interacting with/caring for the retarded?

                I am pretty sure you are taking a logical position based on an emotional perspective. I am 100% against abortion from a philosophical perspective, but, having much experience with the retarded, i am absolutely with NT and S that, until we can rescue them from the flesh cage GNON saw fit to house them in, they are better off not here. It fucking sucks. Some of the best people I have ever met, from an emotional perspective of course, were downies. Fun loving, carefree mongoloids hell bent on getting and giving smiles and hugs. What those cute videos don’t ever show are the bed sores, infections, sexual assaults (you can all fuck off with trying to RPWQ me; a hard charging 250lb downie intent on stub finger banging a preteen is not a good thing), massive medical bills, and whole lives invested in keeping them barely healthy. It is gross, but necessary, to confront hard questions objectively, legalistically, and thoroughly.

                To whit, the person(s) that are responsible and hold the continuing responsibility for the retarded are the ones that should decide what is done with them. If a billionaire wants to put his retard offspring to pasture, hiring the best caretakers and keeping a close watch on them, by all means do. A poor family with six other kids who subsist on the goodwill of the state, the community, and the church by necessity abandon some or all of their agency, hence they lose the ultimate choice potential. I don’t like this. I wish we spent the money wasted on breast cancer “research” and AIDS amelioration on fixing the retarded, but we do not.

                Abortion is a curse. Abortion is a crutch. Abortion is a medical procedure. Abortion has utility. How these truths slot together is a coup-complete issue. Using the Cucktholic church’s bullshit axiomatic stance is a waste of time and effort.

                • shaman says:

                  Quality post.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Abortion is a curse. Abortion is a crutch. Abortion is a medical procedure. Abortion has utility. How these truths slot together is a coup-complete issue. Using the Cucktholic church’s bullshit axiomatic stance is a waste of time and effort.”

                  Also the Cucklick Church is a horrible hypocrite on this issue given their involvement in running the Quebec orphanages and other similar institutions elsewhere in the world, the Quebec orphanages were only a step above Dr. Mengele running an orphanage for jewish children, I mean they were complete with fatal medical experiments (and its why I cannot endorse Jim’s position that the state should be totally indifferent to bastards… the description of those places were real evil to the personally undeserving. Bastards should be aborted generally but the few who slip through should not be left to such an evil fate as that).

                  The church only came out against abortion because they thought the hispanic-catholic abortion rate was higher then the Anglo abortion rate. John Paul II was an evil man, the progressive Cathedral (which used to have some measure of sanity) did not used to endorse mass immigration really… he is the one who put the idea in their heads.

                • kawaii_kike says:

                  Why do you nitpick on such a minor and obscure historical event like the Duplessis Orphans?

                  Children and women are a man’s property and since the children were orphans, they were discarded property. The Catholic Church took possession of them and therefore had a right to use their property how they saw fit. So a few kids died in Quebec, that alone hardly makes the Church a hypocrite. They killed them AFTER they were born, so this is consistent with the Church’s stance on abortion.

                  The actions of a few rogue orphanages shouldn’t be used to smear the entire Church anyway.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  If this orphanage incident were the only issue, i guess i could understand leaving the Catholic church alone. But the sad fact is that the Vatican, and by extension the Faith, is complicit in the most heinous, willful destruction of Occidental prosperity. The current Pope is the worst progressive in the spotlight. The church itself has been casting its lot with the muddy ones around the globe. One need not portray the Church in a negative light so much as just point to what it does and says.

                  I know there are good catholic men out their. A number of them are my kin. But they are the extreme minority. Mormons do more for justice and order incidentally than Catholics do intentionally.

                • Not Tom says:

                  My position has basically aligned with Jim’s. If an infertile couple wishes to adopt a bastard, fine. I wouldn’t recommend it, but wouldn’t engage the state to stop them, either. However, if said child has not been adopted, it is the property of the mother’s lawful husband, who absolutely cannot be forced to care for it, put it up for adoption, or perform any other kindness, if we are to maintain any semblance of civilization. It is the husband’s decision, not ours and not the government’s, whether it goes up on Craigslist or down the river.

                  The penalty for any woman cuckolding her husband – and neglecting to mention living children from a previous relationship is a form of cuckolding – should generally be their termination, and possibly hers as well depending on the severity of the crime. Some bastards might survive, but that should be the rare exception. Every woman alive should know the motto: chase chubs, lose cubs.

                  Anyway, all of this was just an example to illustrate how I’m not the least bit concerned about Catholic moralfagging on abortion. Yes, I’m for abortion (on the husband’s authority) and I’m for infanticide on the same grounds. And if I support paternal infanticide, you are not going to talk me out of paternal abortion.

                  Of course, if a mother-to-be defies her husband and performs either act against his wishes, then that shall be punishable by death.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Ugh WordPress threading, that reply was supposed to be on the thread underneath it.

              • Not Tom says:

                Why not sacrifice the remains to Baal, no point in half measures.

                Your moralfagging has been noted. Our ethics are based on human flourishing and the iron laws of Gnon, not your feefees.

                You’d hack it out of the womb and throw it away like trash.

                Or kill the bastard spawn several years after emergence from the womb. Infants and toddlers, being unable to care for themselves and thus a net liability to society until they get older, are the property of their parents. And if a married man discovers previously-unknown children from his current wife, that makes them his property, to either raise as his own or dispose of at will, preferably the latter.

                This silly notion that every human life is absolutely sacred and must be protected at all costs is not found anywhere in either Testament. If you moralfag yourself into a belief that killing can never ever be justified, then you are a pacifist faggot unfit to be either a warrior or a priest.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  Seconded. My son has made me soft, but only to a certain degree. I have a new found appreciation for tiny fingers i never had before, but the thought of him being harassed by the worthless spawn of slut single mothers and the trash of the urban jungle ignites a terrible fire in my belly.

                  I hate that we have come to this place. Abortion should be a very rare, purely medical curiosity. The current trials and tribulations must guide our thinking as we craft a path forward. We cannot let it get this bad again.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Let post birth bastard spawn be adopted not killed plz… The bitch did something wrong the bastard did not.

                • jim says:

                  Paternal consent and shotgun marriage will solve most of the abortion problem.

                  But we still will have a problem when men who cannot marry (usually because they are disinclined to work and spending frequent periods in prison) get women pregnant. My recommended solution is that she is then forced to marry someone selected by her father, and then her husband decides what to do with his unfortunate demonspawn.

                  Reflect on the flood of brown babies born to white mothers in Sweden. If not for abortion, there would be a lot more of them. What are you going to do about that?

                  We have to get serious about curtailing dysgenic female preferences. We don’t want a system where the cost of irresponsible sexual decision can be dumped off on society, and if the costs of irresponsible sexual decisions are carried by private actors, those private actors are going to wind up disposing of inconvenient demonspawn.

                • The Cominator says:

                  There will not be many bastards in our system. Let those few who are not aborted be taken by kindly (yes i would screen out sadists…) infertile or christian couples inclined to raise them. With 2% of the amount of bastards we have now should have no problem.

                  We should not be evil when we dont have to be (as we do with incurable leftists and muslims).


                  “Or kill the bastard spawn several years after emergence from the womb.”

                  This is a fence you don’t want to tear down. And if you do, then you’re fucking insane, and I would feel good to see you fitted with a concrete boot in preparation for a boat ride.

                  “This silly notion that every human life is absolutely sacred and must be protected at all costs…If you moralfag yourself into a belief that killing can never ever be justified…”


                • jim says:

                  There is no real difference between a child sixteen weeks after conception, and a child sixteen weeks after birth. If we can murder the one, we can murder the other.

                  That fence has come down already, and been down for quite some time.

                  What is the death rate among sons torn from their fathers at an early age? My guess is mighty high.

                  And seventy years ago, getting rid of the surplus demonspawn of women who got pregnant to bad boys, though theoretically illegal, happened all the time and no one particularly wanted to pay too much attention. It is just that now the demonspawn lives, and the sons of good men die.



                • jim says:

                  You respond not to Not Tom, but to the positions that the Cathedral attributes to those it intends to murder. Your response is so absolutely irrelevant to anything anyone has said, or is likely to say, in this thread that I really have no idea whom you think you are responding to.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Jim forget the morality of being so cruel on the very few bastards who get through (since my proposal is that the law mandate abortion unless a financially responsible man wants to claim the kid and the man in charge of the woman okays the pregnancy)…

                  The optics of saying we’re okay with post birth child killing of children who are not extremely genetically defective (down syndrome etc) is super duper toxic. Especially since there are so many angry lost boys who did not have fathers, and generally the white ones (and there are unfortunately many of those now) are generally on our side.

                  We can treat the few who slip through (I think it will be around 2% of modern numbers) decently without destroying society and that is the solution we should take and we should not talk about the other way… EVER.

                • shaman says:

                  Come on Cominator, we all love you. Take it easy. Here are the best optics, in my view:


                • The Cominator says:

                  LOL but fucked up Shaman, despite agreeing that heterosexual pedophilia is so rare to be almost nonexistent I’d show no mercy to the few Podestas of the world.

                  Two necrophiliacs were walking to a graveyard one says to the other you still have your girlfriend, the other one goes no the rotten cunt split on me.

                • ten says:

                  The Cominator,

                  optics is not foundational. The optics of this blog that has attracted its readership is that of open reasoned discussion, all out assault on taboo and crimethink, and apologetics of what our enemies consider inhumane cruelties – not that they have an issue with inhumane cruelties in general.

                  The womans womb is not the individualizing rubicon you seem to imply – there is no truly meaningful difference between the infant sixteen weeks after conception, still in the womb, and sixteen weeks after birth. There is big difference in the relationship to the mother only.

                  If killing one is permissible, so is killing the other.

                  The foundation of the law is coop-coop equilibrium between patriarchal hierarchies – the bastard has no place in the hierarchies, unless adopted or employed. Imagine all involved parties agree that no, don’t kill the bastards, they deserve a shot, they are here and their murder serves no purpose by default – who among them will go looking really hard for missing bastards, not adopted nor employed?

                  Where is the gnon compliance?

                  Does it not actually require corruption and the seeds of commie dictatorship to do this?

                  That said, don’t kill bastards unless they’re bastards, and it certainly is bad optics that might turn off valuable allies to seem overly enthusiastic about murder, an offense of which you are guilty too, helicopter boss. On the other hand it certainly would also be bad optics to install crimethink filters on any issue.

                  You wish for bastards to not have to fear that they will be preyed upon by blooddrunk reactionaries aching for smooth unfortunate necks to break under cold hard hands, and that seems pretty good, but doesn’t really connect to the issue.

                • jim says:

                  We don’t want a state apparatus for hunting down and killing bastards. But we do want males in authority over the sexual conduct of women, and we do want the cost of bastards to be born by males in authority over misbehaving women, which means we don’t want a state apparatus for taking care of them, nor a society, which watches too hard to find out if bastards are being taken care of or worries over much about a mysteriously high “natural” death rate of bastards.

                  Much as we now have a society that holds that an infant in the womb can be murdered contrary to the will and desire of his father, and that piously ignores the welfare of children torn from their father at a very early age. We now have a curious lack of data on the survival rate among young children torn from their biological fathers, and come the reaction we will have a similar curious lack of data on the survival rate of bastards in the custody of husbands who are justly outraged by their existence.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “We don’t want a state apparatus for hunting down and killing bastards.”

                  We want a state apparatus dedicated to the early abortion of children likely to become a public charge ie that have no responsible male to care for them… with a possible exemption for soldiers killed in action during the course of a woman’s pregnancy.

                  “we will have a similar curious lack of data on the survival rate of bastards in the custody of husbands who are justly outraged by their existence.”

                  I’m saying let the outraged husbands (the bastards who slip through the cracks will generally lack an outrage husbands) give them away and kill the mother.

                  I have said I oppose death for adultery alone, but trying to pass off a pregnancy that isn’t her mans is much much more severe and should be met with death.

                • jim says:

                  > We want a state apparatus dedicated to the early abortion of children likely to become a public charge ie that have no responsible male to care for them

                  We don’t want public charges at all. Stick the male who has proper authority over the woman with the problem, and don’t get too curious as to how he solves it.

                  We don’t want fertile age women with no male in proper authority over them at all. Solution to that problem is that if a woman engages in sexual misconduct, she gets stuck under the authority of the man she engaged in sexual misconduct with. If the man she engaged in sexual misconduct with is unsuitable, and her father is nonexistent or ineffectual, the state sticks her with someone, anyone.

                • kawaii_kike says:

                  “We want a state apparatus dedicated to the early abortion of children likely to become a public charge”

                  Why would we want this?
                  If we have a state apparatus to abort babies then logically we should have a state apparatus that hunts down bastards that we failed to abort.

                  Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but isn’t Jim saying that bastards tend to have a high mortality rate and that these problems tend to solve themselves. I don’t see a reason to create a state apparatus that overreaches and intrudes into private family affairs. There won’t be any state apparatus that cares for or disposes of unwanted bastards. But I suppose anyone is free to open orphanages or conversely, to gun down bastards like a deranged Blade Runner.

                  I think your zeal for saving bastards is well intentioned but I think the best solution is a hands off approach to the Bastard Question.

                  Also I agree with ten, if we’re okay with fathers aborting their children then unwanted bastards should be free game. There’s no significant moral difference between abortion and killing a discarded bastard.

              • shaman says:

                Never seen a video of the joy in a Down’s Syndrome child’s life, and his parents too?

                May I introduce you to Seth Putnam? Just 2 poems.

                Van Full Of Retards

                Van full of retards – hahaha
                Van full of retards – you drool on yourself

                You couldn’t even win a bronze
                In the Special Olympics
                Your parents are ashamed
                Of themselves and of you

                Van full of retards – hahaha

                I Snuck A Retard In To A Sperm Bank

                You fucking dyke
                You didn’t want to get touched by a man
                You wanted to be a strong single mother
                So you ordered a sensitive, gay poet’s sperm

                I snuck a retard into a sperm bank
                I snuck a retard into a sperm bank
                I snuck a retard into a sperm bank
                I snuck a retard into a sperm bank

                Instead of a bright poet offspring
                You’re stuck with a drooling retard
                You went broke paying for special care
                Your girlfriend left you for another woman

                I snuck a retard into a sperm bank
                I snuck a retard into a sperm bank
                I snuck a retard into a sperm bank
                I snuck a retard into a sperm bank

              • Lorenzo 'STREETS' Slammington says:

                You’d hack it out of the womb and throw it away like trash.

                Moonman once said,

                There’s no room in our Aryan homes
                For people with fucked-up chromosomes
                Too many downies with squinty-eyed sockets
                Blow them away with massive Moon-rockets
                Verily, it’s super cool
                To lock mongoloids outside the gym pool
                Special Ed children shit their beds
                Just lodge a bullet inside their heads
                Trust me, it’s really not that hard
                To rid this world of all the retards
                These retards are on my list
                Of those to kill, like Communists

                As Stephen Lynch would remark,

                Watch them run
                Watch them fall
                Watch them try to catch a ball
                Special Olympics

                Watch them laugh
                Watch them drool
                Watch them fall into the pool
                That’s diving
                At the Special Olympics

                Kid with DOWNS
                Wins the race
                Even though he stood in place
                Special Olympics

                ‘Round his neck
                Gold medals hung
                Resting on his giant tongue-
                Special Olympics

                Sure, the Final Solution to the Retard Problem is way down the list after thot-patrolling your camwhore daughter by chaining her to my bedroom, stacking feral coons like Mount Everest, turning fruits into vegetables, and removing kebab, but I’m all for ‘tardocide. And I burst in uproarious laughter when your feelings are hurt, knowing that your gay dad shrimped you.

                (Yes – shrimped, i.e., he sucked his own and/or another man’s viral semen from your rectum using a straw. It’s a real term describing a real homosexual practice)

          • speargum says:

            If it’s alright for a man to slay his malignant entity, do you think it’s a wise idea to encourage retards and monsters to kill themselves?

            If it’s alright to kill these people, and that the holiness-spiralling doctrine of every human having the right to live is wrong, is suicide ok? If every man is to himself his own property, then wouldn’t he have the right to dispose of himself?

            I’m genuinely not trying to give you a gotcha question, I’m just wondering where this logic leads to.

            • shaman says:

              If Samson, the Biblical Hercules, had justification to self-terminate, how much more do lesser individuals have it.

              Now, I don’t know if you should be actively encouraging familially-unrelated ‘tards to self-cull (as they aren’t your property), but overall everyone is better off without them, and if we don’t make a fuss about bastards going down the river, how much more should we not make a fuss about grotesque uncanny mutants falling off windows and so forth. As for regular people, I’d say that suicide is bad, should be rare, and should certainly not be encouraged, but again, if Suffering Samson could intentionally get himself killed — he thereby exterminated lots of Philistines — then so can normal people, especially if the circumstances strongly call for it.

              Holiness-spiraling doctrinaire Trad Caths can go fuck themselves.

      • alf says:

        as it is silent about masturbation,

        Interesting. On a social matter podcast, a long long time ago, the topic of masturbation arose and the catholic consensus was that masturbation was evil and you should not do it. But your take makes much more sense.

        • shaman says:

          Masturbation may be bad, if it prevents you from hooking up with a chick (and marrying that chick). But usually, lifelong masturbation is the inevitable and unavoidable consequence of involuntary celibacy, and not a cause thereof.

          People who blame fapping — or their porn habits — for their sundry failures in life, are invariably dipshits who don’t see that the Woman Question is a society-destroying, civilization-annihilating issue, much more fundamental and crucial than TOUCHING THE WEE-WEE. Blaming masturbation is the henpecked halfwit trad-cuck’s natural recourse in lieu of talking honestly about women being out of control. Blaming masturbation for tfw no gf is a typical Politically Correct (Factually Incorrect) effeminate millennial position, because advocacy of hardcore patriarchy is not allowed; a convenient substitute for discussion of the collapse of marriage in the West.

          Don’t expect the ‘tards at Socialist Matter to give a damn what Scripture says about the matter (it says nothing); Rabbinic Judaism and Catholic Christianity are siamese twins, both holiness spiraling — albeit in different directions — though the latter admittedly has way better artistic and architectural aesthetics, credit where it’s due. Socialist Matter deserved to die ignominiously like the rabid dog that it was.

  32. ten says:


    Listening to Joe Rogans episode with Edward Snowden, ES strikes me as a dishonest weasel, a filthy little homo and a commie traitor, only by hearing him moan at length about how it somehow should be his boss’s duty to stay in a building potentially targeted for terror bombing for the chance to, during these last minutes, deliver some sort of data pertaining to the impending terror attack, reasonably ending his life.

    What is your position on Snowden, austere lords of the commentariat?

    • G-D says:


      • jim says:

        Deleted for reframing ten’s comment as lawful and legitimate grounds for us to be harassed and arrested by the FBI, contrary to its entirely clear meaning.

        Failed to meet your bust quota?

        • G-D says:

          Firstly, I’d really appreciate it if you’d let this one through, as it contains, appended to my message to you, a public service announcement regarding my evergreen political stance vis-à-vis the National Security State.

          Secondly, Edward Snowden noticed that most of the staff of the “intelligence community” was sent home during precisely the time, if ever, that they would be most useful and necessary, and he interpreted it as rank cowardice.

          A less charitable person would interpret it not as cowardice but as something else, perhaps something much more in line with staging training exercises at the exact same time that those events are actually happening.

          But you, Jim, you will know otherwise until the day you take your last rattling breath lying face-first on a dusty road in bumfuck Asia somewhere.

          Or maybe, considering your obsession with the FBI, you yourself are a federal officer, and I’ve been sending words straight into a straight-up honeypot this whole time.

          Incidentally, NSA et al., I hereby disavow every political and political-adjacent thing I’ve ever communicated via electronic medium, on this blog and elsewhere, but especially on this blog. My support for and loyalty to Mr. Trump (or his designated successor(s)) will endure until the day he leaves Office, at which point my support and loyalty will smoothly transfer to Mrs. Clinton (or whomever), and I would really prefer not to die in a FEMA camp, or have my fingernails pulled out in a CIA black site somewhere, so just tell me what to say to get back into good standing with the Leviathan and I’ll type them up and affix my signature in blood.

          Thanks in advance!

          • jim says:

            If you want to keep a training exercise secret from the spy community, you do not hold it in their building.

            And if the top people are holding a super top secret training exercise, they do not go home.

  33. Herzog says:

    What are the underlying unspoken assumptions of turning the other cheek — which has become a universalized metaphor for retreat of the civilized and Christian man?

    First, Christ assumes that your opponent will not go beyond slapping you in the face. No knife, no sword, no gun involved. No punch with the fist, no kick in the gut. Just an impulsive slap in the face, no worse than that.

    Now consider that this may NOT (or not mainly) be a metaphor, and take it literally instead. Then, it’s only an admonition to give an impulsive but not lethal opponent a chance to come to his senses — if all he threatens is indeed slapping. But if he resorts to graver things, all bets are off, and turning the other cheek doesn’t apply. Christ doesn’t say you’re supposed to turn the other side of your thorax after having received a stab in the first.

    Second, Christ’s admonition assumes that the two guys involved are of the same people — Jews in this case. So, the whole thing only applies with heavy reservations, if at all, to violence between people who are not co-nationals. This is because with people from different peoples, the risk that slapping is not the upper limit of the violent tactics your opponent will apply, but only the first step on an escalation ladder, is uncalculable.

    Turning the other cheek is NOT metaphor for a generalized principle of giving in — it is literally turning the other cheek (or else on that harmless level) to an impulsive compatriot or ally, as a chance to come to his senses, and no more than that.

    • shaman says:

      Pretty much.

      One nitpick: “Striking the cheek” was neither totally literal nor totally metaphorical in old Jewish parlance; it was a common idiomatic phrase connoting humiliation, in particular. Humiliation alone is usually not immediately life-threatening.

      But, as Jim says, Christ’s idiomatic reference only spoke of the other cheek; i.e., only one additional humiliation ought to be tolerated – not an infinity of additional humiliations.

      • info says:

        One of the gospels talk about the right cheek being smacked. Indicating that is a backhand.

        Basically a form of insult and a way that one would treat a socially inferior person.

        So it lines up with the fact that it is about humilation.

        • shaman says:

          Okay info, off topic question: Do you agree with the following paragraph in its entirety:

          When a 13-year-old slut documents herself squirting and fucking for the camera and uploads the documentation to PornHub, to be fapped to and disseminated by millions of heterosexual men, the problem is not PornHub, and the problem is not millions of heterosexual men turned on by a fertile female, and the problem is not some nefarious (non-existent) evil men who “victimized” the 13-year-old slut into squirting and fucking for the camera. Rather, the problem is that women are out of control, which problem equally applies both to 13-year-old jailbaits and 43-year-old milf