The trans cult

First they overlook evil, then they permit evil, then they legalize evil, then they promote evil, then they celebrate evil, then they persecute anyone who still calls it evil.

You pretended they were your equal, only to be promptly informed that they were your superior, which superiority is backed by the fist of the state and the officially unofficial state religion shouted at you from every rooftop.

We feel helpless, we have no authority to call evil evil when the state calls it good. But you do have that authority. Even though my faith is less than a mustard seed, demons still flee before Christ. In my personal life, invoking God and Bible is startlingly and surprisingly effective. Works. Possibly it works because Christ has real power, and possibly our state religion has real demons. Possibly it works because progressives are eternally uncertain that they have the support of their tribe, while they they feel if someone is referencing the bible and God, he does have the support of his tribe. Possibly it works because we have been Christian for seventeen centuries, and it takes a while for the coals to go out. They see God behind me.

It feels very much as if Christ has real power, and whether the demons of the state religion are real or not, demon worship is real.

Hear is a report from girl was caught in the trans cult as a naive teenager, as so many are caught today, but escaped. Hat tip ExileStyle

Its understandable that any young person exposed to this kind of belief system would grow to deeply resent being white, “cis”, straight, or (biologically) male. The beauty of gender ideology is it provides a way to game this system, so that you can get some of those targets off your back and enjoy the camaraderie of like-minded youths. You can’t change your race, pretending to have a different sexuality would be very uncomfortable in practice, but you can absolutely change your gender, and it’s as easy as putting a “she/they” in your bio. Instantly you are transformed from an oppressing, entitled, evil, bigoted, selfish, disgusting cishet white scum into a valid trans person who deserves celebration and special coddling to make up for the marginalization and oppression you supposedly now face. Now not expected to do as much groveling and reaffirming to everyone how much you love checking your privilege, you can relax a little and talk about your life without wondering if you are distracting from the struggles of or speaking over marginalized groups, because you are marginalized too. With the new pronouns often comes a wave of positive affirmation from friends and followers, and the subconscious picks up quickly that there’s a way to make the deal of being on Tumblr even sweeter.

This is the incentive I felt to comb through my thoughts and memories for things that might be further evidence that deep down, I wasn’t really a girl. I hated my body; it must be because I don’t like that its female. Boys have never been interested in me like they are with other girls; well, maybe I would be attractive as a boy, and then I could be like all these cute “gay trans boys” I saw dating each other online. I didn’t have many friends, it must be because being a girl isn’t my “authentic self”, and that was getting in the way of my social life. Plus, people were nicer to me since I said I was trans so that must be an indication that being trans is the right thing to do to make friends. Female sexuality is hypersexualized and pornified, yet it’s supposed to be “empowering” for women to do porn, be prostitutes, or have dangerous, kinky, scary sounding sex with many different men.

She should have tried hitting them with the old and new testament. Works, and psychologically a lot healthier.

part of me genuinely thought testosterone would somehow make me into this outgoing male jock archetype and I would be handsome, have lots of friends, and love life. That wasn’t really panning out.

What a surprise. No one tells them about the staggeringly high trans suicide rate, because that would be discriminatory. Women and men are too fundamentally different for transition to work. Testosterone works great for men on a male mind and a male body. Disastrous for a female mind and a female body.

During the initial months following my first shot, I recall a general feeling of suffocating numbness and inability to identify my emotions, with bouts of anger that were easy to trigger dispersed throughout. Something that before would have made me mostly sad, or even frustrated, made every cell in my body overflow with rage.

Women cannot handle the psychological effects of testosterone, and not all men can handle it. But in me, testosterone makes stronger and braver, and gives me more, not less, self control. “Roid rage” is a perversion of what testosterone is supposed to do – and if you are already practicing perversion, that is what you will get – it is the psychological impact of testosterone going into perverse and self damaging channels, rather than to its proper telos. And of course, when a woman takes testosterone, there is no proper telos for testosterone’s psychological effect to go into.

I resorted to hitting myself. I would struggle against the anger by punching myself and eventually, after there was enough pain, I could cry and when I cried I’d cry for hours, often falling asleep and not remembering much when I’d wake up.

The testosterone was prompting action, but no proper telos, so self destructive action

I told Jamie that I was regretting my transition and questioning my trans identity in general, and predictably she was extremely upset. She reacted in anger, saying I must be confused and, like my therapist, accusing me of having these thoughts due to some underlying psychological issue, like only an insane person would ever regret being trans.

They generally do not regret being trans, but for some entirely unrelated reason 🙃 are apt to commit suicide. Odd that.

Not odd at all, for regretting being trans is sacrilege against their demons.

Then she reads an essay that depicts trans as socially transmitted insanity:

I was in shock. This was… me! Perhaps more importantly, this was… EVERYONE! All of those young biological females I had been friends with online and offline who identified as trans also fit this exact description.

She succumbed to social pressure from wicked people. And it is hard for anyone, and much harder for women, to resist wicked social pressure unless you can call it wicked. We have several millenia of ancient wisdom, that is proving useful as the Enlightenment goes full demonic.


653 Responses to “The trans cult”

  1. […] Commenter Fireball at, on J. K. Rowling getting daily death threats because of her opposition to the trans […]

  2. not a reactionary says:

    Jim, I have a serious suggestion for Christianity. I’m not a Christian but I want to be one, unfortunately Christianity where I live is pretty gay and is all about giving all your money to brown people.

    I prefer some of the older Christian aesthetics, I guess you could call them psychedelic, such as the imagery described in the book of revelations and in John Milton’s Paradise Lost, where Jesus is granted God’s power to expel Satan and his minions from heaven, has a cool sword and chariot. That is possibly a heretical interpretation though and at any rate isn’t in the Bible.

    Anyway, I believe this sort of imagery is much preferable to the modern Jesus aesthetic, which depicts jesus as a quiet hippy. Furthermore most modern Christian music is absolutely atrocious. For (historically) recent Christian music I actually like, there is Olivier Messiaen’s “Quatour pour la fin du temps” which is a modern musical setting of the book of revelation. Messiaen was Catholic so maybe you guys think he’s a fag, idk. I actually have the score for the entire thing, but it may not be your cup of tea as it was somewhat experimental at the time it was written (around 1941). Here’s one of the sections, “”Louange à l’Éternité de Jésus” (Praise to the eternity of Jesus)”

    A problem I’ve thought of too is that men I know who listen to music when they work out commonly listen to rap. Why should nigs be granted this power to bestow masculine energy? Personally I prefer to listen to extreme metal, the kind with unintelligible lyrics and super fast kick drums, but thematically this is 100% degenerate savagery. Still better than nigs imo. The problem is that there is a sense of irony with the extreme metal stuff which doesn’t exist with the nig music, which is what makes it appealing to women and girls; nigs can talk unironically about killing people and banging hos and this makes women wet.

    I’ve posted about nigger music before here, and I remember someone responding with an argument like “Let people who are talented succeed. If niggers have a talent that people find valuable, in this case artistic, they should be allowed to succeed with it”. Firstly I don’t think nigger music is successful because of some talent niggers have, I think it’s due more to the tendency of American media outlets to promote nigger aesthetics over all others for the last 100 years or so. Jimi Hendrix, all these blues guitar players and Jazz guys (Miles Davis hated white people btw, there’s a quote of him saying if he knew it was his last day on Earth he would choke a white man to death) weren’t promoted because they were especially good, but because the unofficial official state religion did similar things then to what its doing now, that is promoting niggerdom.

    • not a reactionary says:

      sorry for the lack of formatting in the above post, not sure how that works here. I did try to space out things when I wrote it.

    • alf says:

      Rap music is degenerate. Its popularity is wholly due to globohomo pushing nigger aesthetics. The only reason it has listeners as opposed to, say, transgender aesthetics, is that rap was given an unprincipled exception for black masculinity. Teenagers listen to rap music because it’s the only mainstream music that resonates with their surging testosterone.

    • jim says:

      We need a reactionary aesthetic.

      We also need a masculine Christian warrior religion.

      I would be good to have both of them in one package. Hard to get there from here.

      Inherent in Christianity is that its archetype of manliness is the father, the husband, and the King.

      Saint Constantine the Great and Saint Constantine, were, however undoubtedly warriors, Alfred the great is also rated as a Saint in the Anglican church. but Christianity has been reluctant to honor its greatest warriors, for Christian war must be conducted in pursuit of peace.

      • Oog en Hand says:

        ” for Christian war must be conducted in pursuit of peace.”

        War is Peace. No tolerance for the intolerant!

      • Oog en Hand says:

        Some argue that Constantine was Post-Christian. Some argue he was a Crypto-Jew.

        • Pooch says:

          Some argue that you’re a pagan faggot retard.

        • jim says:

          “Some argue”

          Yeah, some Jews argue. Much as the woke want to put blackface on our history. But their arguments are motivated, baseless, and stupid. Jews want to take the credit for everything, but they surely cannot take credit for military success and the creation of large scale social cohesion. There are areas where Jews are impressively good at stuff, and areas where they are inferior.

      • Pooch says:

        We need a reactionary aesthetic.

        There is no such thing as reactionary aesthetic. There is only Christian aesthetic, which we will return to after the next Constantine returns Christianity to power.

        • alf says:

          I’ll be plenty happy with that outcome, although I do dream and believe in a reactionary aesthetic. NRx, and this blog in particular, has laid the groundwork for incredibly useful social technology. Which might just give Jimian Christians a significant edge.

    • Frontier says:

      For current Christian Manly music Swedish Metal group ‘Sabaton’ is doing great commercially top-tier success. Their songs are celebrations of excellent warriors giving their all fighting to the death for what they believe in.

      They make bank serving this underserved demand. When a tripleAAA historical war video game is being made, they will often commission a track from them for cross promotion.

      • Frontier says:

        Looking at current cool fashion of Sabaton; the number one subbed YouTube live streamer is Gura. Not only did she perform multiple Sabaton songs during an unarchived recent singing stream, she performed a duet of ‘The Last Stand’ for her encore.

        This shows women are naturally attracted to whatever is most masculine.

        It also shows tech anonymity routing around the Cathedral. Gura uses motion capture to stream with a smol shark anime avatar, keeping her identify secret. This, and being partnered with Japanese talent agency Hololive outside the Cathedral’s reach, gives her more freedom to perform pro-warrior and Christian art that she might not be able to do safely as a name/face-fag

      • Frontier says:

        Sabaton’s “The Winged Hussars” celebrating when the largest cavalry charge in history, outnumbered 15 to 1, saved Europe from the Muslim horde.

      • Oog en Hand says:

        Sweden couldn’t recover from the losses in the wars against Poland and Russia because of monogamy.

        • Frontier says:

          Sweden couldn’t recover from the losses in the wars against Poland and Russia because of monogamy.

          (Normally shouldn’t respond to the schizo derailing with irrelevant anti-Christian noise, however…)

          When we install the Darwinian Patch to Christianity
          We should bring back Old Testament polygamy

          The Emperor as font of honors
          Bestowing the rights to a second wife
          To the natural nobility who can pay the price

          • The Cominator says:

            Genius of the like of Newton’s caliber alone should get multiple legal concubines… they should be taken from among the miniscule % of non midwit women (who also tend to not make good housewives as they tend to be batshit) and perhaps they can even be told bear Newton five kids and you can be among the very rare de jure emancipated women in the Empire…

        • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

          Bullshit. Sweden could not replace their losses because it is a nation of whipped cucks who “respec wahmen” far too much for their own good. They cannot reproduce because they are weak.

          • Oog en Hand says:

            Confusing cause and effect. They became cucks by losing their best men.

            • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

              No, they were cucks when they were pagans, hundreds of years before Christianity. They were cucks when they could raid other lands and steal women. They left writing and mathematics to women, and treated magic power as if it belonged to women instead of to man. Scandinavia is being conquered because of their attitudes towards women, which they have had for centuries. Polygamy is a bandage on a neck wound.

              • ten says:

                lmao wat

                we take a patch of land in france and have 15 kids per man and in 3 generations become the most expansive and formidable force on earth

                i have heard of not a single female writer pre 1300 (and i have heard of all scandinavian writers from prehistory until now), which ones are you referring to?

                i know what you are referring to with “magic power belonged to women” so feel at ease knowing that that is just what retarded feminists moronically claim with zero backing, but i guess ancient greeks were cucks too, since its the parallel to oracles that are the subject?

                fight me you fucking bitch

                • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

                  Any Scandinavian worth his salt must have left Scandinavia long ago. The whole area is so cucked that anyone remotely based is considered a disgusting heretic and treated the way you would a mutant. Which is probably the case, your regular population being so pathetic. The best argument for women with penises is not the XXY chromosomed mutants, it is the Scandinavian people. I would not even bother raping a Scandicuck woman once we reconquer the area because it would contaminate my bloodline. You are a bunch of snowniggers, and I do not want any more of that in my genes than I already have.

                  TL, DR; your genotype is so cucked that any basedness is the result of novel genetic mutation. An accident.

                  If I decide to beat you–not fight you, because you are a Scandicuck and the outcome is therefore certain defeat for you–then it will be on my terms, not because you got butthurt. Know your place.

                • ten says:

                  quoth the eunuck, or incel or whatever you hyperfaggots call it these days.

                  contrary to you i have lived in both your and my country – which you have only read about in faggot manuals – and guess what. the country that invented faggotry, forced it upon the rest of the world at gunpoint, and continuously generates ever more vibrant and numerous subcategories of slaanesh cultists isnt exactly an epitome of masculinity

                  even your manly men have that sense of selfconsciousness about them, “am i doing it right”

                  but i just wanted to fire back a little, shine a little light in your den of hearsay and idiocy, chase away a few moths, a little charity, is all. on you go boy.

                • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

                  Both an ankle-biter and an ankle-grabber. Our masculine men might be looking around like they are not quite sure of them, but we have them. Your lot are such a bunch of cucked faggots that your women will only fuck immigrants. They made you sit down to pee, so sit your ass down. The commenteriat of this blog could A) conquer your entire region, B) change your demographics permanently by providing your women with some manly dick for a change, and C) then go have lunch.

                • ten says:

                  you’re overdoing it mate. sound like a fag. and talking about memespace representation like its reality without realizing it – like a solipsistic woman. you actually are gay, aren’t you? sound like a faggot SA brawler. you know how they preferred faggots for street fighting because of their sick predilection for getting physical with men. that you? get laid, spamhappy faggot nigger bitch.

                • Kunning Druegger says:

                  Top kek lads, well done, the both of you.

                  In truth, there are based Scandis, but they are in a dark time and are very diminished. As well, being cucked is the norm in the US, not the exception. But law of averages is worth noting, given that Scandinavian population size is comparable to US state population size.

                  If we’re taking Finnish and Norwegian girls off the table, I’m going to have to reassess the participation of my war band and what we’re willing to do for the cause. Seems like leaving a bunch of stock on the table for the Mohammedans to take.

                • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

                  Ten, you and your countrymen talk like faggots and your shit’s all fucked up. Get rekt, buttpussy.

                  Kunning Drueger, should I become Emperor of America, I hereby grant to you and your sons, in perpetuity, the right to conquer and raid both Finland and Norway for wives and concubines. I also charge you and yours with the Defense of the Faith in both lands. May you bear the sword and the rifle in their stead, and may they bear your sons in return.

        • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

          Carl Gustav was an early adopter of mass conscription with muskets; which gave the Kingdom of Sweden a disproportionate military impact; but which also resulted in a disproportionate number of high T men getting killed in successive campaigns, until the kingdom exhausted itself, and was never again a major world power.

    • Neofugue says:

      > I prefer some of the older Christian aesthetics, I guess you could call them psychedelic, such as the imagery described in the book of revelations and in John Milton’s Paradise Lost, where Jesus is granted God’s power to expel Satan and his minions from heaven, has a cool sword and chariot.

      Proper aesthetics are made tradition over centuries by learned spiritual men with resources to refine practices. The Roman Catholic depiction of Hell in Dante’s Inferno took roughly three hundred years to develop, Alighieri taking influence from several of his contemporaries. Any effective modern Christian aesthetic tradition will take centuries to develop and will eventually be foreign to the aesthetic of modernity.

      The Anathema Service may seem foreign and strange at first, but this aesthetic is what fits a masculine Old-Type Christianity. The past is a foreign country, and most of us were born long after Christianity was effectively destroyed.

      Messiaen is one of the better 20th century composers; his music is receiving rising recognition.

      > Jimi Hendrix, all these blues guitar players and Jazz guys…weren’t promoted because they were especially good, but because the unofficial official state religion did similar things then to what its doing now, that is promoting niggerdom.

      Exactly so, though this is not reserved for nigger music. The Beatles and the British Invasion, part of the social revolutions of the 1960s, were endorsed by the regime for similar reasons. When niggers are no longer worshiped their music will become associated with gutter trash and people will listen to classical music more often.

      • Red says:

        My father is a total normie and was quite offended when I described the Beatles as early boy bands selling sex to little girls and thus promoting the sexual revolution. It was quite easy to score with a girl after taking her to a musical event that turned her on so much, so they sold the sexual revolution to men at the same time.

  3. Ash says:

    Poor girl.. teenager.. an underage girl shouldn’t have to put up with such demonic forces… May God have mercy on the sinners


  4. Calvin says:

    According to some globohomo judge, the army cannot even discharge soldiers who are literally pozzed:

    Tell me again how we’re going to win any wars with Russia, let alone China, with soldiers caring an incurable fag disease?

    • Neurotoxin says:

      This is another example of the fanatics being so insane that they’re destroying their own ability to keep their grip on power. The judge knows, at some level, that weakening the military weakens the GAE’s ability to project power in the world. (And domestically, when things get exciting.) But her desire to cater to those with a gay-identified disease is overriding any strategic thinking she might otherwise be able to do.

      Watching what the Cathedral has been doing to the military in recent years has been a really heartening white pill to me. At some point they’re going to NEED an effective military. But they just can’t help themselves.

  5. Leon says:

    Is the daily stormer down again?

  6. The Cominator says:

    I just had a kind of a thought… if one wants to forment a right wing elite takeover…

    Taking over the GOP is the right idea but you must make them sign something that while true puts them beyond the pale with the Cathedral that they never come back from. As the object of local GOP takeovers be it adopted that all who wish to seek GOP office and all higher level party workers must sign a pledge that.

    1) That the 2020 election was stolen via massive fraud, and also all laws orders and appointments by him are illegitimate as well

    2) That Biden and Kamala and that also several Democratic Senators from those stolen states are illegitimate and illegal, as well as all laws passed by them.

    3) That all involved in the fraud must be put before a special court and having been involved in the fraud must be put to death

  7. Kunning Drueger says:

    King Thundercock III states: “Reaching a critical mass among violent men is the end goal.”

    Pax adds: “…support is not irrelevant because it is used to build that army… [what the] Neo-Reaction[ary] understands is how to use power, and for what to use power for… to increase it.”

    Jim responds: “We cannot capture the GOP and Fox News… the GOP [and Fox] will die, and we will loot the corpse.”

    St. John observes: “Normiecon: ‘I shall carefully consider each issue on its own merits’.
    Bluetribesman: ‘I shall increase the number of my guys in this organization, and reduce the number of their guys’.”

    Pooch states: “…fighting men don’t matter… We need to convert the elite before they convert our sons.”

    We know from study and experience that the Right cannot just ape the Left and expect the same results. The Left has a full stack and a full deck, so successes are magnified, and mistakes and blunders are minimized. The Right has very few tools to work with. Half their tools are unusable, and the other half are systemically polarized for efficacy, by which I mean the tools they think are useful and powerful are basically worthless and weak, and the ones they disregard and shun are the very tools they need to be using. So there is a significant quandary here: develop new tools and methods, or work to get the Right to recognize the polarity of value is reversed, or pursue both, or pursue neither and plan for a full spectrum loss (this last one is the safest and probably most likely to be successful; I have personally shunned it and, per Pooch and some other men’s statements, I’ve decided to dig a trench. Others with the capacity and toleration should consider Project redoubt).

    The Sperg Right is convinced “the masses” don’t matter. There’s some credence to this assertion, but they toss the baby with the bath water by going full underpants Gnome (1. Acquire Elites 2. ??? 3. Restoration). There is a hierarchy to elites, and circumstances, sample size, and a bunch of other factors change the alignment. Local high elites in Arkansas are not the same as high elites in NYC. Rockstar v. Moviestar is an inconsistent one, depending on the setting and season. Technocrats and wonks in one room are pinnacle elites, yet in another they are faceless drones and sycophants. So if a ton of energy is spent on capturing elites, a good amount of thought should be put into the targeting process. Ideological capture of 100 mayors might be far more beneficial than 10 senators, but the opposite could be true as well. Would you rather recruit 10 actors, 5 directors, or 2 writers?

    The masses don’t matter, but numbers do, because quantity has a quality all its own. If you have strong supporters in every single sheriff’s department, how would it stack up to control of the entire NYPD? The quantity argument is slippery, kind of like the old pothead thought experiment: how many 8 yer olds could you successfully destroy if they came at you in waves of 10 every five minutes?

    What profit it a merchant if he gain the presidency but lose his support? Taking an institution and taking over an institution are not the same thing. Rex Tillerson was given control of the State Department, but Bono and Angelina Jolie were given control of State Department’s sense of Self. The latter was a better strategic position, which is why those 2 empty heads are still Powerful, and no one knows or cares who Rex Tillerson is. Capturing “the elite” in an organization may give a measure of control, but dictating the temperament and signalling of the mid and lower levels of the same institution is the long game.

    As I see it, we don’t need the GOP or Fox, we need the people that used to and still do look to, pay attention to, donate to those entities. There are more ways to kill a cat than just drowning it in cream. There may be some great on-paper ideas that won’t stand up to reality because the vessel is ill-suited to the task, just as there may be some sub-optimal methods that don’t seem very good, but stand a higher chance of working with the tools at hand and the facts on the ground. I think forming a quiet culture of parallelism is one of those “sub-optimal on paper” approaches. I think the up front costs are lower, the stakes are lower, and the resources required are already in place and need only to be connected and coordinated. Parallelism combined with alternative Media combined with B&R churches; food for the body, fodder for the mind, fortitude for the soul.

    • The Cominator says:

      There are circumstances where power is tossed about and lands in the gutter that the masses matter… there are times when mass resistance and compliance matter…

      But they are the exceptions rather than the rule.

    • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

      Fighting men don’t matter until they are holding you down while someone kicks you in the ribs. I argue that we should capture what parts of Conservative, Inc. that we can, let some live or die on their merits, and work to drown the ones we cannot. If we set fashion among the men who set fashion among fighting men, on a long enough scale we have already won.

      Nicholas II lost before he ever fought because he let foreign leftists set the fashion. If we do a similar work, then when Rod Dreher is telling young conservatives bound for the military that DC needs to be burned, we will just hop in the Humvee next to Constantine. Either that or the right will autocaesate and the conservatives calling to burn DC will hail us as we cross the Potomac.

      • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

        Just as a thought experiment, imagine what would have happened if Tucker Carlson was calling the election an obvious fraud that needed to be resisted, and the conservative commentary class was writing that any congressman who voted to certify the election should be shot in the street. That would have changed the dynamic of I.VI dramatically. We might have landed on Caesar accidentally.

        • Pooch says:

          imagine what would have happened if Tucker Carlson was calling the election an obvious fraud that needed to be resisted, and the conservative commentary class was writing that any congressman who voted to certify the election should be shot in the street.

          If they would have done that they would have been fired, demonitized, depersoned, arrested, and tortured along with the J6 prisoners.

          “Conservative” commentators exist at the pleasure of the state.

          • Kunning Drueger says:

            Lol, I sidetracked myself, what a twat.

            “Certain terror must overtake normalcy before both elites and normals will change their tendencies.”

            By this, I mean that no one who matters is going to think about standing up and hitting back until the reasonable expectation is “I’m truly fucked if I do nothing, and no one is going to believe that I am going to go status quo.” I don’t remember the full story, but the 2 Chinese generals one, where being late and treason carry the same punishment.

            To effect this circumstance, I submit that there must be the means and capacity to harshly punish moderates and RINOs within the current political topography. That is something that could be done with the available assets, influence, and affinity groups currently extant.

            • jim says:

              Starting with Sheriff Joe, the penalty for being insufficiently Rino has become prison.

              The only solution likely to work for Rinos is death, and for that we must wait for the left to start killing them.

              • Kunning Drueger says:

                Respectfully, I disagree. I know passivism keeps “us” out of “the game,” but I think there is room for activity in local politics. The margins are incredibly narrow, the stakes are obvious, and there are loads of people who want to be active but lack guidance. Developing a system to primary and punish, if succesful, would be a great way to get face time and contact with the next level up of the conservative political class. Success breeds success, though it also brings scrutiny. Protesting doesn’t work, but using extremity and hyperpartisanship does work, with the danger coming from the Cuckstablishment on the Right, not the Left.

                • jim says:

                  The Cathedral wants to assimilate everyone, while things become increasingly intolerable for the assimilated. It is very welcoming, but you discover that certain compromises are needed, which compromises tend to be fatal. And before long, likely literally fatal.

                  If you are playing on enemy owned turf, the house rules allow you to “win”, but only if winning is actually losing after inserting both feet in a bear trap.

                  Trump is having another go, but is making the same concessions as before, which concessions will have the same results as before.

                  If you think you can play old type politics, your mission has to be the destruction and replacement of the Republican party and Fox News, not getting control of them.

                  You are proposing doing what Trump tried to do, with a few billion dollars and a great deal of charisma. It did not work. He is trying to do the same thing all over again, and is failing in the same way for the same reasons.

                  You cannot fix a rigged game by playing it by the enemy’s rules.

                  I support Trump’s efforts, but if he gets anywhere near winning, the supporters that made it possible will wind up like General Flynn.

                  Thus his key supporters will be those, like Pence, that have already made deals to stab him in the back should there be a risk of dangerously effective results.

                • jim says:

                  I have been arguing for some time on social engineering grounds, that the faith of the Cathedral has to be replaced.

                  We don’t have an organized religion ready to roll, existing organized religions are at best a modest improvement on conservatism inc, maybe salvageable unlike conservatism inc, but still in mighty bad shape, and attempting to organize it prematurely would result in premature martyrdom – the Lord does not call men to be martyrs except when martyrdom is likely to produce results. The smoothest path would be salvage an existing organized religion. When the time comes, it will be more apparent whether that could work.

                  I notice that Christians, old type Christians, are playing a key role in the resistance to conservatism inc, and also playing a key role in resistance to the international monetary system – bitcoin beach happened primarily because of an old type Christian. As the enemy faith becomes increasingly demonic, old type Christianity is showing signs of yet another resurrection. But as yet no organized religion is doing anything useful as an organized religion.

                • Kunning Drueger says:

                  I am talking about Entrying Right Wing politics, from the right of Right, to specifically damage then destroy the outer party. The goal would be to make it impossible for moderates to secure the conservative nomination. This is a Primaries Only strategy, the generals don’t matter. No resources should be used where outcomes are Fail Regardless. This is a net positive as it accelerates division between the “let’s vote ourselves out of this, guys!” and “they want to kill us, take our stuff, and mutilate our children,” it sharpens the relief of the uniparty reality (making it impossible to deny without cognitive dissonance, and it forces conservative affinity groups to commit thoughtcrime by default of thinking. It may get some ultraconservatives elected, but that’s not the point. If the funding and support from churches, GOA, etc. only go to arch conservatives, the moderates and RINOs will be sidelined or declare their true Democrat characters.

                  The goal is to move the Rubicon from somewhere out there in front of mainline conservativism to far behind it by default.

                • jim says:

                  > The goal would be to make it impossible for moderates to secure the conservative nomination. This is a Primaries Only.

                  Trump is working on it, sort of succeeding. The sort of success that is only possible by embracing enemies that he must know by now are going to stab him in the back. I see no end of hostile enemy entryists against the republican wing of the Republican party, the absolutely standard Cathedral tactic that we see over and over again. They are not announcing what moderates they are. – They are aping the language of real Republicans, without understanding or caring what the words mean – like the lower grade of entryists we see here on this blog.

                  Are they fooling anyone? Probably not fooling Trump, but he finds it inadvisable to smell the brimstone and notice the cloven hooves, or draw attention to the tinfoil halo that keeps falling off.

                  As the entryists here pretend to be reactionaries, the entryists there pretend to be Republicans. And they do it as poorly as the entryists here do it. They are not Republicans. They oppose free and fair elections, uttering meaningless words on the issue, shiftily ambiguous about the steal. They want your children abducted by child protective services and sold to gay couples.

                  But I am a little King of this domain, so not a problem. On Gab, or in the Republican party, harder to deal with entryists. And in the Republican party, very hard to deal with entryists because backed by the media, the prosecutors, and the judiciary. You will not be able to purge entryists pretending to be Republicans unless you are able and willing to apply violence.

                • alf says:

                  Well, you could, and perhaps you’d even get some minor results.

                  But seems to me, looking at this place and the way it is run, that we are obviously not the entryists. We are the builders, the creators. Just look at how Jim deals with entryists. We excel at keeping entryists out, not being them.

                • Pooch says:

                  But as yet no organized religion is doing anything useful as an organized religion.

                  I see organized religion of the Christian remnant, in the US in particular, in the right denominations doing something immensely useful. It is allowing people to reproduce.

                  This is invaluable as our state religion becomes increasingly and massively hostile to reproduction. Yes there are problems, particularly with male authority, but there is an army of kids running around these churches (PCA, LCMS, SSPX, etc) indicating working and scalable social technology that is live running in a production environment.

                  Early Christianity was not a political movement. In fact, just the opposite. It was strictly forbidden for any Christian to engage in anything that was linked to the Roman pagan gods and idol worship. This meant no military, no gladiator games, no festivals.

                  The goal was to get people out of the decadent Roman pagan system and into a healthy moral community of people capable of reproduction. Apparently martyrdom only made this community grow. Eventually this community grew sizable enough for Constantine to call on (16-17% of the population) and conquer in its name.

                • jim says:

                  Assuming a three percent difference in population growth rates, which is a very ordinary difference between a pro marriage faith and an anti marriage faith, the Christian population would have grown by factor of four thousand by biological expansion in the three centuries between the resurrection and Constantine conquering Rome. Assuming a four percent difference, sixty thousand.

                  Constantine was outnumbered two to one, and launched a simple frontal attack across the line, which tactic, or deliberate absence of any tactics, presupposes better troops, or better equipment, or troops a lot more willing to fight. Rome and the enemy is that way, advance.

                  His troops were fighting under the banner of Christ.

                  Worst case outcome, we form an organized religion or influence an existing organized religion to become a pro family patriarchal male supremacist organized religion, recruiting priests in accordance with the instructions of saint Paul (recruited from married men with well behaved children) and stick out persecution for three centuries as Christians did the first time around.

                  That the Old and New Testament positions on women and marriage are in accordance with nature or natures God, the Logos, follows from red pill, understood in the light of evolutionary game theory. The Enlightenment attacked reason by subverting its foundations in the name of reason. Reason needs faith, for without faith the solvent of supposedly universal skepticism, selectively applied, leaves reason in the void with nothing to stand on, and Faith needs reason, or else, as Saint Augustus points out, will be foolish and subjected to well deserved ridicule, thus the faith should integrate the red pill and evolutionary game theory into it interpretation of the Bible.

                • Neofugue says:

                  > Apparently martyrdom only made this community grow. Eventually this community grew sizable enough for Constantine to call on (16-17% of the population) and conquer in its name.

                  You repeat Jim’s assertion that we need elites for a holy war, and this is something we are in agreement with, yet your comments illustrate a lack of understanding of why this is and how elites operate.

                  Christians could have made up roughly 5% of the Roman Empire at Constantine’s ascension, but these assertions without proper census data are all conjecture. Just as one finds the more modern the historiography the more backward the pre-revolutionary Russian economy, the assumed population of Christians at around the time of Constantine rises to corroborate the narrative of Christianity as part of the inevitable march of history.

                  Even if Christians made up one out of six members of the Roman Empire this would falsify the notion that martyrdom led to mass conversions. There were more martyrs as a result of the Bolshevik Revolution than all others combined in the history of Christianity, yet the masses did not flock to the churches until after the fall of the Soviet Union.

                  Elites are needed for a holy war because elites are not capable of moderation. Elites operate on the basis of consensus through a faith, and consensus is maintained through consistency. A prole will go to a pro-life rally one morning and file his daughter’s college application that same evening and think nothing of it, whereas an elite cannot. The vast majority of American elites are Progressives or at best Cuckservatives not only due to power but also because it is not socially acceptable to be a consistent Christian.

                  Martyrdom worked not because it led to an abundance of proles joining the group currently being killed in the arena, it worked because it weeded out unserious and moderate people, leaving out only those whom desired nothing other than to act in a morally consistent manner despite the social pressures of polite society.

                  The way one plays to win is not by bandwagoning on whatever sectarian group has the highest number of the roughly one percent of its denomination that practices its religion more seriously than not at all, it is by backing the most reactionary form of Christianity. The Amish are more moral and consistent than SSPX, forget PCA. Our elite is not going to be found in the less-cuckservative factions of various sectarian groups, but in our current elite disaffected with Progressivism and desiring something different.

                • Pooch says:

                  Elites are needed for a holy war because elites are not capable of moderation.

                  Elites are needed because the elite set the fashion, not the masses. The masses follow elite fashion.

                  The Amish are more moral and consistent than SSPX, forget PCA.

                  The Amish are the farthest from the elite as possible. Will never be fashionable.

                  The PCA is representative of an old unconverted aristocratic Anglo elite. The Christian Southern Anglo was not fully subjugated during Reconstruction and its faith has survived.

                  As Jim says, best case we influence an existing organized religion to become a pro family patriarchal male supremacist organized religion. The obvious candidate I see is Presbyterianism that has survived in the PCA.

                  Worse case, we have to start from scratch.

                • Neofugue says:

                  > The Amish are the farthest from the elite as possible. Will never be fashionable.

                  The improper syntax on my above post makes it seem like I am asserting that the Amish are the most reactionary Christian group, my bad. I have always asserted that Orthodox Christianity is the most theologically and spiritually ancient and thus most reactionary form of Christianity. The Amish are a sectarian offshoot of the German Anabaptist movement.

                  The idea that we could walk into some Southern Reformed theological seminary and recruit them into Jimian reaction is more insane and absurd than bringing the Amish into the White House on a horse-drawn carriage because at least the Amish practice traditional marriage somewhat consistently. Most Southern Calvinists and their ministers are cuckservatives. A church having children is not indicative of the overall social health of the wider congregation because those without children seldom attend services. What matters is the marital practices of those congregations and the personal beliefs of their clergy.

                  > Elites are needed because the elite set the fashion, not the masses. The masses follow elite fashion.

                  My point was not on how elites operate with proles but on how elites differ from proles and how this affects politics. Proles cannot be relied upon because they are natural slaves and lack the mental architecture to detect logical and moral inconsistencies on a three-dimensional level. The elite sets fashion because his objective is to acquire power, done through consensus (logical consistency, extremism) on an applied religion. The Whites lost to the Reds because the Whites could not cohere on Christianity and appoint a new Tsar, while the Reds could cohere on Communism and defeat the Whites in detail.

                  > As Jim says, best case we influence an existing organized religion to become a pro family patriarchal male supremacist organized religion. The obvious candidate I see is Presbyterianism that has survived in the PCA.

                  The problem is that you are not arguing for PCA on the basis of their theology, morality, doctrine or politics rather your assertions of them adhering to 1950s marriage practices, of which as a group they do not.

                  My argument is that elites require a faith of which they can cohere, adopt, and implement, and the best candidate is Orthodox Christianity because it is most ancient and most doctrinally pure.

                • Neofugue says:

                  > …it is by backing the most reactionary form of Christianity. The Amish are more moral and consistent than SSPX, forget PCA. Our elite is not going to be found in the less-cuckservative factions of various sectarian groups, but in our current elite disaffected with Progressivism and desiring something different.

                  Should have been written:

                  …it is by backing the most reactionary Christianity, of which I have always asserted is Orthodoxy on the basis of her doctrine. If we are to decide which sect to implement on the basis of them practicing traditional marriage, the Amish are more consistent than SSPX or PCA. Speaking as a member of our disaffected Progressive elite, our plan should not be to adopt a Christianity based on cultural familiarity rather doctrinal considerations because elites coordinate on doctrine, not cultural norms.

              • Karl says:

                Might be a while before the left starts killing Rinos. There is not much to be gained by killing people who are out of power and far away from ever getting power.

                I expect that the left will be killing lefties before the killing of Rinos starts. Lefties killing lefties will be killing competitors for power. That is a strong motive. No comparable motive for lefties killing Rinos, except maybe signalling holiness

              • Anonymous Fake says:

                [*Cathedral retcon of recent history thinly disguised as reactionary history with a big helping of Marxism deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  We have all heard it before, and it is not coming to this blog.

                  The people Arpio arrested were brought in by Democrats to live on voting, crime, welfare, and government jobs, not brought in to work by evil capitalist overlords.

          • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

            If they had done it then, sure. What about in a few more years, as the fraud and insanity get more and more obvious and costly. After we spent years working on capturing and influencing people to side with us and delegitimizing those who oppose us. What if it was fashionable among the right to call for genocide against the left the same way that the left screeches to kill the right. Once a few FBI tactical squads get wiped out, the state is going to have a hard time suppressing opposing voices. Remember that violence is golden, a coin that all men must either accept, or provide in greater measure, and the treasury of the left is running mighty dry.

          • pyrrhus says:

            Yes, Tucker clearly knows the score and is careful not to step over one of the invisible lines that would get him fired, de-platformed, and likely arrested…

        • Kunning Drueger says:

          Certain terror must overtake normalcy before both elites and normals will change their tendencies. Staying quiet works, for the most part. Turning and facing down or charging the pursuing mob doesn’t present itself as an option. This is deeper than any single event (I love the guy, but Rittenhouse is an exception, and only sort of), as witnessed by every single self defense and CCW class having as part of the syllabus an expectation of terrible and certain legal consequences if you use the tools and tactics they teach.

          Think about this for a second. John Q. Middleroad senses impending Troubles, so he finally mans up, buys a gun, and takes a class. At the front of the room, some red blooded, bearded, muh service GWoT vet tells a bunch of stories, gives them 25 minutes of quickdraw inanities, then straight up informs them that, should they use the weapon, they better have a lawyer on retainer and 75-250,000 in the bank *just to consider fighting the case.* This is my ouvre, but I bet other lads here could come up with plenty of examples of how the act of “doing something” also carries a payload of “do something and you’re fucked.” This extends into the political class as well, as I have come to find. In local politics, there are more than enough B&R’d candidates to have the “1000 men,” but the moment they “get serious,” or are taken seriously, they are inundated with poison pills about “reasonable expectations,” going along to get along, and working within the system.

          To get to a place where boldness and valor can even be considered as options, a space must be created for reasonable expectation of survival, even more success. Maybe someone here is “face” material, but I kind of doubt it. I think the lads here are better employed and deployed as advisors, consiglieri, and backroom/back channel operatives. This is why I keep coming back to parallelism.

    • Adam says:

      Best case I think is to get Jimian Christianity in front of one of the elites who is defecting, preferably a warrior. Once the holiness spiral is halted and the institutions purged or destroyed, then the woman problem can be solved. After the purge and the woman problem is solved the resulting order should make short work of any remaining problems.

      • Pooch says:

        If Jimian theology can get into the seminaries of the conservative churches, then we are really in business.

    • pyrrhus says:

      Yes, a parallel society is definitely needed, and would eventually result from the current trend…But I agree with Miles Mathis that part of the ruling class (Phoenician Navy in his parlance) dissents from the reckless behavior of the Elites, and would like to return to the old ways…De Santis would be one example…

    • Ghost says:

      Everywhere you go these days, from local to federal government, bank clerks, schools, everywhere… you will find a fat cow white woman with an attitude, messing things up.

      That is why we have to deal with this trans-pedo-storytime, bounce on a freaks lap. Because some fat bitch can’t get laid because they’re a fat slob that even a black wont have.

      So, when I’m about and one of these odious monstrosities lips off, I get on the phone until I reach someone in charge to reign them in.

      Can’t let these cows run amuck.

    • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

      I think one of the biggest mental blocks many people have when thinking on these sorts of matters, is a sort of notion of ‘mutual exclusivity’; that is they need to ‘focus’ on ‘one’ particular ‘strategy’, which necessarily entails you must exclude openness to other opportunities, even if in reality no such barriers exist.

      Eg, you could say as a truism that ‘elite support is the most important thing’; but then in some folk the internalization of this truism can result in a strange kind of inversion of ought and is; that if some measure coincidentally also entails a growth of support from parties that are not so elite, you must then reject it, because that is not ‘focusing on elite support’.

      Power is like gravity; the more of it you have, the more you may find all sorts of odds and ends end up being pulled into it’s orbit, and you should be open to that.

      The path to power can take many winds and wends, which no man can truly anticipate in full ahead of time; and those men who most often found their way to the far end of that path, were those with a willingness to walk through any and every door they found opening up in their way.

  8. Pax Imperialis says:

    Looks like NYT is starting to get (actually) worried about resurgent Christianity as it’s no longer just a straw man they attack. We should expect a ramped up anti Christian activity in the near future.

    • Pooch says:

      Christian persecution is on the way but the 20th century Christians, who still think they can vote their way out of it, may take the brunt of it, allowing some cover to the 17th century Christians who understand they can’t.

    • Anonymous Fake says:

      At no point in the article did they mention that Covid vaccines are made from the blood of aborted babies. [*deleted*]

      • jim says:

        They are not. That is just a socially acceptable excuse for rejecting them.

        They are wholly synthetic. They were tested using a cell line derived from an aborted baby, when it has long been perfectly feasible to derive a similar cell line from an adult volunteer without causing harm to that volunteer.

        What will get you into trouble is rejecting the vaccines because ineffectual and extremely dangerous.

        • Ghost says:

          I honestly don’t know how all this can be fixed. Western civilization is on a bad course. Most married men can’t even control their own wife and kids. I’ve been married for a long time and my wife is out of control always. It starts at home.

          These politicians in power are just playing everyone off. They accept bribes, they lie. Can’t trust them. A woman votes for someone based on garbage.

          It will have to run its course I think. But, it does no good to argue with a female. It’s just a shouting match and they’ll throw anything into it unrelated. That’s where I believe the problem is coming from: unchecked female influence.

          • The Cominator says:

            Only an autocrat coming to power can fix it and he will have to kill an unbelievable amount of people if hes really to fix things.

            • Adam says:

              I am cynical as well, but never underestimate the power of truth. You get something like Jimian Christianity in front of the right person at the right time, big things could happen.

              I know how powerful the truth can be to one man, and if it can work for one it can work for many.

              • The Cominator says:

                Anyone still NPC after 2020 has utterly rejected truth to the point of committing the eternal sin, there is no hope for them in this world or the next.

                • Pooch says:

                  Many cases of leftists converting to traditional Christianity and Islam.

                  You don’t convert those in the Cult of Reason with merely better reason. You convert them with Christ.

                • Adam says:

                  I’m not talking about NPCs. It has to fall into the hands of one of the elite looking to defect from progressivism.

                  Someone about to get hung out to dry with considerable military connections. A general perhaps who is about to get divorce raped by an adulterous woman.

                • The Cominator says:


                  Sola Gratia…

                  Anyone not brought out of leftism by its offenses to plain reason and the sacrifices its imposed on its adherents and the unfortunate rest of us who’ve had to suffer them by proxy in the past few years… will definitely not be converted by reason or even any fine words from men… but only by the intervention of divine grace…

                • Adam says:

                  The point of a sword, held in the hand of a man supported by many men with many swords will make a difference.

                  Look at every anonymous fellowship. Every anonymous fellowship offers recovery based on one thing, truth. The AA motto is “to thine own self be true”)

                  Obviously not everyone recovers, most do not. Among those that do, they either recover because they have to or because they want to. So if you give someone the point of a sword and a choice, plus a better option (Christ), your going to have a lot of former leftists.

                  Still going to have to kill some, but I would guess not most.

                • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

                  Com, you cannot turn off being an NPC. It is not a switch that gets flipped, or a lifestyle choice. They do not get to choose to stop, they just get agitated that things seem to be going badly and hope for a better leader.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I’ve seen the npc switch go “on” in people before my eyes…

                • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

                  No, you saw the NPC activate. Once the script deviated sufficiently, they activated protective stupidity. They were always NPCs, you just had not seen them hit the end of their script yet.

              • The Cominator says:

                Any autocrat we get who really fixes things is going to have to be content with the fact that history will know him as

                X the bloody, or X the cruel, X the terrible, X the iron handed, X the mad etc. and being the only right wing monarch or dictator to approach the leftist body count.

                You can’t make a low trust dysfunctional society that runs on lies into a high trust and truthful without oceans of blood. You can’t reverse generations of taught demon worship by gentle methods.

                To fix things he will have to kill
                Most in law academia bureaucracy and journalism

                Almost every man who vocally supported Biden or the vax

                Every Jesuit (and Jesuit extermination will have to be imposed on foreign countries when we get the strength since they are a global problem, we will also have to threaten bloody persecution against American Catholics to get the Vatican to suppress them), and they should be publically burned in the manner of the Templars… everyone with a Jesuit education in any kind of public institution

                Millions of women will be need to be dragged in chains (not quite literally) to wife auctions or in some cases brothels.

                There may need to be some ethnic expulsions though I think most ethnic problems can be fixed via millet systems and partial apartheid

                Being gentler may work while said dictator is alive… but once he dies it will all fall apart.

                • Adam says:

                  Perhaps, but your making it sound harder than it needs to be. Just need to reform the elites and everyone will fall in line. First group to successfully take power with information epoch warfare could do it fairly quickly. The result may still be a bloody mess, but afterwards people would wonder why someone didn’t do it sooner.

                • The Cominator says:

                  You can’t reform the current elites they are beyond repair… just an occupational class of midwits and morons promoted based on incompetence and fanaticism (or at best they are legacies who didn’t offend the fanatics)… any not involved in X the cruel taking power has to go.

                  Those who defect early will have to exterminate the rest of the elite and the new elite will have to be rebuilt from scratch.

                  BTW to clarify on Jesuit education… anyone with one in public institutions will be have to be examined… anything the least bit suspect they will have to be assumed to be a Jesuit coadjutor (like Fauci and Redfield) and dealt with accordingly. If there offense is small perhaps they can live out their life in obscurity (under constant surveillance) otherwise they must die. Since the Covid thing I’m pretty fanatically against the Jesuits and see them the way wignats see jews.

                • Kunning Drueger says:

                  TC, your “anyone who hasn’t changed/reformed/whatever by X date can’t” sounds similar to “anyone born after X date can’t” which, to me, seems incorrect and excessively blackpilled. Wulfgar points out, for the millionth time, that NPCs are NPCs. If they stand between today and a viable future, they’ll get mowed down. But they will do so because their firmware hasn’t been updated, not because they’re consciously choosing to block the restoration. I’d love for someone to build a Glooper that could give us an accurate NPC proportion of the population, but I’m also starting to think that everyone is an NPC in some game out there, even if they’re fully conscious in other respects or circumstances. So what we’re actually talking about are political NPCs, religious NPCs, and violence NPCs.

          • Adam says:

            People with character defects (leftists, females etc.) do not understand cooperative games. Every fair trade is a win/win game and also a lose/lose game. Ideally both win something scarce and lose something abundant. Understanding this is beyond the capability of most people. To an incompetent person (or malevolent person), even a mutually beneficial fair trade will be seen as a loss.

            Females and leftists gain power by acting as one. Not because they can cooperate, they cannot, but because they are all going after the same thing.

            In order to stop this (it is happening at the very top to the very bottom) the elites will have to start acting as one.

          • jim says:

            > I honestly don’t know how all this can be fixed. Western civilization is on a bad course. Most married men can’t even control their own wife and kids. I’ve been married for a long time and my wife is out of control always.

            None of my wives have ever been out of control.

            This requires real or adequately pretended alpha (women are so hungry for alpha they will suspend disbelief when a man would laugh at you. Read the red pill and PUA sites.) Real or adequately pretended manliness (which is considerably harder to pretend, because female manliness radar, though two million years out of date, is still very good), and real or pretended capacity for potentially lethal violence.

            • Adam says:

              Depends on too many things for one man to stand alone. Even if sufficiently manly and sufficiently alpha, if the woman is hot enough and clever enough, you will need to use the back of your hand, and on some women even that will not be enough. Temptation can drive people mad.

            • The Cominator says:

              Henry VIII had Katherine Howard out of control despite Henry VIII being a very very scary guy who already executed one wife who wasn’t out of control but failed to provide a son.

              • jim says:

                Katherine Howard had banged one man manlier than Henry VIII and been fingered by another before marrying Henry VIII.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I don’t know… he was old and fat with a bum leg at that point but he was certainly scarier than any of the men she had banged…

                • jim says:

                  I listed three characteristics, not one. These characteristics are, for men, closely related, but for women, considerably less closely related.. And as I have repeated times without number, female perception of alpha tends to be orthogonal to and unrelated to the male hierarchy, and the display characteristics of the male hierarchy need to fixed so that females can perceive it less inaccurately.

            • Ghost says:

              Thanks Jim, I’ll take a look at it. I’m past the stage of PUA, once this one is done, plan to hermitize.

              Ben married longer than I want to admit. Arguments always start off small, then everything gets thrown in. I try to focus on the original point while she is off in a thousand tangents. Always ends with her threatening to wipe me out with divorce. I just say don’t threaten, do it.

              Tired of it. Last rodeo for me either way.

              • Pooch says:

                Don’t engage. Don’t get angry. Women aren’t logical.

                • jim says:

                  When I get angry, I tell her to shut up and get out of my sight till I calm down. Arguing with women is completely pointless, since they do not even try to make sense, for what they are ostensibly arguing bears no relationship to what is really going on.

              • The Cominator says:


                I’m an unmarried sperg but what does Jim think about the advice of a pimp named slickback.

                • jim says:

                  Slickback is dead on right. You only have to do it once or twice, or very very rarely, and if you have to do it more often, you are doing something wrong.

              • jim says:

                By divine command, she is not allowed to go, and you are not allowed to let her go.

                Under, however, certain extreme circumstances, you are allowed to kill her.

              • Frontier says:

                Don’t argue with a women. Would you argue with your dog or cow? Women are not rational, they are animals whose decisions are driven by their emotions, which are opaque to them.

                Alphas understand this and are either amused and make fun of their girl’s cute flailing; or in the rare case it’s causing unacceptable problems they will get angry enough to cow her, but if you get angry you must be willing to escalate to violence as Jim has explained before.

                By arguing with her you are treating her as an equal, which infuriates her because it signals to her hindbrain that she’s not with an Alpha.

                • jim says:

                  > By arguing with her you are treating her as an equal, which infuriates her because it signals to her hindbrain that she’s not with an Alpha.

                  Exactly so.

                  When a woman argues with you, she wants to be commanded or slapped, not argued with, and if she does not get what she wants, she gets angrier and angrier.

                • Adam says:

                  This is why the blue pilled “best friends” idea of marriage has to die. It is a perversion of Christian marriage.

  9. Mister Grumpus says:

    Off topic also, but let’s just get this straight. That video of Biden wandering around that party being cold dissed by Obama and Harris was an obvious status assassination. Blatant setup.

    • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

      The modern day version of the original, “Point deer, make horse.”

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        In this particular case, more like “OK look everyone, now it’s a deer again.”

    • Anonymous Fake says:

      [*deleted for detachment from reality.*]

    • Pax Imperialis says:

      Can’t assassinate status that is already dead. Does Biden actually make any decisions? Or is the Obama era cohort actually in control.

      • Pooch says:

        Harvard is in control. The politicians are merely managers and coordinators.

        • The Cominator says:

          I don’t think “Georgetown” gets enough “love” here…

          • Aidan says:

            Georgetown is where the state draws its staff of low level functionaries from. It doesn’t make theological decisions like Harvard

            • Kunning Drueger says:

              True, but Georgetown is the Harvard of international students, the ones who come here to be indoctrinated and return to their homelands. Trump’s daughter got her law degree and Arab consort at GTown. The Saudi royal family is a big patron, providing funds and scholars. Their teaching staff is lousy with Cathedral operatives from overseas. All things in 3s, remember? Harvard, Stanford, and Georgetown are the 3 jewels of the Cathedral.

              • Pax Imperialis says:

                Thought “Georgetown” was an euphemism for CIA which is very leftist and a pain in the ass.

                Always thought it was American University and Occidental where the lower level foreign cohort gets their American education.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Given Fauci and Redfield’s educational background the fact that Georgetown is a Jesuit school makes me suspect that it is one of the main sources of the cancer as much if not more than Harvard…

    • Varna says:

      Can’t wait, when the time comes, for tabloid headlines like “Hunter becomes the hunted”

    • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

      A lot of the headlines covering the larger event contain the words ‘obama back in the white house’, ‘obama is back’, et cetera et cetera.

      Maybe it won’t result in a try for third termism; but it sees like a significant fraction wants to.

      Which if it did happen would definitively signal that Stalin has arrived.

      • Dr. Faust says:

        There would be quiet resistance from Pelosi’s gaggle for any third term just as there is quiet resistance within the cathedral against war and divided on the same lines. Post trump left the left rudderless with the Boomer faction slowing the leftward drift as much as possible and the other banging the drums of revolution. The public face of this is something like Pelosi and AOC.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        If Harris became President (cough), she could pick Obama as her VP, and then quit or die, and Obama could finish the term fair and square.

        The 22nd Amendment starts: “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.” Elected.

        And then we can do some big war powers emergency or whatever. Nuclear false flag, FBI recruits some retards to finish the Reichstag job, who knows.

        Gay mulatto Stalin. Why not. And for the tranny angle, maybe he’d pick Michael I mean Michelle as his VP, and who the fuck even cares after that.

        • The Ducking Man says:

          I remember Obama’s third term conspiracy has been around as soon as he won the second term. Black preachers are talking how Obama will be antichrist as soon as he got his third term.

          Sadly these nutjobs doesn’t seem all that crazy to me now.

          • jim says:

            > Black preachers are talking how Obama will be antichrist as soon as he got his third term.

            > Sadly these nutjobs doesn’t seem all that crazy to me now.

            The Covid spike protein was created in a lab, not by evolution. Looks increasingly like a Jesuit conspiracy to fulfill the Book of Revelation and bring about the rule of antichrist.

            So, I don’t think Obama is the antichrist, but if the conspiracy gives him a third term, it will be because they imagine that he is.

            • The Ducking Man says:

              But Obama has to be the biggest liar and hypocrites in the entire US presidency, hands down. Dude literally won peace noble price while bombing middle east at the same time.

              I don’t think there is going to be any figure that can top Obama in liar and hypocrite scale, ever.

            • clovis says:

              Obama can’t be the antichrist because to be the antichrist you have to fool a lot of Christians into thinking you are a Christian also.

              • The Cominator says:

                The Man of Sin will actually likely destroy globohomo as we know it and do many good things initially… only way the elect could be fooled.

                So agreed it will not be Obama…

              • jim says:

                I know Obama is not the antichrist, but the weaponized Corona virus known as Covid was probably weaponized by a bunch of demon worshippers who may well think otherwise.

        • notglowing says:

          > she could pick Obama as her VP, and then quit or die, and Obama could finish the term fair and square.

          Obama is not eligible for vice presidency for the same reason he is not eligible for the presidency. American laws don’t have loop holes that easy to exploit. Otherwise the 22nd amendment would be completely pointless, since this is a very obvious way to avoid the issue. Just elect someone else in your party and become president again. Doesn’t even require any deaths.

          The 12th amendment prevents this:

          Nobody “ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice President of the United States”

          • Adam says:

            Normalcy bias. Laws no longer matter. The elite can put Obama back in office, call it the real second coming of Christ, and it would be one more battle the Republicans would lose.

  10. Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

    Tangential, but it’s funny seeing broadcast news report on all the gigtuple boosted shotmaxxers in the political class catching cases of kung flu lately. Especially how they defer on any elaboration of the subject and keep it as perfunctory as it can be.

    • jim says:

      A leaky vaccine causes its disease to counter evolve. Worst case outcome, a very common outcome, is that the disease regains full infectiousness against the vaccinated, or greater than its original infectiousness, becomes more lethal to unvaccinated, and regains its original lethality against the vaccinated.

      Another very common outcome, probably the most common outcome, which I am happy to see happening here, is that it counter evolves to become more infectious to the vaccinated, and more lethal to the vaccinated than the unvaccinated.

      That a leaky, partially effective, vaccine remains partially effective is a quite rare outcome.

      Early on, it looked like what was happening might well be the former case, with the vaccinated spreading the disease, and only the unvaccinated getting a nasty case of a nasty flu. On the other hand it has long been obvious the clot shot causes immune system damage, though as yet unclear if the immune system damage is permanent, so of course the disease would evolve to be less harmful and less infectious to the unvaccinated. The disease seems to be focusing on the pool of people with impaired immune systems: Gays and the clot shotted.

      • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

        The normiecon take would be ‘yet another perfect opportunity to Expose The Lies of The Establishment’ and ‘Wake The People Up’.

        Certainly, one might reasonably think such turns of events would provoke conniptions and contortions of cognitive dissonance in those with a span of memory; but the way it seems to be being handled is to just pretend absolutely nothing is unusual or out of the ordinary about this at all, in hopes that the normies just roll with it; which largely seems to be the case, particularly since most everyone is presently distracted by the next Current Thing.

      • Skippy says:

        Remember that these are not “vaccines” in the traditional sense. The vaxxxed are not reacting on the whole virus but a very small part of it. The evolutionary pressure is for this small part to change rapidly, which eliminates all the vaccine-acquired immunity but only a small part of the infection-acquired immunity.

        I believe this is an historically unprecedented case.

        • Skippy says:

          Is it of interest to anyone that every vaccine company in the West immediately and simultaneously had the questionable idea of only vaccinating against the spike protein, while now two years later no vaccine company has produced a vaccine against the very much changed spike protein of the current variant of the virus?

          Does it take 4 days to adapt to these proteins of 4+ years? Why does no one react to the effortless vaccine escape to the spike-based vaccines by importing a Chinese inactivated virus vaccine? Or why these questions are not even discussed?

          • jim says:

            We now know that the original spike protein was human created in a lab, and it sure was not Shaniqua doing it. The vaccine was created at the same time, and bears strong signs of Shaniqua’s handiwork. Someone very dumb was giving orders to a team containing smart engineers.

            Which does not explain why they don’t just re-run the synthesis with latest spike protein, which is rapidly evolving to flourish in an environment containing artificially and unnaturally high levels of antibodies against the original spike protein, which is no longer around.

            Possibly they are worried that if they update the vaccine, then research into the disastrous side effects of the first vaccine becomes legitimate.

  11. Pax Imperialis says:

    Thoughts on Rod Dreher? He has been writing about the trans cult extensively in the past couple weeks.
    Look at his recent articles since March 28 on trans cult:

    The ‘Don’t Say Groomers’ Law
    Jen Psaki, Groomers’ Spokeswoman
    Won’t Get Fooled By Groomers Again?
    Trans-forming Society
    Democrats: Party Of Child Mutilators & Kidnappers
    Gary Lucia: Gay Disney Dissenter
    Democrats: Party Of Groomers
    ‘Institutional Capture’ At Disney
    Disney Queers Children, Says Disney Exec
    Disney Goes Groomer

    Dreher wrote:
    “Groomers? Oh hell yeah. I don’t care how loud they howl, this is purely evil, and ordinary people have got to wake up to what schools, the Walt Disney Company, the medical profession, the media, the Democratic Party, and the President of the United States are doing to children and families. They can howl all they want about how mean and demagogic we are for calling them groomers.”

    I think Dreher is indicative that Neo-reactionary thought is capturing what have been only nominally Conservative institutions. Esoteric terms like ‘The Cathedral’ are now occasionally used by even the likes of Greg Gutfeld (Sophomoric and nonacademic). That isn’t a term that is well know outside of Conservative intellectuals or those with familiarity, and yet it is being aired out in the open to those in the know. These are reasons to be pessimistically optimistic that while Conservatives have not captured the national institutions of power, they are in the process of capturing the opposition… If Conservatives can transform that opposition into national power is yet to be seen, but it’s not so different of a position that American Communists found themself in when they started on the long march through the institutions last century in so far they held little in the way of national power but had captured the opposition. Of course right wing and left wing methods of capture differ in process, but both start in the same place. Intellectual capture of sympathetic portion of leadership, something that Nrx has started to do in an increasingly fast pace.

    • Pooch says:

      “Conservatism” is fake. The Reaction will not be a march back through the institutions. It will be Constantine painting the symbols of Jesus Christ on his shield.

      • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

        Institutional capture is never a bad thing. Imagine we start a Sherman’s March to the Sea against DC and Harvard and instead of the whole institutional apparatus being against us, half of them are cheering us along and broadcasting how great and justified we are. Constantine needed a priesthood, which he got in Christianity. Our Constantine will need media networks. Never turn up your nose at allies unless they will work at cross purposes to your goals.

        • Kunning Drueger says:

          Well said, your Grace. I think Media would be sufficient, as it is a thing that easily rallies disparate but aligned factions and groups, like how a song can be sung by many voices, each with varying levels of skill, familiarity, and enthusiasm.

        • Pooch says:

          Some sources say Christians were 16-17% of the population of the empire at the start of Constantine’s rise to power. If we get close to that of actual old type Christians, we are in good shape.

        • Anonymous Fake says:

          Forget burning Harvard. Just try [List of things that are guaranteed to fail unless we burn Harvard, or credibly threaten to burn it with with result that Phil Robertson becomes Dean, and almost all the professors get laid off]

          • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

            Not only am I going to burn Harvard, I am going to preserve the ruins at a pilgrimage for all priests in America to remind them that the road of excessive holiness ends in fire and death. Every man will visit the ruins before he is ordained, and the Office of the Holy American Inquisition will be headquartered there as a not-so-subtle reminder of how fiery death will be carried out should they fail. Harvard Delenda Est.

      • jim says:

        > Thoughts on Rod Dreher?

        Conservatism is fake, but with the state and education system pushing to transition nine year old children, a push driven by people who make no very great secret of wanting to fuck them, old type Christianity has woken up, and this is the vector through which the Dark Enlightenment and the reaction is entering conservative spaces. Christ in front, us following right behind. Christian conservatism is finding that Christianity is no longer in a deathlike sleep, because people are seeing their children threatened.

        Conservatism inc is not worth taking over. It is, however, worth getting people to abandon that sinking ship. That Rod Dreher is writing some good stuff indicates he is going to leave or be expelled, and a lot of good people with him.

        There is no realistic prospect of us taking over conservative spaces, which are committed to behaving as if elections were still real, which requires them to accept ever more blatantly illegitimate political outcomes as legitimate, and ever more vicious, hateful, and unpopular state actions as normal and reasonable.

        But, to the extent that we have penetration, we are successfully delegitimizing fake elections, and denormalizing the new normal.

        Rod Dreher is writing some good stuff, within the narrow and narrowing limits of conservatism incorporated.

        But conservatism incorporated’s end objective is “winning” rigged elections, whereas the only useful end objective is not winning elections, but winning the coming holy war.

        The coming removal of Biden is likely to be a shambles, because he was a placeholder for a compromise between the left factions that has not been made, and is unlikely to be made.

        Sooner or later left on left conflicts are going to turn lethal. I was expecting that they would have turned lethal early in 2021, which has not happened yet. But even when they do turn lethal this will not immediately open a space for us to use lethal means. Probably not for some considerable time. For the moment, delegitimizing elections and the new normal is a good start.

        Will the removal and replacement of Biden turn lethal? Probably not, or not yet for some time, but it is likely to further discredit the political process, since the outcome, even if non lethal, is likely to involve people grabbing for power in ways that show little regard for legality and the constitution. It is likely to not quite lethally prefigure a lethal power struggle, rendering the irrelevance and impotence of conservatism inc more visible.

        • Pax Imperialis says:

          Conservatism is a brand, and brands have power. The substance might be lacking (and fake) but that isn’t a reason on it’s own to discard it. It’s all the more reason to seize it as a hollowed out power structure is just begging for a hostile take over by someone who will use it. What Musk is doing with Twitter is interesting on a side note. It was a lot of money to dump into a project that in his words might be dying and is historically hostile to him.

          Just because conservatism’s end objective is “winning” rigged elections doesn’t mean it will stay that way. People change based on the circumstances and so do institutions. I have my doubts that Conservatism will continue to be invested in voting. Roman citizens did not always support Caesar, overtime they stop supporting the Republic.

          The Claremont Institute last year published an essay calling for counter-revolution against the “majority of people living in the United States today [who] can no longer be considered fellow citizens.” In the past that would have gotten most other conservative institutes and power working together to ostracize and dismantle Claremont. The fact that Claremont Institute has not been dismantled is circumstantial evidence that it is receiving political protection, meaning that they are not alone in sharing sentiment. Claremont is still in good standing with most conservative circles. Is Claremont still a conservative space or has it been taken over?

          I do not think Dreher has remained in the limits of conservatism incorporated. On the contrary he’s been going against it with seemingly no push back. Seeing Orban as good and war with Russia bad is going into areas still very taboo and yet he still has his job. That indicates political protection from friendly elements in conservatism. I do not think that there is no realistic prospect of us taking over conservative spaces. Rather conservative spaces are currently in the process of being taking over. I’m not sure how it’s being done, but conversions appear to be a part of it. The actions of Thiel among others might be pointing to hostile take overs being a factor.

          What value is there in removing Biden? Is there any evidence that Biden is actually running anything? Clearly decisions are still being made so someone is running things. The actual power remains remains in the administration. It’s very possible that Biden continues along in office until end of term.

          • Pooch says:

            Roman citizens did not always support Caesar, overtime they stop supporting the Republic.

            Roman citizens supporting Caesar had absolutely no relevance on the ending of the Republic. He marched on Rome and by force of arms dissolved the authority of the Senate.

            • Pax Imperialis says:

              And who marched on Rome with Caesar? Who commanded his legions on the tactical level? How was his forces provisioned? He did not march alone, he had popular support from those who mattered. The Roman citizen who wield force. More importantly for his legacy, it was his popularity with the right segment of Rome that ensured Augustus did not get purged and could carry on the legacy after his death.

              Caesar did not act alone, he had allies. Many of whom would have been horrified by Caesar’s actions prior to the conditions that made crossing the Rubicon possible, but at the time that mattered, supported him.

              American conservatives right now might not support a coup, but given the right circumstances will.

              • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

                This is the point I want to drive home. Reaching a critical mass among violent men is the end goal. Once that happens, we win, because even the moderate fighting men will be moderate reactionaries. If we set fashion among the men who set fashion for military men, we have won, even if it takes a generation.

                • Pax Imperialis says:

                  Some form of institutional capture needs to happen in order to organize violent men, otherwise they are just a mob and not an army.

                  My point is that support is not irrelevant because it is used to build that army. We can’t simply write off the GOP as fake because even fake things have value that can be looted and utilized. The GOP is worth capturing. So it Fox News, and as many of those conservative think tanks as possible.

                  The great failure of Neo-Reaction is the failure to understand institutional capture. Something that Trump excelled at with breaking the Never Trumpers in the GOP. His problem is that he did not want to exercise power outside of (mythical) US traditions and he did not know how to use power to accomplish his end goals.

                  What Neo-Reaction understands is how to use power, and for what to use power for to increase it.

                  We should be persuading the likes of Rod Dreher while purging the likes of David French because that is how institutional capture works for the right.

                • jim says:

                  > We can’t simply write off the GOP as fake because even fake things have value that can be looted and utilized. The GOP is worth capturing. So it Fox News

                  We cannot capture the GOP and Fox News. Trump, in the course of attempting to capture the GOP, is making compromises with his enemies that will bite him this time as they bit him last time, and he has written off Fox News as a lost cause.

                  What we can capture is their best elements.

                  Fox News is no longer relevant. All enemy captured institutions die. Paul Rogan gets way more views than they do. The GOP will die, and we will loot the corpse.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  Normiecon: ‘i shall carefully consider each issue on its own merits’.

                  Bluetribesman: ‘i shall increase the number of my guys in this organization, and reduce the number of their guys’.

                • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

                  Yes, John, which is why we provide the normiecon with a mental framework for combating bluetribe. “if someone wants to make an argument for fucking your son, are you going to listen to it on its merits? Hell no. Chuck them out, all of them.”

                • Pooch says:

                  Nah fighting men don’t matter. They are loyal only to Caesar. Constantine had no Christians in his army, as it was forbidden to join the military as a Christian during that time.

                  Well who did matter? Lactantius, an elite and early advisor to Constantine and wouldn’t you know he was a Christian.

                  We need to convert the elite before they convert our sons. Moldbug wants to convert the Cult of Reason by better reason. Won’t work.

                  We convert the Cult of Reason by Christ alone.

                • jim says:

                  > Nah fighting men don’t matter. They are loyal only to Caesar. Constantine had no Christians in his army, as it was forbidden to join the military as a Christian during that time.

                  This is true and untrue. They went into battle flying the standards of Christ, rather than Roman Eagles – they fought in direct defiance of the official religion and the discredited official priesthood that infested their army and was trying prevent Constantine from marching on Rome.

                  Caesar told them that God was on their side, and whether or not they had faith in Christ, they had faith in Ceasar. Or faith in their officers.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  Last time i was in an anglican church (AOC denomination), they were using the book of common prayer there.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  Dunno how this ended up here, should’ve gone here

                • Pooch says:

                  Do you know what version? The leftists are constantly updating them. Needs to be very old to be worth anything.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  Can’t recall, probably the 1928 version though.

        • no says:

          Lunacy and wishful thinking from someone who has not actually read anything Dreher has written before the past 5 minutes.

          Dreher will not be expelled from anything, Dreher is not on your side and in fact is more accurately described as actively and relentlessly opposed to most of the things you advocate (any regular reader of Dreher’s knows exactly why I say that), and your religion is not driving anything. The child-protection impulse is operating completely independently of religion, the pro- and anti-tranny camps cut right across religious and political lines. If you actually talked to anybody rather than just putting on the Big Man act on the internet, you would know this.

          Biden will serve out his full term. I said so in November 2020 and I stand by it. We’ll check back in November 2024, or maybe 1/20/25. There will be no internal violence beyond the regular murders and occasional race riots. The Republicans will win elections and make some changes at the margins.

          • Kunning Drueger says:

            >The child-protection impulse is operating completely independently of religion, the pro- and anti-tranny camps cut right across religious and political lines.

            This seems a bit silly. Can you point to examples of religious institutions and groups in support of trannyism and/or child sexualization? I mean explicit support, not tacit approval through silence. The inverse as well, Cathedral supported or adjacent institutions and groups opposed to tranny takeover and speaking out explicitly against sexualization of children, not pointed silence or strawmanning about muh stunning & brave female athletes.

          • The Cominator says:

            It seems to me the dems will force out Biden his treatment at the Obama party makes him look like hes in poor standing…

            • Mister Grumpus says:

              Yes. That diss video wasn’t just an accidental “hot lens”. That was an attack, like airbrushing him out of the pictures while he’s still alive.

              Who whom. Who gets cuts off from the popular kids table, and who does the cutting.

          • jim says:

            So, according to you, everything is perfectly normal and normality will continue.

            Normality is not continuing. Things have been getting more and more abnormal, faster and fast, since 1820.

            > Dreher will not be expelled from anything,

            We shall see

            > Dreher is not on your side and in fact is more accurately described as actively and relentlessly opposed to most of the things you advocate

            Quite true.

            > and your religion is not driving anything

            It is driving Dreher to become a distinctly unreliable supporter of conservatism inc.

            At some point, he is going to have to choose satan or Christ, as theoretically supporting both is troubling him.

            You are telling me that though we have been sliding down a slippery slope that has continually becomes steeper and more slippery, we have now arrived on stable ground at the bottom.

            We are now reaching the point where postchristianity is so infested with satan worshipers that the pretence of Christianity is too thin to maintain, and the political process has become so flagrantly fake that it becomes increasingly hard for conservatism inc to tell conservatives that everything is going to be fine if they just vote even harder for candidates who, had they held their current year positions last year, would have been on the maniacal lunatic fringe of leftism.

            And Dreher is aware of both problems, even if you are in denial. He smells the brimestone.

          • jim says:

            > The child-protection impulse is operating completely independently of religion, the pro- and anti-tranny camps cut right across religious and political lines

            That depends on whether shut down your nose so that you don’t notice the smell of sulphur and brimstone.

            It is absolutely obvious that Dreher is noticing the difference between old type Christians and post Christian entryists against Christianity, even if you are not.

            At some point he will be forced to choose between Christ and satan. If only because satan will want to cut off his dick.

      • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

        Consider also that the kind of person we want to recruit to the Grand Army of the Lord is watching people like Tucker Carlson and Greg Gutfield.

        • Pax Imperialis says:

          There are TV personalities, and then there are the people behind them. When Carlson or Gutfeld use terms like Cathedral they are clearly not talking to the average person. The average person has no idea what that concept even means. They are talking to other elites who might be listening. Carlson’s interview of Yarvin was not for on air showtime, and none of Carlson’s typical ranting occurred. Rather he provided a platform for Yarvin to share ideas and hint that maybe the US needs a Caesar and an end of the democratic order.

          When was the last time Fox News not only gave a platform and sense of legitimacy to a person and set of ideas advocating for the end of the Republic?

    • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

      “I’m- I’m gonna- I’m gonna GROOOOOOM!”

  12. Pooch says:

    Sorry if this has been asked before but what edition Bible should we be using?

    • Karl says:

      Older texts are usually better. If you are looking for an English text, King James is good.

      • jim says:

        There is a big problem with modern bibles based on modern biblical “scholarship”, the “scholars” being heretical and hostile to Christianity. When they dug up old variant texts from unlikely places, they were not looking for information, but for ammunition. Resembles global warming research. Enlightenment rationalizations very thinly disguised as rationality.

        All bibles are copies of copies of copies. To prevent the accumulation of copyist errors, the universal Orthodox Church would from time to time pull in bibles from all over the place, and cross check them, but when lands came under Muslim domination, this process stopped. It also stopped in the West for a long time, because of the great schism, and was never carried out in some ancient places that schismed from orthodoxy, but eventually the Roman Catholic Church got its act together on this issue, though it took a while As a result, there are a lot of variant texts around for hostile scholarship to mine for ammunition, primarily from lands that have long been under Muslim domination.

        The ammunition that modern biblical “scholarship” digs up primarily comes from lands where the copying process has been running for thirteen centuries without a cross check. It smells like global warming scholarship.

        • Pax Imperialis says:

          How much of the problem is from genuine translation issues rather than hostility? When I crossed referenced passages from the King James from the older Greek versions lots of nuances in the Greek did not survive. Further translation problems arose when translating from of the King James version into other languages outside of Europe due to various concepts in the English simply not having direct equivalent vocabulary in other languages.

          Language is in constant flux, a form of information entropy that naturally occurs. A modern American reading King James is likely to read it differently than the original writers. On the surface level we see this with American Protestantism and constant schism even among groups that still use older Bible versions.

          It doesn’t help that reading comprehension has been in serious decline in the US.

          • jim says:

            > How much of the problem is from genuine translation issues rather than hostility?

            Genuine translation issues are a huge problem and used to be the big problem, but seems to me that flat out hatred of Christianity and Christians is now the bigger problem.

            If you are reading a modern bible, it relies on “scholarship” by scholars who just don’t like people who unironically read and quote from the Bible.

            The modern scholars, in comparing variant texts, were in theory doing the same thing as the Church has always been doing – but they plainly were not. Modern Christians have outsourced the problem of translation and correction of copyist errors to Harvard. What do you think was going to happen?

            • Oog en Hand says:

              Take the Latin Pill. Consider the Vulgate to be your “Koran”.

              • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                If you’re going to learn an academic language to read old texts, you might as well learn to read the original greek.

              • jim says:

                If we are going with a non english text, why not the original first century Greek?

                The Greek is the authoritative text.

                One of the criticisms of Hobbes is that he treated the Vulgate as the authoritative text, but there are important parts where the Greek does not translate adequately into Latin, where Latin has no direct equivalent, just as there are important parts of the King James bible where there is no adequate English equivalent.

    • Kunning Drueger says:

      No one actually answered succinctly, so I will take a position and say the King James Version of the bible should be considered the only viable translation in English. A new translation project needs to happen, but that is definitely a coup-complete project or (GNON forbid) a dark ages effort.

      NIV is bullshit. Living Translation is bullshit. Anything that identifies as “modern” is transparently heretical. Can anyone tell me why I am wrong? I know KJV is not “perfect,” but it is both based and redpilled. Is there an older English language translation than the KJV?

      • jim says:

        KJV was a consensus effort by a live Christian faith with a big supply of scholars fluent in Greek. It is the best product of its time, and products of later times are more and more influenced by “scholars” who at best had a heretical axe to grind, and these days are just flat out hostile to Christians and Christianity.

        It has a big problem with the translation of words that simply have no English equivalent, such as “the logos”, and translation of material that punned on words that had multiple meanings, or made distinctions that have no simple English equivalent.

        I think a better solution to those cases is to just use the original Greek word that is causing problems, and add a lengthy learned footnote.

        • The Cominator says:

          When the wording in King James is suspect for some reason good to check it against the Young Literal translation.

      • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

        Whenever i want to check someone quoting a scriptural passage in english, i use three references open concurrently to taste how the flavor moves; one is KJV, another is Douay-Rheims, and the other is Young Literal.

  13. Frontier says:

    OT: Disney CEO’s hostage video

    While OT, this is a great example to disprove the oft confused belief that we are ruled by big company CEO’s rather than cultists of the state religion embedded within.

    Darkly funny 2 min video released by Disney, where the CEO Bob Chapek has clearly been forced by his junior employees to to turn over moral authority to the LGBTQIA+ Advisory Council

    • notglowing says:

      >the oft confused belief that we are ruled by big company CEO’s rather than cultists of the state religion embedded within.
      I completely agree, though, it’s not an easy argument to make, and I haven’t always been successful in convincing people of it.
      I think it’s obvious on the one hand, but if you were convinced it is “big business” controlling the world you’d find no end of reasons to believe it. After all it’s a narrative that is implicitly and often explicitly approved by the Cathedral itself.

      That should set some alarm flags if you consider yourself part of the opposition, though with national-socialist/fascist types and adjacent they usually rationalize it as them wanting to divert from it actually being specifically jews, and not all rich people.

      Billionaires certainly have immense power compared to an average person, but they don’t have any power to meaningfully change the world politically unless their politics align with academia (eg, Bill Gates). The fact that they *do* fund politics, and that lobbyists influence it, muddies the water, but they could never influence it as much if they were against the system.

      I think the strongest argument here is that you can say no end of bad things about billionaires and big corporations and face no punishment, in fact you can do it on live TV. Meanwhile, attacking journalists, doctors, and academics, or even denying what they say, questioning their credibility, will instantly make you an enemy to be cancelled in the blink of an eye. Once again though, someone will say this doesn’t apply to Jewish billionaires…

      • Pooch says:

        The fact that they *do* fund politics, and that lobbyists influence it, muddies the water, but they could never influence it as much if they were against the system.

        Any NGO or political entity or lobbying firm or even any entity that is organized for anything that is explicitly heretical to the state religion will have the DOJ knocking on its door. The DOJ is the enforcement arm of Harvard.

        • The Cominator says:

          It’ll be interesting to see if Elon can restrain the twatter leftists at all… i rather doubt it.

    • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

      When one looks at bad dudes doing bad things, and then says ‘capitalism’ is the problem, it is like looking at a guy like Alger Hiss, seeing that he eats food for lunch, and then saying ‘eating food is the problem, we need to stop people eating food’. Just completely tangential delusiveness.

      One can make the argument that a woke corporation may support bureaucratization in general, on account of this disproportionately affecting smaller entities in society, that they will signal support of wokism in particular, in order to avoid being ground down by those same bureaucracies for heresy; but in the end they are still sawing off the branch they themselves sit on as well, helping to construct the salami slicer that is also slicing them up in turn.

      The basic problem here is looking at people committing suicide, and then twisting all reason into knots trying to come up with a way to say that committing suicide must have been in their interest somehow. Like looking at someone dressed as a mime driving a car, then saying he must be doing mimery; and not, you know, driving a car.

      If a body is doing socialism, then it is doing socialism. If the king of Spain decides to turn his country into a democracy (that is to say, rule by preachers) and abnegate his sovereignty, this does not mean that democracy is monarchy, because a king did it, it means that *the king was a democrat*.

      A communist may talk all day up one side and down the other about uber rich people – juicy, convenient, rhetorically easy targets – but in practice his real targets are always those who are around him; the kulak with two cows, the guy who owns a pizza franchise, the man running an HVAC repair service, et cetera et cetera. In a phrase, gentlemen, property owners, free holders, of various sizes and market shares. A whole world of people, out there, just *doing things*, *without his personal supervision!* Oy gevalt, it’s like anudda shoah!

      His rhetoric is stuffed to the gills with words about ‘fat cats’, while the effects of his policies are about making life, business, prosperity, impossible in general.

      More potent forms of social organism that are capable of achieving nice things, are also horribly bigoted, discriminatory, and exclusionary to people like himeself; but perhaps what sticks in his lizard brain even more than that, on a level he may not even consciously verbalize, is that it represents a whole ecosystem of entities *he doesn’t have personal control over*.

  14. Adam says:

    What is the reactionary interpretation of Second Corinthians 3:6?

    “He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.”

    This is one of the verses that seems to really enable progressivism in churches. If “sin is sin” then obviously we are all equal. Along with the adulterous woman story and the progressive interpretation, we should have no laws for anyone at any time (except for husbands).

    • 7817 says:

      1 Timothy 1:8-11 ESV
      Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, [9] understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, [10] the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, [11] in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

    • jim says:

      Second Corinthians 3:6 needs to be read in the context of the Christian critique of Phariseeism as defiance and opposition to the Logos. The trouble is ministers reframing it in the context of Jesus the Jewish community organizer, instead of Christ as the Logos.

      I have told this story too many times before, but will tell it again. I should promote it to a post, and probably will so that I do not need to keep repeating it.

      The Jews were Jewing God. They still are.

      If you have a bunch of laws issued by God, you are going to have a bunch of lawyers Jewing God. So what should God and man do about this problem?

      The eternity of Jesus should be understood in the context that the Jews were, and still are, Jewing God, treating the law like a contract, promise, or bet with a Goyim to be creatively, legalistically, and literally interpreted without regard to the other party’s intent and expectations, without regard to meeting of the minds, following the letter of the law to evade the spirit of the law.

      OK says God, legalism is not working, too many damned lawyers. I will implement the same thing in a way that could work in today’s lawyer infested social context.

      He did not say “I will implement a different and morally better thing” This postchristian interpretation of Second Corinthians 3:6 presupposes Jesus the Jewish Community organizer, and always results in some form of non Trinitarian post Christian religion, in which Christ is not the logos, and did not exist from before the beginning of the world.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      • Varna says:

        > If you have a bunch of laws issued by God, you are going to have a bunch of lawyers Jewing God.

        They are treating it like a contract with the devil or any minor demon, where it is your duty to figure out a way to Jew the other side.

        Some think when Jesus told they are satan worshipers that he was not being metaphorical.

        Ron Unz (another example of a man doing his best to transcend the toxicity of his heritage) has a delightful article about when he realized that “his people” are a truly weird bunch.

        Furthermore, religious Jews apparently pray to Satan almost as readily as they pray to God, and depending upon the various rabbinical schools, the particular rituals and sacrifices they practice may be aimed at enlisting the support of the one or the other. Once again, so long as the rituals are properly followed, the Satan-worshippers and the God-worshippers get along perfectly well and consider each other equally pious Jews, merely of a slightly different tradition. One point that Shahak repeatedly emphasizes is that in traditional Judaism the nature of the ritual itself is absolutely uppermost, while the interpretation of the ritual is rather secondary. So perhaps a Jew who washes his hands three times clockwise might be horrified by another who follows a counter-clockwise direction, but whether the hand-washing were meant to honor God or to honor Satan would be hardly be a matter of much consequence.

        Strangely enough, many of the traditional rituals are explicitly intended to fool or trick God or His angels or sometimes Satan, much like the mortal heroes of some Greek legend might seek to trick Zeus or Aphrodite. For example, certain prayers must be uttered in Aramaic rather than Hebrew on the grounds that holy angels apparently don’t understand the former language, and their confusion allows those verses to slip by unimpeded and take effect without divine interference.

        • Oog en Hand says:

          Check out the story of Loki getting his mouth sewn shut. According to rabbis G-d created the whole Law, including the loopholes.

        • The Cominator says:

          “Furthermore, religious Jews apparently pray to Satan almost as readily as they pray to God”

          This is jews on the brain nonsense. Leftists jews consider themselves athiests. Religious jews (who are not leftists) do not pray to satan.

          Soros Rothschilds etc probably do worship satan but revealation says such people say they are jews but are not.

          • jim says:

            The Kabalists, considered orthodox Jews in good standing provided they observe the correct rituals, do pray to Satan. Similarly, however, no one seems unduly troubled by the Vaticans use of satanic symbolism. There is a lot of Satanism around.

            Worrying about Jewish Satanism is a distraction. The problem with the Jews is legalism, not Satanism.

            • Ash says:

              Kabbalah is extremely heterodox mumbo-jumbo that 90% of rabbis could not explain, let alone the original compilers of those texts. No one is “observing” these “rituals” (whatever rituals you may supposedly be referencing).

            • Oog en Hand says:

              Counter legalism with legalism, counter antinomianism (i.e. the idea that “fascist” laws don’t have to be obeyed) with antinomianism. Again, take the Loki example.

              • jim says:

                This issue has been running for two millennia. The faiths that survived did not buy into the enemy’s frame.

                We have been fighting back and forth over this ground for two millenia, the antinomians want to suspend all law, so that they can promptly apply their own “abolish the police” (so that Shaniqua backed by thugs weilding baseball bats can take over the job)

                And the legalists, where the supreme court finds that in penumbra of the consitution a right for transexuals to take your sons away from you and castrate them.

            • Oog en Hand says:

              “The Kabalists, considered orthodox Jews in good standing provided they observe the correct rituals, do pray to Satan”

              So their wives, that is, Orthodox Jewish women, would make very good witches?!

  15. drive-by reactionary says:

    Hey Jim, wondering what your thoughts are on lesbians? Ive learned over the years that any unowned woman can become a lesbian if her libido doesnt match her mating prospects. Have an ex that “became a lesbian” (huge slut, could no longer fuck alpha males so started hooking up with an alpha lesbian at her work). Some of these alpha lesbians, dont want to call them dykes or butch because they are still feminine looking if not especially attractive, can pull reasonably attractive girls. I assume its because they can ‘act alpha’ in ways that most men would be punished for.

    • jim says:

      Lesbians fuck men more than straight chicks, and fuck more men than they fuck women.

      Women are not gay and not straight. They are omnisexual and attracted to alpha. For women, gay is just a fashion accessory.

      • Fireball says:

        My younger self got really surprised by this. Not a single one not even the ugly ones wasn’t having sex with some guy.

      • The Cominator says:

        I don’t know the specifics of the breakdown of lesbian notch counts, but so called gold star lesbians are very rare. Openly lesbian lifestyle larping needs to be suppressed though fucks up the market ratio even if they fuck chad sometimes… we will allow women to be bisexuals but they are expected to be married engaged (to men) or whores.

        • jim says:

          > but so called gold star lesbians are very rare.

          And they are lying. Like I said, for women, gay is fashion accessory. What a gold star lesbian always says is “I have never a relationship with man.”

          Meaning that Jeremy Meeks always kicks her out a couple of hours after she shows up for a booty call and fails to respond to her texts.

    • Red says:

      I’ve fucked a few lesbians, as Jim said they fuck a ton of guys. They’re much sluttier than the average woman.

    • Adam says:

      I have only known one woman who was openly a lesbian, had a girlfriend and everything, and it could not have been more obvious that she wanted to fuck.

      • Neurotoxin says:

        This thread is fascinating. Question for anyone who might know: Do lesbians talk about this? Is it an open secret/open joke in the “lesbian community” that they all fuck men? Or is there a mask of silence about it?

  16. Calvin says:

    Feel good story of the day, Salon founder and all around globohomo shill goes splat:

    • Aidan says:

      Remember to push faggots off their bicycles whenever you get a chance

      • drive-by reactionary says:

        I used to ride my bike everywhere. Saved me a fuck ton of money on gas and my legs are in great shape.

      • Adam says:

        Ever play the game “smear the queer” when you were a kid? About time we bring back that tradition.

    • The Ducking Man says:

      I’ve been cycling in my entire youth, I’m confused how the heck did he get killed by transit train?

      Passing transit lane without looking?

      • Calvin says:

        Earbuds in, firmly focused on the anti-reality principle that allows one to be a leftist would be my guess. His mind was so used to crimestopping any inconvenient facts that any part of it attempting to make him aware of the oncoming train was automatically shut down.

        Either that or proof that God is not mocked forever.

        Maybe both.

      • pyrrhus says:

        Lot of folks get killed riding bikes..Husband of a woman I knew and respected rode out one Saturday morning and was killed instantly a block from his house.Two 80 year olds got killed nearby early AM by a drunk driver..I don’t ride anymore, too dangerous..

        • Kunning Drueger says:

          Anyone that rides a bike without a helmet is consciously choosing to be a nigger. I assert that at least a third, but more likely a half, of bike deaths would be survivable if the tools who bike on car roads wore helmets. But they won’t because the bike is a statement, it isn’t a solution. It is exactly like how blacks interact with crossing the road. If you spend any time in black dense areas and inner cities, you will see noggs step into the road the moment they decide to cross. Further, they will use the road for walking, defecation, freestylin, and general niggory diggory. In my estimation, this is because they believe it is their collective property. This is the same motivation of whites on bikes. I’m sure this is my own personal bias, and some myackchually bikefag will have a bunch of reasons why slowing traffic and ruining lives is a good thing.

          • The Cominator says:

            The problem with bicyclists is they lack the humility of pedestrians… the humility to keep in mind that Net Force = Mass * Acceleration. They seem to expect to be treated with both the respect of other cars and the privileges of pedestrians in urban areas (who know not to push that) at the same time…

            • Kunning Drueger says:

              Well said. It’s like the feminist notion of equality of opportunity with a reprieve from consequences.

            • Meat Guy says:

              Me and all my anarchist friends from 2010 were the epitome of the bike asshole in New York City. We would weave in and out of traffic, smash peoples mirrors for fun with our U-Locks. I remember spitting on the face of some dude who cut me off and flipped me off… guy had his window down and he caught a loogie right in the eye. And he couldn’t do shit, I was already blocks away by the time he stepped foot out of his vehicle.

              Cyclists are assholes.

        • Aidan says:

          >demand to be treated like cars
          >break every traffic law known to man constantly
          >ride at 20 in a 50 on a busy road with no shoulder, I have to risk my ass to pass them

          I have no sympathy when some entitled blue tribe fag in his spandex bodysuit gets smeared on the pavement

  17. Anonymous Fake says:

    Do you think it’s telling that the right is obsessed with a “people hypothesis” of the Cathedral, blaming Jews or secret royal bloodlines or some other foreign element, despite seeing how horrifyingly low the fertility rate of their elites is? Elite universities and the administrative cities for which they provide staffing are population shredders, and “diversity” is cynically used to cover up the paradoxically permanent demographic collapse of the ruling class that must constantly feed on the underclasses. But this is an upward mobility without genuine meritocracy.

    There isn’t much support for an “institutional hypothesis” of our Cathedral ruling class, how they steal the blood of the commoners without their own nature being altered. Even Jews accept converts and new traditions more readily than the elites.

    There isn’t much support for the idea that representative republicanism or compulsory schooling always results in either our current equilibrium (at best) or a leftist holiness spiral. Anything that would require a Constitutional change is ignored in favor of the next caesar and boogeyman show.

    • jim says:

      > There isn’t much support for an “institutional hypothesis” of our Cathedral ruling class.

      Harvard ruled Massachusetts. In the civil war, in conquered America. In World War I and II, it conquered the world.

      There is complete continuity of ideology, organization, personell, and physical headquarters going all the way back to the founding of Harvard. Same people, same headquarters, same belief system, continually changing, but only changing by a small amount at any one time, even though over the centuries these continual small changes became enormous changes.

      Harvard was founded by priests tossed out of the Church of England by Charles the second.

      Harvard was founded by priests kicked out of the State Church of England for very good cause. Power hungry people coveting what was Charles the Second’s. It was the State Church of Massachussets. It is now the vatican of the State Church of the world. Power hungry then, power hungry now, the one element of their ideology that remains unchanging.

      • The Cominator says:

        Take it from someone who lived in Massachusetts nearly all of his life until 4 years ago, Harvard only ruled some of Massachusetts until 2012-2013 (it still probably has limited influence in the Plymouth/Cape Cod area)…

        It was for a long time okay to be openly a right wing shitlord in Mass… the state religion was not taken seriously for a while… until suddenly it was. Seeing it happen before my eyes is what resolved me that all who adhere to it need to go…

        • Pooch says:

          To the random peasant on the streets of Rome, it’s not obvious who holds power. He’s not particularly concerned with it.

          In the circles of the moneyed and landed elite, it’s obvious who holds the power.

  18. Redbible says:

    This post is about women, so not as on topic.

    I was reading some PUA material about the “emotional roller coaster” and then had a mental connection:

    Spanking/Disciplining a women creates many of the elements that the “emotional roller coaster lows” are supposed to create, but while also doing so in a way that a both is dominant, and suggests to the woman that he intends to keep her.

    Based on that, I believe it makes sense that Spanking/Disciplining a women at the right time during a relationship (namely that the relationship is “far enough”, and that the woman has crossed a line) would be a powerful way to deepen and build a relationship.

    Any thoughts?

  19. Pooch says:

    Abbott is a cuck but this is actually great. I would pull a Lukashenko and give them food, water, and camping supplies so they can stay as long as they need to.

    • Contaminated NEET says:

      Tough talk from the cucks is nothing new. 900 buses constantly ferrying border-jumpers to DC? I’ll believe it when I see it.

      • Pete says:

        It’s not going to happen. You would need armed security to keep them from running away during a bathroom stop, and if they do just start walking away, what are you going to do, shoot them? You’d be in prison forever.

        Plus once they get to DC, they can just catch a bus to wherever they wanted to go in the first place.

        • Kunning Drueger says:

          Migrants are herd creatures that are positively motivated to seek a stable resource supply. They move in groups, gravitate towards familiarity, and do not wander or explore. That I know of, there are 3 migrant camps within an hour of DC. Abbott’s plan is amusing, but the fact that he isn’t joking about bussing them to Mexico City shows that the frame is defeat. He is signalling that DC is a foreign power/place (good and true), but he’s surrendering the battle space (the migrants will be staying in America, just not in his corner or it). A feminized response.

          • Frank Matters says:

            In all reality, this is a brilliant move of political judo, and I dearly wish it could be carried out. In fact, should be carried out regularly and to all the blue political centers. This is the same move as busing the homeless to western states that seem to love them.

            The rhetoric is entirely ‘migrants good’, there is no way to effectively counter signal more migrants in your jurisdiction without hypocrisy so blatant even the room temperature IQs would notice. So they will be forced to accept them or play hot potato, either option is a win from the status quo. Hopefully it sets a precedent; imagine massive flows of migrants shipped from amerikaaner territory to enemy urban centers filled with hostile populations and no-go zones. It will distract them at worst, cause a massive infight, and start to cripple them at best.

            We are in the middle of a cold civil war, that territory to be flooded is held by his enemies. Celebrate your enemies becoming burdened. Act like this is the conflict that it has become. Punish your enemies and reward your friends, or die.

            • Kunning Drueger says:

              “My wife keeps blowing money on things we don’t need and can’t afford. So I make sure that I move all of these things into the kitchen where she has to deal with them. Judo!”

              “We are on the fast track to a war, so I am working hard to get as much cannon fodder into my enemies ranks. I’m helping!”

              • Frank Matters says:

                Why, yes, the feds are the wife of the Texan governor, and D.C. is like his kitchen. What part of ‘enemy territory’ doesn’t make sense to you? (Don’t answer that. It’s called a rhetorical question.) That land is not the land of the amerikaaner, and if it becomes the land of the amerikaaner, they just recently got a lot of experience in the logistics of busing around migrants, didn’t they?

                Recently imported, retarded, obese, squat, third world wetbacks are not going to be ‘cannon fodder’. At worst they’ll form their own military entity, very unlikely but possible. The most likely outcome is them clogging up civilian defense shelters. Look at the afrikans of the Ukraine for an example of what foreigners in hostile territory do when threatened. (Here’s a hint since it’s become clear you’re not good at this extrapolation from evidence thing: it’s not ‘pick a side and fight’.) Well, let the civilians of these cities reap what they sow, and hang out with the smelly people they enjoy so much. Maybe they wont get stabbed and have their rations stolen, there’s always optimism, right?

              • Aidan says:

                I agree with Frank here. The only way there is any hope is if the Amerikaner is a race of its own, with a historical destiny of its own, janissary to the Neo-Carthage of the Charles River for hundreds of years. DC, Boston, New York have never been Amerikaner land- Abbot proposes to dump the indio monkeys on enemy territory. The Amerikaner, which I am not, and you are not, needs to consider the enemy a hostile nation, and needs the words and concepts for it.

                If the Amerikaner is the Berber to Carthage, we might do okay. If the Amerikaner is the Samnite to Rome, we’re fucked.

                • Jamesthe1st says:

                  From my work in construction, I’ve seen a lot of how these forigne immigrants are. They are just here for the money and nothing more. Should the left singularity collapse happen soon, they will either leave for greener pastures or become criminal gangs. The gangs will be trying to carve out their own niche, none of them will fight for DC should it come to that unless it helps their own cause. None of those people imo are trustworthy unless they become hardcore trad Catholics or the like.

  20. Aryaman says:

    Daily Mail: Tennessee Republican pushes bill to allow CHILD MARRIAGE that would scrap the state’s current minimum age of 17 before couples could tie the knot

    Bill sponsor Tom Leatherwood, 65, has introduced a bill into the Tennessee House that would eliminate age limits for common-law marriages

    A Republican-proposed bill in Tennessee would remove the age limit for when couple’s could exchange wedding vows and clear the way for ‘common-law marriages’ between ‘one man and one woman.’

    • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

      Based. I wonder how they’ll spin screeching against it though.

      >muh consenting adults

      But kids can consent (to being chemically castrated child prostitutes) now, remember? You made sure of it!

      The closer you get to singularity, the more wild and wacky the twists of opposition can become.

    • The Cominator says:

      Getting rid of the age thing is good, establishing common law marriages under the age of feminist marriage is not.

      • Aryaman says:

        It is not like a man can find himself accidentally common law married when he does not in fact intend to be married. There are pathological cases, I suppose. I am assuming that’s your complaint? And this is not normalcy bias: I fully appreciate the law does not apply, but to the extent a man is liable to find himself liable to a marriage he did not enter, he would otherwise find himself liable for all kinds of other laws he broke unknowingly.

        As it stands now, it is considered criminal rape if a 22 year old engineer just establishing himself courts and (with her father’s consent) marries at 16 year old whom he has a child with at 17. This law gets rid of that wholesale.

      • Redbible says:

        If your woman has the holy fear of god and husband (a.k.a. she will die if she divorces you), you need not fear the age of feminist marriage.

  21. Kunning Drueger says:

    We need to put this “commie Jesus” thing to bed with a bullet. It needs to be a known talking point of Entryists, and immediately dismissed as such. So, how do we go about doing that? Does any Reactionary here actually believe that Jesus Christ, Son of God and Savior of man… is, was, and wants us to be communists? If you believe that, stand up and be counted, so we can mock your blockhead, legalistic ass. Seriously. “Muh-muh-mush scripture says Jesus w-w-wuz a n-n-n-nice guy.” Shut the fuck up.

    Jesus was not a communist, he was kind. He was kind in a world with no time or reason to be kind, and, being the intangible and wholly man, all at once, he set a perfect example, one we cannot follow, but must try to follow, because the journey is the point and the destination is an afterthought. Splitting hairs, arguing over texts, laboring to understand… that is embarrassing to do in public. It gives enemies an opportunity to insinuate themselves into the discussion, increase tension, and drive wedges. Personally, it is hard enough not to murder idiots and fuck sluts and be a good leader, I have 0 time to “struggle with theology.”

    “Look, the AK is obviously inferior to the AR-15. God wants us to use AR-15s, and if satan creates a circumstance wherein you have to touch an AK, you aren’t going to hell, but make sure you wash your hands and pray for forgiveness.”

    Can you imagine having this argument during a firefight? Can you imagine anything more stupid than fighting with a brother over an inconsequential opinion or preference *relative to the circumstances* as you are actively under attack by people who hate you?

    • Richard W. Comerford says:

      The truth is, churches that have succumbed to the woke agenda need to be leveled just as much as abortion clinics.

      • Pooch says:

        No they don’t. After the heretic priests are burned at the stake, they will be returned to Christ.

    • ExileStyle says:

      > Jesus was not a communist, he was kind.

      And he was not even that kind. He was kind to his friends, who were few in number, and ruthless to his enemies. He could also be quite ruthless to his friends when they deserved it.

  22. Varna says:

    Russian clownish nationalist Vladimir “I got me eight clot shots” Zhirinovsky is officially dead after getting the kung flu.
    His party has been denying his death for about a week, but now it’s official.

    • Fireball says:

      Lol awesome

      • jim says:

        For some time, the clot shot made you less likely to get and transmit the disease, but only marginally.

        The disease, predictably, rapidly adapted, losing some of the lethal character that had been weaponized into it by Fauci’s Chinese minions, and very shortly it came to pass that ithe clot shotted were considerably more likely to get the disease, but less likely to die of it.

        But as it evolved from its weaponized state into just another flue, it came to pass that it was only lethal to those with severely damaged immune systems – which is to say, primarily to those that had taken multiple clot shots.

    • Karl says:

      I assume “nationalist” has a different meaning in Russia than in Western Europe, but still I’m surprised that he took 8 clot shots. Must have been a fervent believer in the Covid demon

      In Germany there are very few nationalist who got a clot shot, but almost all progressives got clot shots.

      • Varna says:

        Not so much “nationalist” but rather “populist” can differ greatly.

        The Filipino prez is also a firmly pro-clotshot mandate populist nationalist, for example, while the Brazilian one–the opposite.

        Populism and nationalism look identical on the outside, but stand on different fundaments that mix real and imaginary cultural heritages. Such a heritage in Bangladesh is not going to be like the one in Belgium, thus the national-populists channeling these heritages may talk and behave in very similar ways, but will reach different places.

        Or even wear different political skinsuits. In Russia for example the reds are the main anti-mandate force. In the west leftism was taken over by corporate tranny liberasts. In Russia the left was during the same 30 years taken over by Slavic-Ugric very pro-Orthodox Tucker Carlsonovichs who believe in nationalization of industry and free higher education and that Stalin was a misunderstood Caesar who saved Russia and the world.

        • Varna says:

          Yeah, eight clotshots. Zhirinovsky took all three Russian vaccines: the Sputnik clotshot, the EpiVac peptide shot, and the KoviVac trad shot. Deep down he and too many others believe that “the science” knows what it’s doing.

          When he was taken ill I saw an incredible interview by a Sputnik guy who was like “you see, Zhirinovsky should have taken eight Sputniks, and not mixing it with those other shots that are way worse.”

        • Karl says:

          In the West, every nationalist distrusts the government because he recognizes what the government is doing to his people and culture. So the nationalists were very reluctant to follow government preaching to take a clot shot.

          Maybe a populist does not necessarily distrusts his government, maybe does not see it as evil. Anyway, where did Zhirinovsky’s trust come from? He grew up in the Soviet Union. Should have had plenty of experience that taught him to be sceptical whenever he hears official recommendations.

          • Varna says:

            Cargo-cultism. If the holy west “science” is saying something then it must be true. On a deeper level everyone believes this, including the Hungarian elite, the Russian one, even the North Korea one.

            This is a historical trauma from the industrial age. Before it, the world was made up of a number of civilizational peers: France, Britain, Holland, AustroHungary, Russia, the Ottoman Empire, Persia, India, and China. Some of them were slowly failing, some stagnating, some slowly rising. But the overall balance was such that one center can’t really defeat and absorb another.

            The early conquistadores were gods against stone-age civilizations in the Americas and Africa and Polynesia, but not against peer civilizations.

            The the Industrial Revolution hit and suddenly westerners were steampunk alien invaders who can seemingly crush anyone. Today the other civilizational peers, many of them surviving in stunted and brutalized form, have managed to achieve a sort of parity.

            The west itself is no longer developing at lightning speed. We are reaching a new civilizational parity (as was always the case barring the industrial revolution historical aberration), hence no one will be “the new master of the world” and there will be no “new world currency”. Just a bunch of peer stuff.

            But still, the west still sees itself as the arbiter of cosmic alchemical truths, and it takes immense effort for everyone else to not fall into cargo-cultism centered on this same viewpoint.

            • Kunning Drueger says:

              Excellent analysis. I know it’s elementary, but it is easy to forget just how much we inhabit the past at a subconscious level. You see it in the American tendency to see all wars as derivative of World War 02, and that the US is the inevitable winner. The War Faction of the Cathedral is skipping towards Armageddon, certain that some unbeatable force of soldiers will make their insane policies impossible to oppose or withstand.

            • Karl says:

              That is a good explanation. Even scientists in the West haven fallen for it.

              I know a German Chemist who a few years ago bitterly complained that he could not trust published results in his field. Now he has a clot shot and a booster on top.

              He still does not take publications in his field of work at face value, but somehow this does not prevent him from believing anything else.

  23. Pooch says:

    More evidence of the dying state religion…

    • Fireball says:

      Why would this be evidence?

    • notglowing says:

      DC is predictably the highest
      If someone isn’t googling Ukraine often, it means they’re not trying to get updated on it, at least not any more than the are already passively updated by the media.

      (PS: There is another comment by me with another email pending moderation, please delete it, Jim)

  24. clovis says:

    > It is not where Churches stand on the precession of the holy spirit that matters, but where they stand on marriage and the female role. Does anyone today understand what precession of the holy spirit is?

    > Does Christ have two natures and one substance, or was that two substances and one nature? Whatever. I am pretty sure that no one ever knew what the divine substance and divine nature was, and they have forgotten how to pretend that they knew.

    I disagree; the only churches that are even making an attempt to teach the subordination of women are confessional protestants–Westminster confession Calvinists and Book of Concord Lutherans. And also the Eastern Orthodox. All these are churches where at least the clergy are concerned about the details of theology. Evangelicals who consider the details of theology “non-essential” are also failing to teach correctly about the image of God as male and female. Taking the Bible seriously is what leads to a correct understanding of the order of creation, and also to a correct understanding of the Trinity, the person of Christ, the sacraments…when clergy aren’t willing to fight over these things they sure as hell won’t be willing to swim upstream against feminism in the culture, and their congregations won’t be willing to either.

    • jim says:

      > I disagree; the only churches that are even making an attempt to teach the subordination of women are confessional protestants

      On the contrary, while Greek Orthodox are a great big pile of faggots who plot against Christians and Christianity while naked in a great big pile (certain rather important monasteries excepted), Russian Orthodox, under the protection of Putin’s nukes, are doing the best job of teaching the subordination of women.

      Confessional protestants have held on to Christianity by repeatedly splitting. When the hierarchy goes globohomo, the faithful split off and form a new Church.

      We see a similar remnant within Roman Catholicism, but their belief system makes splitting impossible, which is a good thing for a state religion, except when your faith is infested with faggots and demon worshipers in the vatican.

      The faithful in Russian Orthodoxy are also a remnant, but they are feeling their oats.

      • Andy says:

        Longtime lurker, enjoy the discussion/analysis here although with my limited intellect, I can barely keep up.

        That said, what are takes on SSPX? They’re building cathedrals (e.g., Immaculata in Kansas).

        • Meat Guy says:

          I’ve spent five years now at an SSPX chapel and it’s got all the fixings. Leadership when they kicked out Williamson has gone a little soft. Hopefully something happens soon that makes us remember the fight. The problem with kids growing up in tradition is that aren’t as keen to the problems of the novus ordo and even the modern world as converts to the faith are. We’ll see where it goes.

          • jim says:

            The fundamental question of our times, is does the faith arm the husband against shit tests? The New Testament does, and presumably those guys were giving sermons back then that said the same thing.

            When you and your woman listen to sermon in an SSPX chapel, does it arm you against shit tests? When you get hit by a shit test, are you inclined to reference what the priest said? Does your faith community provide social support for passing shit tests?

            The second great heresy of Christianity was that the sexual morality of Christianity required one to accept being cucked. Supposedly this was a greater level of sexual purity. (The heresy of Nicolaism, named after Nicolas the Deacon, one of the seven Deacons appointed by the apostles) The apostles dealt with that one firmly and vigorously. Somehow, when I see the Roman Catholic Church giving a diagram of all the heresies, they leave that one out, even though it is condemned in the New Testament repeatedly.

            And when it is mentioned in modern times, they get creative on what the heresy was about.

            • Meat Guy says:

              The marital debt is definitely discussed appropriately in our chapels and a woman who is refusing her husband sexually would definitely be shamed by the community if they see her failing marriage and catch wind of why it’s happening. I think it’s not explicit in traditional Catholicism that women are our property. It tends to draw on the scriptural basis of women being mans helpmate. Which a man who has taken even a single red pill is going to understand that for what that means. Which is yes, they are our property. Either way, I’m in the church basement every weekend with my kid on my hip as a young dad, red pilling fellow Catholics, mostly over 30s because they’re the ones that need the most work, on what I have learned from here and other places.

              • jim says:

                You guys are telling me that Christianity is in better shape than I thought. But I keep asking, and have as yet not been answered. Do you get sermons that are as valuable in dealing with shit tests as the New Testament is?

                • Meat Guy says:

                  I would say yes. It goes along the same lines at obeying Peter and the Bishops. You do what they say unless it contradicts faith and morals, etc. Women in traditional Catholicism do not have any roles other than running the book store or something. If your wife disobeys you, your priest is definitely going to have your back. I’ve not run into any big enough issues yet because I married a teenage girl over a decade younger than me and she just accepts whatever I tell her, but I know Father would back me.

                  The novus ordo is a different story. It is as bad as everyone says it is and the priest probably sucks cock.

                • Pooch says:

                  “I married a teenage girl over a decade younger than me”

                  Amazing. How did you pull that off?

                • Meat Guy says:

                  How I pulled it off is no credit to me, other than choosing to participate in God’s Providence. Same thing with my conversion. From a bastard child who’s parents never wed to waking up one day to find myself prostrating towards the altar and the cool waters of baptism running down my neck.

                  Traditional Catholic chapels are small, and very tight nit. A guy shows up there, especially a convert with no ties to the parish, and the eligible girls start talking.

                • Pooch says:

                  Fantastic white pill. Thanks for sharing.

        • jim says:

          Behind subscription wall, and the sign up form crashes in javascript for me. Possibly because I have protections against googles weaponized javacripts, which probe your system through innumerable backdoors and report everything to google. People are encouraged to link their javascript to google’s javascript, because google kindly gives them a redacted summary of the information stolen and kept forever by google. Which information Google cheerfully resells, to competitors of the stupid sucker who signed up for this free information and shopped his customers and subscribers to google in the form of the ability to direct google ads to his subscriber list and/or customer list.

          Give us a lengthy paraphrase and summary.

          If the crash reflects Matt Walsh’s bugs, that discredits what he says (though my own blog has been down often enough.) If, as is more likely, the crash reflects him using a free service his enemies have weaponized against him, that discredits what he says a great deal worse.

          I am not going to sign up with anyone who uses free crap supplied by his and my enemies, and even most Cathedral operations do not use google scripts, because Cathedral operations distrust each other, and Google has a long history of hostile use of this information to nail other Cathedral operatives.

          If you use a free service, you are the product.

          Information Epoch warfare has begun, even though it is as yet primarily cancellation, deplatforming, and demonetization, rather than one hundred gram end guided grenades delivered by autonomous robot drone assassins.

          If your website is using Google Analytics, you, your customers, and subscribers, are not merely the product, but also the target.

        • The Cominator says:

          Make an archive link… it destroys the paywall…

        • The Cominator says:

          Hmmmm the archive trick didn’t work on this paywall…

    • jim says:

      > the only churches that are even making an attempt to teach the subordination of women are confessional protestants–Westminster confession Calvinists and Book of Concord Lutherans

      Are they? When the shit tests fly, do the sermons give wives or husbands some steel?

      What does the preacher say about the shit tests I handle every couple of days?

      The bible is a huge help to me in passing shit tests.

      What has your Westminster confession Calvinist preacher said that was handy when you got hit with a shit test?

      • clovis says:

        I am a Lutheran, not a Calvinist. The other day there was a bible class, and the woman on zoom who had moved to another state was talking about how the pastor there lets women serve as lectors reading the Old Testament and Epistle. The pastor said very clearly that the Bible says women are not to speak in church or have authority over a man, and that Paul says “it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church.”

        In the dogmatics text still used in the seminaries, written in the 20s, the theologian argues that women should not vote in ecclesiastical assemblies or courts, nor in American elections, that it is a violation of the order of creation. Learning from that dogmatics is part of what led me to this blog.

        But of course the church is weak in this area and has failed to confess clearly during the onslaught of feminism. But the church is Christ’s bride. He doesn’t abandon her when she fails, otherwise He would have abandoned her in the first century.

        • Adam says:

          Are you familiar with the Laestadian or Apostolic Lutheran churches?

          I don’t imagine many reactionaries want to live that lifestyle but they have huge families. I have family and friends from those churches and grew up with many others.

          There could be a lot to learn from them.

          • clovis says:

            I am familiar with them. Not really familiar, but a little bit. They are Scandinavian, from the pietistic tradition. Which means they are really concerned with being holy and pious, focusing on the inner life rather than on Christ, His death, and the means of grace.

            However it was common among all non-liberal Lutherans until after the second world war to have big families because pretty much all churches considered contraception a sin. The Laestadians maybe continue to teach that. Or maybe they just value big families.

            Among Missouri Synod pastors there is a growing belief that contraception is forbidden by God. Where a person is convinced of that, big families and also submissive wives follow almost by necessity. A woman who is constantly pregnant has to submit to her husband, or else leave.

            • Adam says:

              My ex-wife grew up in one of those churches (Apostolic). Interesting people. Definitely very holy people. I always wondered about the birth control thing and the more children = more holy thing if it was the only way the men could get their wives to have sex with them.

              Lots of beautiful women in those families. Guys were mostly short though. Quite a bit shorter than normal.

              • Pooch says:

                If we are going to talk about holy living I think the Amish take the cake. Their population has grown something crazy like 40-50% per decade consistently. I don’t think they are even aware or care that the world is crumbling around them.

                • Aidan says:

                  The Amish are pacifists, hence the beards. Split off when the splendid mustachio was military fashion; a very intentional signal that they do not fight. Well, if they were not pacifists, would probably get Waco’d. The Amish are doing well in their 19th century leftism, and will do well until someone gets around to killing them all despite the avowed pacifism

  25. Basil says:

    In the meantime, other idiots (this time from propagandists) actually started to justify the killing of civilians and genocide, because the responsibility for the killing of civilians and genocide will immediately be shifted to the Russian troops. When you are accused of genocide, it is impossible to shit anything more stupid than this text.

    • Arakawa says:

      > Напротив — поскольку украинский нацизм свободен от подобных “жанровых” (политтехнологических по существу) рамок и ограничений, он свободно разворачивается как фундаментальная основа всякого нацизма — как европейский и, в наиболее развитой форме, американский расизм.

      This part is indeed gay and stupid. As far as I can tell, in the middle of advocating for 30-year occupation of Ukraine with a Xinjiang style scheme of total political surveillance, the author felt a spontaneous urge to genuflect to the Soviet line about American racism, which is a lazy copypaste of the Harvard line about American racism.

      There is a very serious problem of trying to sit between two chairs of Stalinism and Orthodoxy, which are incompatible to the point of being in existential conflict last century. You can understand why Russia still has adherents of both — Stalin was the most recent strong horse while Orthodoxy gives serious answers to serious philosophical problems and motivates people without the need for constant economic winning. But the only overlap point between these worldviews is that their existential conflict was briefly paused to fight against the Nazis, hence the need to explain all modern day geopolitics in terms of Nazis, and the need for pushing oddball syncretism like “did you know Stalin commanded a plane with an Orthodox icon to fly around Moscow to draw a circle of protection against the Nazis”.

      • Varna says:

        In a modern Chinese village it’s completely normal to see a shrine with the images of Buddha, Confucius, and Mao side by side.

        This is in essence generic Asiatic ancestor-worship, with the divine and historical figures both counting as mighty ancestors who watch over you and give you luck and mana and stuff, in return for ritualistic respect. The Japs are similar.

        Only in Russia it’s not conscious, it’s more of a deep pre-verbal current among the “deep nation”. But it can be done. If current events push Russia deeper into a militaristic-ancestor worship folk version of orthodoxy, anything is possible.

        And if their main lines to the outside narrow to China and India, a gradual inter-cultural synchronization is more than possible.

        • Arakawa says:

          You are correct that Asiatic ancestor-worship has strong potential in Russia, but Orthodox Christianity explicitly demands filtering one’s ancestors into pious and impious and only putting the pious ones in your ancestor shrine. It’s mighty difficult to shoehorn Stalin into the ‘pious’ column just to please the Stalinist-nostalgia fraction, just as it’s mighty awkward to shoehorn support for Orthodoxy into the Stalin narrative. The two ideologies install two incompatible operating-systems on top of the Asiatic base hardware.

  26. Basil says:

    Useful idiots from Russian nationalists carried out informational support for the de-Russification of Ukraine, the death of Russian passionaries and the exhaustion of Russian soft power. Now, they were not needed. For you to understand, Limonov was completely loyal to the authorities and supported the DPR / LPR in 2014. People who read these books, as a rule, did the same. But now they are needed, modern Russia has other ideologists and other heroes.

    I suppose, after Kyiv, Putin will surrender Kherson.

    • Varna says:

      Could Dugin be next.

      Sometimes I imagine a hypothetical “mega computer” whom globohomo serves.

      “How do we reset the economy and push planetary development into the direction we need, oh mighty mega computer?”

      “You need a mega-war.”

      “Is there a less destructive way, oh mighty mega computer?”

      “Sure. Lockdowns, clotshot mandates, and a few limited wars in Europe and Asia should do the trick. 20 years from now the majority will live on Kruschev levels, and half the population will be gone.”

      In this sense the war in the Ukraine is even less about who takes which town, than the Vietnam and Korea wars were about what are the motivations and goals of the north and the south.

      If the Chinks or some Musk character develop a competing mega-computer, then maybe the play gets more complex.

    • jim says:

      Unlikely. After Mariupol, the decision about Slovyansk will be made. After Slovyansk is resolved, the decision about Kherson will be made.

      Once Russia has the port, warehouse, and factory area of Mariupol, which you must admit is inevitable soon, then it will be time to make predictions about Kherson and Slovyansk.

      They are still fighting World War I and II, and it is slow going.

      Cathedral strategy is that they will get tired of fighting World War I and II and give up. I think it likely that they will get tired of fighting World War I and II before long, but giving up is another question.

      Russia has reduced military activity around Kherson and withdrawn some troops from around Kherson. The withdrawal near Kiev was from dangerously exposed positions. The salient around Kherson is not dangerously exposed, so I would be surprised if withdrawal happens pending further substantial events.

      Since they obviously intend to take care of Mariupol, once Mariupol is taken, then there will be reflection on what the lessons of Mariupol imply for Kherson.

      Since a major lesson of Mariupol is that the use of World War II tactics to take a city is expensive in the Information Epoch, maybe they will then decide to let it go. Or maybe they will decide it is time to try something different.

    • Varna says:

      “Never fight with Russian. On your every stratagem they answer unpredictable stupidity.”
      Otto von Bismarck

  27. Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

    The puppet regime in Kiev has little compunction in egging it’s jannissaries on to engaging in heinous behavior, as it has assurance that the GAE preaching class will simply ascribe any happenstances to russian doing, because of course, as well as the fact that as leftists in the first place they have no principled opposition to simply lying up one side and down the other over anything and everything that could be convenient (or even inconvenient, but compulsively all the same).

    I think another part of it though, is that on some level there is a sense that the faith is tenuous; and that by throwing open all gates of probity and pushing normie ukrainians through them, they get them ‘in deep’; stuck to the ’cause’, for fear of paying for what they have now done if it fails.

    • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

      Russia needs to start executing its Ukrainian prisoners. Reprisals are the way to stop that shit. Stop taking prisoners, line them up, and shoot them all. Then let the rest of the military know. You torture ours, we kill yours. You kill ours, wait and see what the fuck happens.

      • Neofugue says:

        Armies which torture and mutilate POWs are indifferent to the torture and mutilation of their own soldiers. With the exception of the early days of Operation Barbarossa the Russians were far more merciful to German POWs than the Germans were to Russian POWs; getting captured by the Wehrmacht was in essence a death sentence.

        There is tremendous propaganda value in Ukrainian abuse and war crimes against POWs. Russian morale is improved, and the army will refuse to stop fighting until the war is finished. The Russians lost 25 million people fighting Germany; there is no reason why they cannot handle a long war. The Russian press should be increasing the intensity of their propaganda; the Ukrainians as satanic Neo-Nazi pride-parade war criminals who sold their souls to NATO should provide enough material.

      • Red says:

        Russia needs to start executing its Ukrainian prisoners. Reprisals are the way to stop that shit. Stop taking prisoners, line them up, and shoot them all. Then let the rest of the military know. You torture ours, we kill yours. You kill ours, wait and see what the fuck happens.

        I’m sure it’s already happening, but informally. Men who give up without a fight are fine, but men who resist and then try to surrender are probably finding that Russians are not giving quarter. This is what the Americans did whenever the SS started murdering Americans POWs during WW2.

        Making it formal policy probably isn’t necessary.

      • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

        They aren’t just killing prisoners, they’re killing their own civilians too.

        Leftisms throughout history all converge on satanism, because it’s the only way they can ensure loyalty.

  28. Kunning Drueger says:

    Jim writes:
    “An army needs a faith. The faith of the Republic is dead.

    Restoring the weaponized Christianity of Constantine, the Holy Roman Empire, and the Crusaders is a military necessity, on which Putin urgently needs to get started.”

    We need to get started too.

    Alf the Blessed says:

    “… Christianity is the most successful social technology we have bar none. If you believe in Christ’s resurrection, good on you, history shows that has not been a problem. If you don’t believe in Christ’s resurrection, well, keep it to yourself, and history has equally shown it not to be a problem. …you might feel like a fake when you affirm that Jesus Christ, Lord and Savior, is both God and human, there [will] be plenty of Christians who do not, and in time, you will grow into it.”

    The simplist, safest way begin restoring the weaponized faith of Constantine is to freely and regularly associate with men of strength, character, and will, making time to delve into the Word of God, using His Word to interpret things past, the present, the possible futures, and the ways to navigate them. Bible studies. I think we should put together a simple template to follow for organizing and leading a Bible study, and I think each man here should use it.

    • Pooch says:

      I am in favor of this.

      • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

        As am I. An army marches on its stomach, but it stands on its faith.

    • Kunning Drueger says:

      A guide for formation and management should be simple and easy to follow. It needs to outline how to organize the group, who should be sought after in terms of participants, and how to move through content. I think there are some very devout, well versed Christian men here who can provide Deacon-type advising. For those of us here, like myself, who are not good/active/regular members/participants in church, we need sound guidance on how to proceed.

      There is also the option of finding an extant bible study and taking it over, but this is suboptimal in terms of both time/effort required as well as negative feelings/sentiment that the process might engender.

      I know it is not the best thing, to have less than devout men leading faith groups. But we don’t have the capacity or time to get everyone up to speed, in terms of their faith. The hour is late, and our options are few.

      • clovis says:

        I think it would be better for men here to join an already existing church and influence the men in the congregation to lead the church. I think if I had two young men with children in my congregation who were not ruled by their wives and were willing to influence the boomers in the congregation not to be ruled by their wives, the whole congregation would change.

        • Pooch says:

          This is what I’m thinking too for the PSA which has a long history to the beginnings of Anglo America.

          Starting yet another Protestant sect just seems like the path most traveled by.

          Some talk of infiltrating leftist organizations and hiding our power of level as a strategy. Infiltrating churches with any semblance of tradition and showing your power level may be more useful.

          • clovis says:

            Yes, because your OPC church, some of your PCA churches or Missouri Synod Lutheran churches will have men in them that understand, consciously or intuitively, that “it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church.” So if you get involved there and subtly reveal your power level to the men, some of them will be ready to make changes very quickly, and the church can gradually be influenced.

    • Vlad says:

      Problem is Jesus like Jefferson was a radical leftist and while it’s also true Christianity’s altruism served whites for more than a millennia and during some of that time various kings got a less leftist more Old Testament interpretation scabbed on. In the end some wag always came along and will come along and ask what would Jesus do. Jim and his acolytes along with quite a few in alt right and elsewhere thinks this can simply be powered through and must because we need a religion. This show what fake Christian’s you are and how little interaction you have had with serious Christian’s. What would Jesus do is always leftism and any serious christian knows this sure many are still against a lot of leftist policies but many of them commit other sins what they don’t and can’t do is tell themselves Jesus is ok with porn or stoning faggots. He wouldn’t even stone a whore he councils abandon your family as you would the dead because reality is a fantasy and fantasy reality. We’re on the verge of technological singularity up against slopes with a much more pragmatic theological worldview and you think we should resurrect an old wives tale. I don’t say that lightly I’m a catholic school kid I love western civilization or did but our religion no longer serves us it serves leftists
      Besides race is stronger than ideology even for us whites when it finally comes down to it we will choose blood over religion doubt it think about all the wars Christian’s have killed each other.

      • jim says:

        > Problem is Jesus like Jefferson was a radical leftist

        You pay too much attention to demon worshiping enemy entryists who have entered Christianity to destroy it.

        Progessive Jesus, Jesus the Jewish community organizer, was invented by progressive Christians as they holiness spiraled past Christianity, adopting the view that Jesus came to reform the wicked morality of the Old Testament, and they were now improving it even further, thus holier than Jesus. That Jesus was a radical leftist. In particular, William Wilberforce and his “saints” were saintlier than Jesus, since they were greatly improving on the now out of date morality of the New Testament, as Jesus the Jewish community organizer greatly improved on the then out of date morality of the old. And your demon worshiping pastor is way saintlier than Jesus, being even saintlier than William Wilberforce and his saints.

        The actual Jesus of the New Testament was a radical rightist, upholding the faith of the old testament against holiness spiraling Pharisees, who then (like Orthodox Jews today) were endlessly conjuring up new religious laws while industriously boring loopholes in old ones.

        Jesus addressed the holiness spiral of his day, and the faith of Gnon, expressed in terms of Logos and telos, is the same address today against the holiness spiral of our day.

        The faith of Christ as the Logos retreads the path of Jesus Christ’s condemnation of the Pharisees.

        > how little interaction you have had with serious Christians.

        Enemy entryists are not serious Christians. They get distinctly and quite noticeably uncomfortable when hearing the phrase “Lord Jesus Christ”.

        Never encountered one that can speak the Nicene creed, though I hear that lots of them do speak the Nicene creed. If you encounter one that can speak the Nicene creed, watch him sweat when he speaks it for fear of bursting into flames, and hit him with the parable of the wicked vine dressers. I have never tried this, never having encountered one that can give the affirmation.

        They say “Jesus, Jesus, I love Jesus” all day long because the word “Christ” gives them the heebie jeebies.

        • Calvin says:

          But Jesus really did, as far as we know, refuse to stone or even condemn a who’re literally caught in the act. Not a Christian myself, but how does one get around that from a Christian pov?

          • jim says:

            Where is the woman’s husband in this story?

            • Calvin says:

              I would assume somewhere in crowd but it’s not like it specifies.

              • ExileStyle says:

                The story is richer and more multilayered than that:

                They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

                But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

                At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

                “No one, sir,” she said.

                “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

                One could argue that the emphasis here is more on countering the Pharisees’ worship of the law, crafty trap-setting, and general hypocrisy (perhaps the major theme of his preaching) than condoning/forgiving adultery. If they had truly believed in their law, they would have already stoned her themselves, not brought her to Jesus as a crafty test of his orthodoxy.

                But there is for sure a dose of nascent leftism here. For those who believe in historical-critical reading of the Bible, this passage only occurs in John and not the synoptic gospels. John is the most mystical and likely latest written book. This is clearly more of a Zen koan-like parable than a literal, concrete statement about how to treat adulterers. It is more “If you believe in your law then enforce your law” and none of the cowardly hypocrites did.

                Also, are we sure adulteresses *should* be stoned to death? I mean, slap a nice fat scarlet A on them and kick them out of town, sure. But stoning? This does not seem like a terrible intuition on Jesus’ part. Especially that such a stoning should not be carried out by a bunch of cowardly hypocrites who can’t take responsibility for it themselves.

                • aaa says:

                  > Also, are we sure adulteresses *should* be stoned to death? I mean, slap a nice fat scarlet A on them and kick them out of town, sure. But stoning? This does not seem like a terrible intuition on Jesus’ part. Especially that such a stoning should not be carried out by a bunch of cowardly hypocrites who can’t take responsibility for it themselves.

                  A scarlet “A”? The town did not do that because Hester committed adultery, but because she would not reveal who her partner was. Their desire to “know” this (because to the impotent, knowledge stands in for power) was pathological and tyrannical.

                • ExileStyle says:

                  The town did not do that because Hester committed adultery, but because she would not reveal who her partner was. Their desire to “know” this (because to the impotent, knowledge stands in for power) was pathological and tyrannical.

                  Thanks for the Hawthorne reading. Mainly I was using it as a figure of speech, but it was an actual practice in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in the 1640s-50s:

              • jim says:

                Jewish law rightly prescribed the death penalty for adultery, and old roman law gave the husband the authority to carry it out.

                New Roman law wiffed out, and in Israel after the Hasmodean dynasty the pharisees pushed their way into the family.

                Solomon in the book of Proverbs presupposes that the husband carries out the death penalty against a man who sleeps with his wife, but nowhere in the Old Testament does it specify who deals with the matter.

                Thing is, this a crime against the husband. So where is the husband?

                What the Pharisees were doing is pushing Jesus into endorsing Jewish law, that would get him killed by the Romans, or not endorsing Jewish law, that would discredit his religious authority.

                So, he wiffed. No one, according to him, condemned her. Thus the husband failed to condemn her.

                Solomon, in the book of Proverbs, makes it clear that the husband has authority to go easy on a male adulterer, so presumably has authority to go easy on his wife.

                So, Jesus, when saying no one condemned her, was tossing the hot potato to the husband, who wiffed, saving Jesus from having to wiff.

                • ExileStyle says:

                  Scratch what I wrote, this is the correct reading.

                  It would also have been a more obvious reading to anyone witnessing the scene in 1st century Palestine. They would have had Solomon’s words burnt into their hearts.

                  What a badass response on Jesus’ part. Imagine coming up with that on the spot. Or ever. Just perfect execution, doing ten things at once with so few words.

                  I wonder what he was writing on the ground…

                • aaa says:

                  The pericope is from the seventh century, so referring to historical circumstances is probably misleading to understand it.

                • Calvin says:

                  Huh, not a bad reading. How do you read the “do not resist an evil man” part? That’s been a troubling one for me for a while.

                • jim says:

                  The entire Sermon on the mount, taken literally, is a suicide pact.

                  It is not intended to be actually lived, but rather make the point that salvation comes from divine grace: That we do not actually deserve it.

                  Immediately after the sermon, his disciples asked him what you are asking:

                  25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?

                  26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

                  A cryptic answer then, but less cryptic now. He did that stuff so that you do not have to.

                • FrankNorman says:

                  aaa says:
                  2022-04-06 at 11:55

                  The pericope is from the seventh century, so referring to historical circumstances is probably misleading to understand it.

                  No it isn’t. We have complete manuscripts of the New Testament from the Fifth and Fourth centuries.
                  The idea that anything got added in as late as the 7th is a rather brazen piece of disinformation.

                • jim says:

                  It is obvious that the gospels were written before the fall of the temple. The question then is, were they edited significantly before the fourth century.

                  The internal evidence indicates that they were not, but no proof exists, nor can exist. What we can do is check out the supposed evidence that they were edited before the fourth century. And the people who claim editing are clearly mining for ammo, not looking for facts. Resembles global warming “research”.

                • ten says:

                  “How do you read the “do not resist an evil man” part? That’s been a troubling one for me for a while.”

                  My view is that evil is ultimately self destructive. If let loose, emancipated, empowered, it will wither and die, eventually, taking all it can with it to the void. It is headed to non existence, and by resisting it, you are preventing it from reaching its destination. When forced to act virtuously by other men, the would be sinner does not reap his wage.

                  Also note that the examples Christ gives are all minor, not existentially threatening infractions. A slap, a false lawsuit over a minor item, a mile walked. We are meant to infer the relevant cathegories from the examples, and exclude other cathegories – under existential threat, or repeated unrepentant affront, this commandment of Christ does not apply.

                  And perhaps the sinner may be reached by the grace of God through your actions.

                  The previous verses give me more trouble.

                  “34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all.” “37 All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.”

                  I know nothing of ancient hebrew customs on oaths, but as a north euro, this hits me as stark raving mad.

          • restitutor_orbis says:

            So what if he did? That doesn’t make him a Leftist. A Leftist would have denounced the stone-throwers as violating her feminist right to be a whore and condemned the patriarchy for violence against women. Instead Jesus told them, in effect, “you’re a bunch of hypocrites, gtfo.”

          • Jehu says:

            From John— my comments in between verses

            3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

            4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

            5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

            6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

            (What is Jesus writing on the ground? I suspect it is the sins of the accusers)

            7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

            8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

            (Likely writing more sins, he’s basically asking the Pharisees if they have moral standing. Guessing that this woman is a harlot and many/most of them have been her customers in the past)

            9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

            (Notice that the accusers depart in order of presumed wisdom. They know they’re burned and leave. Note that the Law requires that both parties in adultery be stoned, not just the woman)

            10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

            11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

            (Jesus has standing to stone her, but he did not come to condemn the world but to save it. There’s also the subtext here, the Pharisees really wanted Jesus to order a stoning, which is capital punishment, which was reserved strictly to the Romans, because they were looking to kill Jesus. One wonders what would have happened had they presented both parties of the adultery or have had vaguely clean hands themselves. Being the Son of God has its perks I guess).

        • aaa says:

          According to you, there are two options. “Redpill Jesus” (ie jim, but in the first century) and “commie Jesus”. Tertium not datur.


          • jim says:

            The way to avoid those two alternatives is other worldly Jesus. But other worldly Jesus winds up with gnosticism, where Christianity does not require a man to be a good friend, a reliable ally, a good husband, a good father, an obedient son, a reliable employee and a good employer. Gnostics always lost, because they could not cohere.

      • restitutor_orbis says:

        Vlad, I’ve had plenty of interaction with Christians and my sense is that you are correct that most Christians today in the US have been heavily brainwashed to view Christianity as a Left-Wing religion and Jesus as a Leftist. The fact that contemporary Christians are still Right-of-Center in the US is a testament to how far Left the Left has already progressed.

        What are, to my mind, open questions are:
        1) Was Jesus *actually* a Leftist as today’s Leftists would claim? I think the answer is no.

        2) Can a version of Christianity that supports reactionary goals be developed and promulgated that is authentic to Scripture and Tradition? I think the answer is yes.

        3) Is there a *better alternative*? I think the answer is no. I can see only a few options:

        a) Neo-Constantian Christianity (Jimianism). Good: It’s based in our Christian civilization. It has a long historical track record. It’s an easy sell, “this is what you’ve always believed.” Bad: We have to overcome pussified current Christianity.
        b) Neo-Hypsistarianism — Greco-Roman Pagan Monotheism. Good: It’s based in our classical civilization. The basic belief is highly compatible with Western civilization. It worships excellence. Bad: The beliefs, beyond the most basic, are basically lost and it would be re-created from scratch. No easy task.
        c) Neo-Zoroastrianism. Good: Nice solution to problem of evil. Encourages a “we are at war” mindset. Very based belief structure. Bad: Persian, while Aryan, is very alien to the West. Current Zoroastrianism has been pozzed, reconstructing would be hard.
        d) Neo-Paganism. Good: It’s based in our classical civilization. It worships old heroic virtues. Bad: Alienates almost all Christians with polytheism. Easy to end up worshipping demons. Feels “weak” compared to God Most High and Christ. If Christianity is right, this is a path to Hell.

        I don’t see a better option than (a). In approaching my various far-right friends, “I’ve been reading about Zoroastrianism” gets weird looks; “I’ve been reading about the monotheism of the Greeks and Romans that Christianity replaced” gets mild interest; “I’ve been reading about the warrior Christianity of the kings and crusaders who forged Western civilization” gets a request to subscribe to my newsletter.

        • Aidan says:

          The problem with Hypsistarianism is that everybody already worships excellence, even when they are told or forced to pay homage to ugliness, incapacity, and evil. Needs contradictory or unfalsifiable beliefs to keep the integrity of the faith, as a loyalty test. Because everybody already believes in excellence, Hypsistos needs a prophet to codify what is excellence with the force of divine law, or any entryist can come in and redefine excellence.

          If on the other hand Theos Hypsistos had a son, who told us how we should worship him…

          Oh wait, He did. We went around that merry-go-round two thousand years ago. Christianity it is.

          • restitutor_orbis says:

            That’s a good analysis Aidan! The question it raises in my mind is whether that means it would be a workable basis for a Jimian religion — use pagan monotheism (Hypsistarianism) rather than OT Judaism but rightly retain Christ as the Logos of Theos Hypsistos.

            I imagine that would attract to the faith those who are repelled by the Semitic or Judaic aspect of Christianity. It would create a blanker slate for us to establish the right social technologies. But it seems like it would be a much harder sell to normies.

            Please note that I’m thinking here as a propagandist or marketer and not as a theologian and I do not claim to be asserting big-T Truth. When I read certain OT and NT passages I feel I am glimpsing Truth, but I sometimes feel the same reading certain Stoic and Hypsistarian passages too.

            • restitutor_orbis says:

              ( Conversely when I read modern-day progressive interpretations of Christianity that tell me I should allow my wife to be raped without fighting back, or children to be raised trans, or whatnot, I know with certainty I’m reading Evil. )

            • Aidan says:

              “the Semitic or Judaic aspect of Christianity”

              Is demonstrably nonsense. “Semites” are a Y-haplogroup that originated in the Arabian peninsula. The original Israelites of the OT no longer exist genetically. They were pretty much all genocided by Rome, and the survivors mixed with Arabs, Khazars, and all sorts of other migrants to Judea and converts to “Judaism” to produce what we know today as Jews. (The historical irony that modern-day Israel is populated by Arabs claiming to be the natives of the Levant, in conflict with E1b Med natives claiming to be Arabs, amuses me to no end)

              That the Israelites of the OT are unfamiliar with the desert, and that they remember the Black Sea Deluge, says that they came down from the North. Note the incredible similarity between Cain and Abel and the prototypical Aryan twin brother myth. The ancient Aryans on the steppe and the ancestors of Noah hung out.

              God gave the Israelites his Law, to be his priests, and he gave the sons of Aryas the sword, to conquer. The Aryan king of the gods, who Rome called IOVE, and the Israelites called YHWH, are one and the same. And He gave us his Son just as Rome was reaching its peak of conquest, just after Rome had conquered Judea. I see a divine plan there. The Israelites who rejected Christ were destroyed, while Rome accepted Christ.

              Christ’s sacrifice also fulfills the Aryan system of ancestor worship. By sacrificing himself to himself, became the spiritual ancestor of all men, obviating the need for further sacrifices.

              But, as a propagandist, the number of people who would need this account to be convinced is tiny and insignificant.

              • alf says:

                The original Israelites of the OT no longer exist genetically.

                Really? I thought the curled black hair and larger than average nose are Israeli genetic traits supposedly going back to the OT.

                • Aidan says:

                  Curled black hair, sure. Descriptions from the OT seem to be similar to depictions in stone from Sumerian times. The hooked nose seems like an Arab trait, Y-haplogroup J to be precise.

              • restitutor_orbis says:

                The arguments for the genetic haplogroups are hard to follow because of so many conflicting or propagandistic sources. I haven’t had the time to do a deep dive. If you have a recommended writer, let me know.

                Hadn’t read/heard the Black Sea Deluge argument nor the Twin Brothers argument for a Caspian/Indo-European origin of the OT Israelites before. Thanks for presenting that.

                I worry that the number of “our people”, or at least potentially our people, who disfavor Christianity due to its affiliation with Judaism is somewhat higher than just “tiny and insignificant.” I encounter it a lot online… Arguably our entire movement is tiny, and we don’t need to really concern ourselves with any given niche of a niche, as Caesar will bring the normies and normie palatability is all that matters.

                • Pooch says:

                  The masses don’t matter. We must convert the elite, or a faction of the elite, and I highly doubt they care about this.

              • Mr.P says:

                “… the number of people who would need this account to be convinced ….”

                Count me as one who needs to be convinced.

                The “Semitic or Judaic aspect” of Christianity is a major roadblock for me. I want nothing whatsoever to do with anything Semitic or Judaic. I’d be happy to see the NT unbound in book form from the OT. Sick of the Jews and anything Jewish.

                I can’t remember which book it was, either The Controversy Of Zion (Douglas Reed) or Who We Are (William L. Pierce), that made a strong case the original non-Judahite Israelites were whites, which helped me some.

                Need a comprehensive Antiversity declaration on this issue to lay it to rest for all time.

                • jim says:

                  > The “Semitic or Judaic aspect” of Christianity is a major roadblock for me.

                  You have been listening to too many Jewish enemy entryists against Christianity.

                  Judeo Christianity is a heresy soundly and thoroughly rejected in the New Testament. Read up on the parable of the Wicked Vinedressers, and what Paul, a former pharisee, has to say about Jews.

                  If a supposed Christian denies or disowns the message of the parable of the wicked vinedressers, not a Christian, but an enemy entryist.

                  That said, I don’t think the curse on the Jews for deicide is eternal. But to lift it, they have to collectively repent of legalism, of the death of Christ, and of all the stuff the Pharisees got up to.

                • Aidan says:

                  The Jew of today has as much genetically and religiously in common with King Solomon as a mestizo brazilian pagan nazi has with the Vikings. It is like looking at the same brazilian white nationalist and saying “wow, that guy is a nigger, I want nothing to do with anything Germanic or Aryan”.

      • Pete says:

        When Leftists smugly proclaim “Jesus was Progressive,” what they mean is that Jesus said we should help the poor, and thus progressive (high) tax rates and government welfare to negroes and single mothers is “what Jesus would do.”

        But Christianity doesn’t work that way. Jesus wants you to reach into YOUR OWN POCKET to help the poor. Leftists vote Democrat – then Democrats raise my taxes to seize MY money, give a little bit to the poor, stuff some into their own pockets, then shovel the rest to weapons contractors and Israel.

        Then the Leftist gets to walk around smugly self-satisfied that he “helped the poor.” It’s completely absurd that you think this is what Jesus would want.

  29. Adam says:

    What is a safe time/event to say Christianity ended and progressivism began? Or whereabouts in history did that split occur?

    • jim says:

      There was no split.

      Progressivism has complete and unbroken continuity of organization, ideology, and personell with State Church of Massachusets.

      The faith continually changed by small degrees, so there is no point in time when you can say “before this Christian, after this post christian.

      I would say they were post Christian by 1850, but as late as 1950, still believed themselves Christian and conducted explicitly Christian rituals when graduating students and awarding professorships.

      • Anonymous Fake says:

        You think if you stare long enough in the eyes of the American Gothic guy (or even a witch burner) you can make out the reflection of a gay pride parade? Or does my explanation make the most sense [*Harvard’s story of itself and its rise deleted yet again*]

        • jim says:

          Not only can I see the gay parade in the eyes of the witch burners, so could the Spanish Inquisition.

          The theory was that there were a lot of women worshiping Satan. Likely it was true, for it is surely true now. But what got them worried was that they very rapidly came to doubt that the witch burners were worshiping Christ.

      • Adam says:

        So when considering Christian churches at least in the US, and more or less all of them being converged, do they all to this day have some sort of link to Harvard as far as personnel or is it more of an ideological link? I mean do the Baptist churches in the south and the Lutheran churches in the Midwest all have support currently at Harvard somehow or is it all in the language and the definition of words, and other softer forms of power?

        I guess what I’m trying to work out is the power structure. How does a small town church pastor in the Midwest end up a progressive and speak the words of Harvard and not know it. Obviously it’s in the language in every school. And everything on TV. But it’s deeper than that.

        I think a huge reason all this works, and Christianity keeps moving left is the women problem. Boys are conditioned by their mothers and they never break that conditioning. They never make the leap from emotional reasoning to critical thinking. All their thoughts and words and feelings are authorized my their mothers, and now their wives (and possibly daughters).

        All the pastors I have ever known, and I have had quite a few heated exchanges with several that are family or close friends, they all have an almost allergic reaction to male authority. They will pay lip service to male headship, and all that, but in the end the definition of male authority is what the female feels like it is. I tell them this and they cannot hear me. They absolutely must, must be in agreement with women, more or less at all times.

        • Yul Bornhold says:

          There exist conservative churches in the USA. These are not reactionary. They oppose progressivism from instinct and emotion, not from any coherent theory, so they don’t know what they’re doing. As others have said, they’re yesterday’s progressives, quite reasonably disturbed by the bizarre innovations of today’s progressivism but blind to the absurdities of the past.

          These conservatives can tell that contemporary views and treatment of women are very wrong but they can’t discern *how.* So they fall into what Aidan calls sacral feminism. Attacking feminism from the left.

          Is important to emphasize that this isn’t done from malice or hunger for power, as it is with the left, but from a misguided attempt to fight feminism. Dalrock discusses this at length and his view agrees with my experience.

          I have seen some peripheral groups that teach male headship, and really mean it, but they’re all strangely brittle. Have to keep verbally insisting on their authority. Bad frame. Maybe this is purple pill.

          • Kunning Drueger says:

            I think a part of this issue is the HLvM situation that has developed in conservatism IQ, wherein High IQ and Low IQ are opposed to feminism (HIQ for well though out reasons, LIQ out of instinct) but Midwitdom is staunchly Pro Woman. MIQ is merely seeking to be spared the ridicule and persecution from The Voice, it isn’t a deeply held article of faith. And this isn’t restricted to feminism, we saw it with Coronahoax as well.

            • Yul Bornhold says:

              In the primeval ages, all hunter-gatherer men were warriors. There were slaves but only as captives, not as a self-replicating class. Agriculture created the peasantry, which is to say a class of men who were not warriors. The peasantry were a deviation from the ancestral norm but they’ve now existed for thousands of years.

              The peasant is easily distinguished from the warrior because he is a natural servant. He survives by bowing his head rather than violently defending his honor. I don’t want to be so judgmental as to call this cowardice but it certainly requires less courage than the warrior.

              The merchant class, the city dweller, the low urbanite, stands a degree lower than the peasant. The peasant can’t survive if displaced from his land. This lends him at least a stand-your-ground bravery. If expelled, the urbanite adapts to another city.

              The defining feature of the cuckservative is cowardice. He constantly cringes before the lash which feels bad, so he copes with bravado about violence towards even less favored outgroup. How many cringey conservative denunciations of “nazis” have we heard? What is the conservative rage against Russia except cope for political impotency? This is a slave class that pretends to be free.

              Of course, we don’t have to live like this, not the peasants nor even the soft urbanites. When a soft pig goes wild, its sons grow tusks, ready to gore.

          • Adam says:

            Yeah that makes sense. I’ve been to a lot of churches, really big really small, Baptist, Lutheran, Evangelical and non-denominational. They all had that same “arguing from the left” based on emotion and instinct way about them as you put it.

            All the guys there are all like you said really good guys, nothing overtly evil about them. They have demons though. They always were threatened by the idea that the husband should speak for his wife, and everything along that line.

            I really think the source of this is boys who were obedient to there mothers before being obedient to their wife, and never thinking there could be any other way. It has to be deeper than just Harvard, even if they are the capital of progressivism. There’s something much deeper and more organic to it.

            Maybe this is implied by Jim and others and I missed it.

          • Pooch says:

            These are not reactionary. They oppose progressivism from instinct and emotion, not from any coherent theory, so they don’t know what they’re doing. As others have said, they’re yesterday’s progressives, quite reasonably disturbed by the bizarre innovations of today’s progressivism but blind to the absurdities of the past.

            Not all.

            The Presbyterian Church in America has (not to be confused with the mainline Presbyterian Church USA), like our current state religion, complete continuity of organization and personnel going back all the way to the ministers kicked out of the Church of England by Charles the Second except they are not doing now what they were doing then.

            They are still, to my shock and disbelief, preaching strict adherence to the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Westminster Standards. Jim likes the Book of Common Prayer and 39 Articles but I see no institution preaching it. This social technology is buried 6 ft underground.

            What I do see is an old living breathing institution, with its presbytery governance structure allowing for a strategy of continual Exit against entryists (and they likely will need to exit again in the future), preaching the Westminster Confession of Faith which is centuries old working social technology. Yes these Christians are blue-pilled and male headship is brittle by historical standards of Christians, but they are reproducing as others have noted. Men with 3+ kids and 10+ grandchildren is not uncommon.

            To my surprise, Christianity lives as something more than a mustard seed in the old historic Presbyterian Churches of the Southern Anglo, whose faith was not sufficiently suppressed during Reconstruction.

            I present to Jim for this to be the official faith of the Restoration, an old rival of Puritanism which traces its roots to Colonial America and is still preached in beautiful historic and new southern Churches to this day.

            We present this faith to a Caesar, or a Cromwell, or a Napoleon and this necessarily means the restoration will look more like Cromwell’s Protectorate than Charles II’s England. Although not as ideal of having the King back male headship of family, Cromwells men backing male headship is not bad.

            Examples of Old Historic Churches still practicing old Christianity:

            Example of Beautiful new church practicing old Christianity:

            • Yul Bornhold says:

              I am not unfamiliar with the PCA. You might also consider the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (not eastern orthodox), an earlier branch from the same tree.

              It is because of groups like this that I bear some love for conservatives. They’re fundamentally Amerikaner; decent and good natured folk.

              And they’re definitely not reactionary.

              The Westminster Confession of Faith is a theological document, not a social treatise. It is neither red nor blue pilled because it comes from a context that *assumes* red pill. Wrenched from this context by history, it no longer preserves red pill.

              This is the social life of such people:

              They believe in equality between the sexes. They also strive to believe the Bible according to its plain meaning, which plainly forbids women as pastors. They do not understand the reason for this teaching but they accept it. As such, they’re constantly inventing new theories to justify it but, lacking the real reason, none of these are ever satisfying.

              I recall one protestant pastor teaching that “in the new testament historical context, women were venerated above men because they could give birth. God made the pastors exclusively male to balance out this society wide elevation of females.”

              PCA and other conservative Christian groups originate as splits from the mainstream liberal denominations. As such, they exist in a shrinking sub-cultural bubble, which they are unable to maintain. In these bubbles, there exists significant (but diminishing) pressure against a woman whoring around. Christian colleges are instructive. A large portion of women are sluts. I don’t know the percentage. There is also a significant portion of women who are either virgin or sexually inexperienced.

              How is this possible?

              It probably stems from vestigial and no longer understood social dynamics. If group believes (X) music is ungodly, teen girl won’t go to concert to fuck rockstar. Likewise, if the men sincerely believe they shouldn’t fornicate before marriage, they’re less likely to pressure the girls, who are consequently more likely to grow older intact. Note that these are far from assured measures, hence the prevalence of sluts in such colleges.

              Because these social measures are no longer understood, they’ve been fading for some time. I’ve heard a great many conservative authorities (along with no few “hail, fellow christian” types) rail against the horrible pressure on women to marry young. They believe in “compatibility.”

              Not surprisingly, large segments of the younger generations are failing to marry. Because reasonably high IQ, not reproducing either. I can think of several women in their 30s who would like to have been married long before but is not going to happen. All rather sad.

              Of course, you could say the same and worse of other religions. The Cathedral is pervasive. But Exit is not and cannot and cannot be a useful strategy against entryists. You don’t win by conceding. Nor is antiquity and continuity a safeguard of reaction.

              • Pooch says:

                And they’re definitely not reactionary.

                The Westminster Confession of Faith is a theological document, not a social treatise. It is neither red nor blue pilled because it comes from a context that *assumes* red pill. Wrenched from this context by history, it no longer preserves red pill.

                The Westminster Standards combined with the Bible is old working social technology that allows for reproduction and cooperate/cooperate of the sexes for a potential reaction.

                Early Christianity was not all that impressive when it was out of power. A group of socially ostracized killjoy martyrs. The moment Constantine painted the symbols of Jesus Christ on his shield is when Christianity became mighty impressive indeed.

                Continual Exit is not a long term strategy against entryists, but it is a strategy that can allow organized Christianity to survive until Constantine arrives.

              • Pooch says:

                PCA and other conservative Christian groups originate as splits from the mainstream liberal denominations

                The PCA is a 2nd split, the 1st originating from the split of churches during the Civil War, for which it never recanted from. I am not aware of any group that can claim roots that old.

            • jim says:

              I am astonished. I thought organized Christianity was dead.

              Also suspicious. What do they preach to fathers on father’s day?

              • Pooch says:

                What do they preach to fathers on father’s day?

                Not quite sure. Will investigate further. They have been fighting against Harvard influences for a long time and have been under continual attack from gay preachers and somehow have survived, likely only possible to the presbytery structure that allows for the real Christians to exit with their property.

              • Reformed says:

                I am a member of a PCA church, and have attended a number of PCA churches over the years, as well as CREC churches (Pastor Doug Wilson’s more conservative offshoot of PCA).

                The PCA churches I’ve attended keep the church calendar and skip all secular holidays, meaning they don’t do father’s day sermons (or mother’s day, or 4th of July, election season, etc.). The belief is that Christianity is the priority in church, so secular holidays/events have no bearing on what is being taught. Occasionally current events will be used to highlight a point being made in a sermon, but the sermon is never based around the holiday/event.

                Keep in mind that PCA churches choose their own type of worship service, so they can vary between “contemporary” and “traditional liturgical”. I don’t have as much experience with the churches that offer “contemporary” services, so my sample size may be biased.

                Again, these folks are generally not red-pilled as we understand it. IMO one of the key factors for the PCA’s success is that we hold that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, which raises the IQ bar for entryism (eg it’s extremely difficult to argue that gay is ok when you can’t twist the Bible any way you want). Churches that can say “the Bible clearly states X is not ok” can stay more-or-less red-pilled, or at least less blue pilled, as evidenced by the number of kids running around these churches.

                • jim says:

                  The bible also says that women should not speak in Church – the Roman Catholics wiggle around this by having women deacons who perform priestly roles while not officially priests and by giving them teaching roles over other people’s sons. Childless postmenopausal women frequently hate other people’s children if they have no nephews and nieces – it is a notorious postmenopausal pathology. Does not happen all the time, but it happens alarmingly often.

                  More importantly the bible says that women should obey their husbands, and if their husbands are badly behaved and give wicked commands, should obey anyway while humbly and respectfully inspiring their husband to do better.

                  It says women should humbly, respectfully, and fearfully obey even bad husbands giving bad commands.

                  This is the critical issue of our time. What does your church say on male headship and female headed families? Does it celebrate single mother for not aborting their children without inquiring why they became single mothers?

                  My wife frequently excuses bad female conduct on the basis that there is a shortage of good men. To which I reply that women do not fuck good men, and if they were willing to fuck good men, would encounter no shortage.

                  Nowhere in the bible does it say that men should love their wives, and wives should love their husbands. It says that men should cherish their wives like their own flesh, and wives should obey and fear their husbands.

                  With great regularity my wife gives me the love and friends shit tests, and with great regularity I easily pass them.

                  “We are not friends”

                  “Men and women can never be friends”

                  “I love you”

                  “That is a good girl”

                  Wife lectures me on some bad and wicked decision

                  “You are my better half, but you should obey me respectfully even when I am wrong”

                  These tests are considerably easier to pass if you are the priest of your household, and speak with divine authority.

                  Does your Church back men in passing these shit tests?

                  If you cannot pass even these standard easy to pass shit tests, your marriage will crumble. And it is tough to pass them without social support. Does your Church provide that support?

                  If your faith fails to give men social support in passing shit tests, that faith will not be able to expand biologically. There will be no children in the pews. Does your Church give men social support in passing shit tests? Are their children in the pews?

                  In order to get married, I had to plough my way through a sea of whores. And I would tell the whores that though I am a very bad man, I am looking for a good woman. If I had told them I was a good man, in addition to that being blatantly untrue, I would have gotten no pussy. Good women do not fuck good men, and then wonder why they encounter a shortage of marriageable men.

                • Neofugue says:

                  > Do they celebrate single mothers for not aborting their children without inquiring why they became single mothers?

                  The “pro-life” movement in one simple question.

                • Anonymous says:

                  While you’re right that the Roman Catholics wriggle around a lot about women, as of now they technically do not have women deacons either. Only men can be deacons, but women do readings sometimes or have teaching roles in Sunday school, and girls sometimes are “altar girls”.

                  There has been whispers that women might be allowed to become deacons soon but it still has never happened for Roman Catholics

                • i says:

                  “and if their husbands are badly behaved and give wicked commands should obey anyway while humbly and respectfully inspiring their husband to do better.”

                  6If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you embrace, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (which neither you nor your fathers have known, 7the gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, whether from one end of the earth or the other), 8you must not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity, and do not spare him or shield him.

                  9Instead, you must surely kill him. Your hand must be the first against him to put him to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10Stone him to death for trying to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. 11Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and will never again do such a wicked thing among you.

                • i says:

                  Apologies for not including commentary on that quote. But I don’t think a woman is obligated to obey in all circumstances like being commanded to Idolatry or to murder in extreme cases.

                  But in everything else she is to obey.

                  As Christians we are to be normatively submissive and obedient to the Civil Authorities:

                  “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover–up for evil; live as servants of God.”

                  (1 Peter 2:13–25)

                  Romans 13:1–2,
                  “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.”

                  But when the commands directly contradict God himself who made evident to us the Divine Law(No including the ceremonial and sacrificial law fulfilled in Christ Jesus) Then we must obey God rather than Men:

                  “28“We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us responsible for this man’s blood.” 29But Peter and the other apostles replied, “We must obey God rather than men. ”

                  (Acts 5:28-29)

                • Reformed says:


                  Women speaking in church – zero. Across multiple churches.

                  Women in leadership – zero. No women pastors, elders, or deacons.

                  Male headship – this is where the pastors can get wiggly, depending on the pastor. Again, due to the belief in the inerrancy of Scripture, all of them will agree the father is the head of the household and that wives should obey the husband.

                  Some of them – I’ve consistently seen this with Boomer pastors – will immediately follow that up with some version of “but the Bible also commands the husband to love the wife, and the husband shouldn’t be a tyrant”. They are clearly nervous about potential blowback.

                  Younger pastors seem more immune to this. I was a member at a smaller, blue-collar-ish church (~75 people), with a Gen X pastor, and he had no qualms about male headship and wifely obedience. Neither did the congregation. That pastor had several kids and a very sweet, submissive wife.

                  My current church is much larger and very white collar, ie filled with members who have gone through pozzed “higher education”. The pastors definitely use a softer tone than the small church pastor, but when pressed, will stick by their guns, albeit with varying levels of discomfort.

                  Interestingly, the only one who doesn’t seem uncomfortable with stating the Biblical position plainly also is the only one who works out. High-testosterone truly has a spiritual element to it.

                • jim says:

                  > all of them will agree the father is the head of the household and that wives should obey the husband.

                  As Dalrock points out, they get mighty creative on interpreting this.

                • Adam says:


                  “Interestingly, the only one who doesn’t seem uncomfortable with stating the Biblical position plainly also is the only one who works out. High-testosterone truly has a spiritual element to it.”

                  It’s how the man values pussy, weather it is scarce or abundant.

                  A side note, something I’ve noticed about the purple pilled pastors especially. People don’t take risks with scarce resources. These men don’t take risks with their wives. Their behavior towards their wives is like how a mother protects her children (overbearing compassion, failure to hold them accountable).

                  Instead of becoming the wife’s daddy they become their mother.

                • Reformed says:

                  >> all of them will agree the father is the head of the household and that wives should obey the husband.

                  >As Dalrock points out, they get mighty creative on interpreting this.

                  Absolutely true. I’ve seen them muddy the water so much the audience ends up with no idea what they meant. I haven’t seen outright inversion at a PCA church (yet).

                  So they may not be actively helping fathers, but they don’t seem to be actively antagonistic either. My guess is that allows fathers enough leeway to manage their families.

                  Opinions aside, the results speak for themselves: I’ve attended several PCA churches with TFRs well above 2.1 and virtually no divorce. Something is working. It’s not ideal, but I haven’t found a better option, and it may last long enough to be in place for the next Restoration.

                • Neurotoxin says:

                  “The bible also says that women should not speak in Church.”

                  Mulier taceat in ecclesia.

            • Yul Bornhold says:

              Protestantism has always and necessarily borne the seed of revolution. “Every man a priest” strikes at the heart of reaction, which dictates that religion must be channeled constructively.

              To illustrate the point, will excerpt from the great Puritan epic, Paradise Lost:

              “Long time in peace by Families and Tribes
              Under paternal rule; till one shall rise
              Of proud ambitious heart, who not content
              With fair equalitie, fraternal state,
              Will arrogate Dominion undeserv’d
              Over his brethren, and quite dispossess
              Concord and law of Nature from the Earth,
              Hunting (and Men not Beasts shall be his game)
              With Warr and hostile snare such as refuse
              Subjection to his Empire tyrannous:”

              Note how John Milton assumes families, tribes and paternal rule. Decidedly not feminist. However, he argues for equality and a fraternal state; rejecting kingship and more generally hierarchical authority. We all know how well such equality and brotherhood works in practice.

              That is the ancestor of the PCA. Yes, it was red pilled but its not anymore because Protestantism is unstable. One’s own conscience and reason as highest authority has (and will inevitably) corrupt the religion.

              Even in the early centuries of the Reformation, there were deranged sects like the Levellers, explicitly calling for the equality of women, celibates like the Shakers and wretched pacifists like the Quakers.

              Christianity isn’t a religion that *works* without formal organizational claim to authority. Could make a religious argument to this effect as well. Perhaps another time.

              • Pooch says:

                That is the ancestor of the PCA.

                Puritanism was not an ancestor to PCA but a peer. Both derive from Calvinism. The problem with the American Puritans were they were Congregationalist and thus had no official hierarchy.

                Presbyterianism is hierarchy of assemblies instead of bishops. The General Assembly meets to vote on issues. This is what Cromwell attempted to implement into the Church of England during his rule.

                • Yul Bornhold says:

                  Yes, assemblies. The problem is that Presbyterianism has no theological *authority* for condemning other beliefs. All they can say is “We’re a bunch of guys and we don’t like what you’re doing.” And they can quit. Now the pope can say “I’m appointed by God to rule. You must do what I say.”

                  You, a reactionary, don’t actually believe that any particular Church has been authorized by the Creator of the universe. You’ve just observed that some beliefs undermine a civilization whereas others strengthen it. So you say to yourself “Come the restoration, it state authority can support the beliefs that foster civilization.”

                  That’s true to a degree but remember the place of women. Male authority, backed by God, keeps men in line far better than simple male force alone.

                  In the same way, a Church, backed by God, is far stronger than a Church that exists as consensus of smart people. (In fact, you undermine the consensus of smart people/assemblies when the state starts enforcing certain interpretations as correct.)

                • Adam says:

                  You can absolutely say as a reactionary that your faith is backed by God, or Gnon, or the creator of the universe.

                  You are in power, or are exercising the will of Gnon in taking power. Might makes right. You can say it.

                • Pooch says:

                  Oliver Cromwell said it as Lord Protector and proceeded to make Presbyterianism the State Church of England and Scotland. It can be said again.

                • aaa says:


                • jim says:

                  Make the affirmation.

                  You are confidently telling us what true Christianity is, but I am becoming increasingly skeptical that you are a Christian, or know much at all about Christianity.

                • jim says:

                  > The problem with the American Puritans were they were Congregationalist and thus had no official hierarchy

                  Someone always steps into a power vacuum.

                  They had an officially unofficial hierarchy, as their ideological descendants still do today.

                  If you don’t have an apparatus for making one decision for all, on matters where you do in fact need one decision for all, you will get such an apparatus anyway, and being furtive, it will be dysfunctional and evil.

                • The Cominator says:

                  RE the subversion of congregationalists New England churches by Demon worshippers…

                  The Southern Baptists resisted this and have the same decentralized congregationalist system. I think the problem is the New Englanders trusted the intellectuals from Harvard while the Southerners were rightfully massively paranoid.

                  Decentralization works with enough paranoia…

                • Pooch says:

                  The Southern Baptists resisted this and have the same decentralized congregationalist system.

                  Uh Have they? The SBC keeps re-writing its Baptist Faith and Message to update with the times. Women can do everything except be pastors now. There’s a reason their membership has been trending downward since 2005. They are slowly being converged.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The SBC is pozzed but its the congregations ignoring them that has saved them…

                • Pooch says:

                  The SBC is pozzed but its the congregations ignoring them that has saved them…

                  That’s not something sustainable in the long run nor something desirable for a state religion.

                  Need a hierarchy for a state religion.

                • FrankNorman says:

                  “Now the pope can say “I’m appointed by God to rule. You must do what I say.””

                  Sure he can, but that doesn’t make it true.

                  Truth isn’t whatever some so-called “authority figure” decides it is. If you want to say a thing is God’s will, then prove your case from Scripture.
                  If you can’t, then don’t blather on about “muh authority”.

                  The problem with having a Pope, is that the Pope is really just a fallen fallible human like anyone else. And so are the people who advise him. And such people will over time become corrupt, and teach doctrine according to what will line their own pockets.

                  If you can’t think for yourself, can’t read the Bible, look at evidence and follow rational argument, but need to live by “Simon says”… then you might find out too late that the Simon you’ve been following was actually Simon Magus.

                • jim says:

                  Pope had a point.

                  The job of the priesthood is to construct consensus. You want everyone playing by the same rules, and you need to know what the rules are.

                  So, at some point you need one guy who authoritatively says what the consensus is.

                  Reading the Bible can cause trouble. It is deliberately full of contradictions. Often the same writer in the same book of the Bible will contradict himself. And people will snatch one clause out of context, out of the context of all the other things that writer said and out of the context of the bible, grab one end of a contradiction and run with it, throwing the rest of the Bible in the ditch.

                  I don’t think the laity should be reading the Bible for themselves without mortal guidance from authority. But right now there is no real alternative, because all organized religion has to a greater or lesser extent been corrupted by state sponsored enemy entryism, though Russian Orthodoxy is recovering behind Putin’s nukes.

                  But obviously you don’t want that mortal to have unlimited power. The Roman Catholic Church, which was the legitimate Church of Rome, schismed from Orthodoxy because the Bishop of Rome coveted what was Caesar’s, and refused to act collegially. He then issued a whole bunch of heresies, the central heresy being apostolic succession from CaesarPeter.

                  The Protestant reformers went too far in rejecting Bishops and apostolic succession. They were right that the Pope does not have apostolic succession from Peter. Peter does not have apostolic succession from Peter, because when the heat came down, he abandoned his post and went underground. In the days of apostles, James the Just, brother of Jesus was head of the Church of Jerusalem, because Peter pulled a disappearing act. James the Just was martyred with his wife at his post, and eventually they found Peter and martyred him also.

                  From the days of the apostles to present day Orthodoxy, the Church has operated with collegial authority, no a single authoritative leader with divine appointment.

                  The Pope was just the Bishop of Rome, and rest of the Roman Church can fire him. If we had a half plausibly Christian Caesar in Rome, Caesar can fire him, as Solomon killed Ahimelech, fired Abiathar, and appointed Zadok. The Church of Rome was pre-eminent only because Caesar resided in Rome. When Caesar moved to Constantinople, ceased to be pre-eminent.

                  Apostolic succession is Biblically attested. Anyone with apostolic succession can grant someone else apostolic succession, and the Lord can grant apostolic succession himself directly, as he did with Saint Paul. Kind of like the old feudal system where any knight can make someone else a knight. Apostolic succession is, like feudalism, a somewhat anarchic system of authority, and the papal claim that it is a completely centralized and divine ordained system of authority is unambiguously heretical. But so is the extreme protestant position of no apostolic succession and no centralized mortal authority heretical. They went much too far, abandoning the central job that priests should be performing.

                  Apostolic succession is attested in the Bible as a divine ordained system of authority. But, like feudalism, a distinctly anarchic system of authority.

                • Pooch says:

                  But so is the extreme protestant position of no apostolic succession and no centralized mortal authority heretical. They went much too far, abandoning the central job that priests should be peforming.

                  The Presbyterianism system of General Assembly instead of one man priestly rule can work, has worked, is working now.

                • Pooch says:

                  though Russian Orthodoxy is recovering behind Putin’s nukes.

                  Uh..are they? Putin has been in power for 20 years now. Is Russia reproducing yet? Are Russians attending church in Russia? Where was the Russian Orthodox Church when Moscow bent the knee to the Covid Demon?

                • Pooch says:

                  Where was the Russian Orthodox Church when Moscow bent the knee to the Covid Demon?

                  Oh I see now.

                  “Vaccinate or repent, Russian church says amid hundreds of daily COVID-19 deaths”


                • The Cominator says:

                  “Oliver Cromwell said it as Lord Protector and proceeded to make Presbyterianism the State Church of England and Scotland. It can be said again.”

                  Just noted this comment and its not correct, Cromwell was an “independent” (congregationalist).

                  You seem to have too high a view of the Presbyterians, Boston and Mass Bay was run by Presbyterian control freaks not congregationalist seperatists. If you want to look at bad things done by the Puritan groups here is as follows.

                  Presbyterians: Started the war in both Scotland (originally) and England. Responsible for 95% of the moral busybodiness of Puritanism (which is why I attribute modern progressivism more to them). These people are very interested in making sure everyone around them lives up to their standards in exacting detail… While the extremely radical Diggers and Fifth Monarchists sects were not Presbyterians the sect that founded Boston and Harvard definitely were.

                  Independents: Won the war against Charles the Presbyterians started. Eventually forced the execution of Charles (the Presbyterians kept balking at this despite the fact it was clear Charles would not ever surrender for real). Not especially interested in the moral life of people who weren’t the elect unless they were part of some group that threatened them (the brief rule of the Major Generals was Cromwell making a concession to Presbyterians that was revoked as soon as it became clear how unpopular it was). This group founded Plymouth not Boston… Plymouth/Cape Cod are a more easygoing and fun loving kind of people to this day.

                • jim says:

                  > While the extremely radical Diggers and Fifth Monarchists sects were not Presbyterians the sect that founded Boston and Harvard definitely were.

                  The Diggers and Fifth Monarchists were not busybodies, because out of power and in great danger of forcible repression, which forcible repression Cromwell eventually applied. But they had immense and alarming potential to become extremely lethal Khmer Rouge style busybodies, particularly the Fifth Monarchists.

                  Marxism is Marx reading up on the Diggers and Fifth Monarchists in the British library reading room in the British Museum, and doing to Jewish Global supremacist Judaism what the Diggers and Fifth Monarchists did to Christianity.

                • Pooch says:

                  Cromwell’s Church of England during the Commonwealth was a Presbyterian hierarchy structure, not Congregationalist.

                  The radical Puritan Congregationalists fled to America and started the Massachusetts Bay Colony with a State Church of Congregationalism.

                  The American Presbyterians founded Princeton and were viewed as an ally but also somewhat of a rival by the Congregationalists who founded Harvard and Yale.

                  They tried to cooperate during the “Plan of Union of 1801” but eventually tensions caused the plan to collapse as the Congregationalists were becoming too radically left wing. Presbyterians also were being entryed by leftists causing divisions between “Old School” and “New School” Presbyterianism.

                  The “Old School” Presbyterians eventually split during the Civil War and the “New School” Northern Presbyterians became consumed by Harvard.

                  And thus began the War of Aggression by Northern Heretics against the Christian South.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I’ve never read any source that says there was a ruling body of elders setting policy for the church of England under Cromwell… not after Pride’s Purge anyway. If there was any central authority uniting the congregations it was the army and Cromwell himself.

                  This would mean that Cromwell’s Church settlement (even if the term “Church of England” was still used by some it had no central authority other than as I said Cromwell himself) was de facto congregationalist.

                • Pooch says:

                  I’ve never read any source that says there was a ruling body of elders setting policy for the church of England under Cromwell

                  Read about the Westminster Assembly. Parliament eventually adopted a presbyterian form of church government after the Westminster Assembly.

                  In terms of what was actually implemented in practice I’m not quite sure I’m still researching that further. 1/4 of the Anglican priests were ad-hoc rebelling against new government structure as well.

                • Pooch says:

                  Ah so it looks like you’re right the plan was never actually fully implemented in force before the Restoration.

                  In July 1647, the New Model Army invaded London and conservative members of Parliament were forced out. Parliament passed an ordinance establishing religious tolerance and ensuring that the Assembly’s vision of a national, compulsory presbyterian church would never come to fruition.[72] In London, where support for presbyterianism was greatest, presbyteries were established in only sixty-four of 108 city parishes, and regional presbyterian classes were only formed in fourteen of England’s forty counties. A planned national general assembly never met.[73] Many presbyterians did, however, establish voluntary presbyteries in what was a de facto free church situation until the Restoration in 1660, when a compulsory episcopal system was reinstated.


                • The Cominator says:

                  The diggers were proto commies and all commies are busybodies… they weren’t presbyterians though.

                  Not sure wtf the 5th monarchists were… weird gnostic cultish sect that defies easy categorization especially given that i can’t seem to find sources that said exactly what it was that they believed.

                • Pooch says:

                  The Diggers and Fifth Monarchists were not busybodies, because out of power and in great danger of forcible repression, which forcible repression Cromwell eventually applied. But they had immense and alarming potential to become extremely lethal Khmer Rouge style busybodies, particularly the Fifth Monarchists.

                  The Fifth Monarchists were repressed by Charles II not Cromwell.

                  Cromwell might have had some of the Diggers locked but for craziness but I don’t know if he did all that much to suppress those to his left, which likely was a factor in the instability in his regime.

              • aaa says:

                Typical “reactionary” fallacy: opposition to tyranny is opposition to authority. Same shit as Moldbug telling us to get the clot shot because “the right of rebellion is a revolutionary idea”. Stupid.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  The argument of 17th century modernists basically amounts to ‘every being every where just needs to be smart every time’.

                  Sounds nice; how stable is that equilibrium though?

              • Yay Harvard! says:

                > Might makes right. You can say it.

                Harvard has the might, Harvard is the right.

                • jim says:

                  Might only makes right when might is a stationary bandit. The incapacity for cohesive action causes the Cathedral to act more like mobile bandits, as was hilariously revealed in the Haiti earthquake relief effort. A bunch of Harvard PhDs equipped with billions of dollars of earthquake relief money grabbed power from the midwit mulatto thugs running the place, and proceeded to do immensely more damage and create immensely more suffering than the earthquake had, because the midwit mulatto thugs were stationary bandits, while the Harvard PhDs were carryon baggers.

                  Harvard increasingly lacks might, because the holiness spiral makes it increasingly incapable of coherent collective action – which declining capacity for collective action will likely be revealed when they get around to removing and replacing Biden, or attempt to intervene directly on the borders of Russia.

                  Shaniqua is running their weapons engineers, and Rachel Levine is running their military.

                  Harvard is a paper tiger, and sooner or later, in response the chaos and weakness, Caesar is going to act. I hope and pray sooner, because the later he acts, the more blood will have been spilled, and the more blood will need to be spilled for a stationary bandit to quell the ever more radical faith.

                  Scripture says that Kings are divinely appointed, and in this sense does say that might makes right, but the relevant scriptures presuppose agreement on who the King is, and that that agreement is unlikely to change unexpectedly and unpredictably. In the language of the Dark Enlightenment, stationary bandits are divinely appointed and deserve obedience – but only if they successfully make themselves sufficiently stationary.

                  The situation frequently arises, as with Constantine, when the question is which Caesar and which priesthood of which Caesar deserves obedience. Constantine claimed, and perhaps had, divine command to act in the name of the Lord at a time when there were far too many Caesars. In acting, he rejected the authority of the official priesthood of the walking dead official zombie religion that infested his army.

                  In such a situation, which has arisen many times in the past, and is likely to arise soon again in the future, the Dark Enlightenment wisdom to give obedience to the Caesar whose priesthood is likely to produce and maintain consensus on the bandit being sufficiently stationary, and the Christian faith is to give obedience to the Caesar whose claim to divine authority is most plausible, or least implausible.

              • Oog en Hand says:

                A case could be made that Protestants are worse than Muslims. They should be a target for forced conversion. Destroy all copies of the KJV, in particular the New Testament, and replace them by the Vulgate.

                • jim says:

                  Church of England gave us science, the Industrial Revolution, and Empire.

                  The thirty nine articles are sound theology, which seems to reprimand all the defects of various protestant sects.

                  What is the problem with the Church of England from 1660 to 1820?

                  Newton was buried in Westminster Abbey.

                  OK, Anglican Church is now run by post christians, but the Vatican is now run by demon worshipping faggots.

                  Papacy was heretical from the great schism onwards, and got more and more heretical, though after the counter reformation most of the worst heresies, though still theoretically official doctrine today, were stuffed into the memory hole behind the water heater in the basement.

                  At the time of the dissolution of the monasteries, the monasteries and nunneries were grossly decadent and corrupt.

                  You don’t like Protestantism? Well, there are an alarming number of protestant sects, and a whole lot of them have a whole lot to not like. But what is wrong with the Christianity of the thirty nine articles and the book of common prayer?

                • The Cominator says:

                  And the Jesuits are responsible for the Covid scam, Papists who want to say bad things about other religions should look to themselves 1st.

                  Also the Vulgate was also written by celibacy proponent “Saint” Jerome.

                • Pooch says:

                  What is the problem with the Church of England from 1660 to 1820?

                  Not even remotely as virtuous as the faith of Cromwell. Cromwell had 9 children by one wife. Charles the Second had the faith of a nigger with 13 illegitimate children and 0 legitimate children. There is no comparison is virtue.

                  We want the faith of Cromwell and the Westminster Confession with proper church heiarchy, not extremist Puritan Congregationalism.

                  The 39 articles is dead and buried. The Westminster Confession lives in the Presbyterian Churches on the Unsubjugated Southern Anglo.

                • jim says:

                  Cromwell came to power in a holiness spiral, and so was very holy. But nonetheless genuinely Christian and less holy than Christ. When he realized the holiness spiral was heading into madness, evil, and postchristianity, he shut it down. And, with no more apples rolling because no more apple carts being knocked over, the holiness spiral that brought him to power expired, and left his son high and dry.

                  The restoration was necessarily a drop to much lesser level of holiness. And a good thing too. OK, the lack of personal virtue was kind of bad, but the sanity was very very good.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Charles II’s wife was barren its not as if he didn’t try. The problem was he should have accepted the exclusion of the papist fool James in favor of his illegitimate son Monmouth.

                  He also should have annulled his barren marriage ala Henry VIII to Catherine of Aragon.

                • Pooch says:

                  The restoration was necessarily a drop to much lesser level of holiness. And a good thing too. OK, the lack of personal virtue was kind of bad, but the sanity was very very good.

                  A drop to much lesser virtue eventually bit hard during the Queen Caroline debacle. The radical extreme virtue of Cromwell put man on the moon.

                  The Book of Common Prayer

                • Pooch says:

                  The Book of Common Prayer And 39 Articles exists only as words on this blog. The Westminster Standards, a superior faith, that put man on the moon exist in the much more sane faction of Presbyterian Churches that trace lineage to the Commonwealth.

                • Ghost says:

                  You mention the +BCP that I am familiar with, being Episcopal. I no longer attend though. Last I went, there was a woman doing the service and a pink haired female in the pews drawing pictures of devils. That I cannot abide. It wasn’t always this way.

                • Pooch says:

                  The problem was he should have accepted the exclusion of the papist fool James in favor of his illegitimate son Monmouth.

                  If there’s anyone that should be a hardcore Cromwellian Westminster Confessional Protestant is should be you Com. It’s explicitly written into the doctrine that the Pope is the Antichrist.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The problem with Presbyterianism as a state religion is you end up ruled by an excessively holy theological equivalent of the type of busybodies who staff homeowners associations (and furthermore these type of assholes tend to be betas henpecked and controlled by status seeking wives)… out of power its fine but you don’t want them in power. This is where I reluctantly agree with Jim that the state church need a high priest (since Congregationalism is too close to a vacuum to be sustainable)…

                  Congregationalists England crushed Presbyterian (Covenanter Scotland) and I don’t think it was coincidental.

                • jim says:

                  The Roman Catholic position on Apostolic Succession from Peter is unambiguously heretical, and the Roman Catholic Church came up with it when the Pope was commanding armies in the field, coveting what was Caesar’s, and because coveting Kingdoms, not rectories, needed strong centralized authority.

                  The earthly job of the priesthood is forming consensus on the implementation of social technology. This requires that authority be substantially distributed. But not distributed to all believers.

                  The position of most protestant groups, no apostolic succession at all, is also heretical. New Testament position is hierarchy, authority, but collegial authority. A relatively small number of bishops with considerable authority, decisions by consensus, top leader is merely the authoritative voice of the consensus, and if he finds he has no consensus, shuts up. Hiearachical and authoritarian in the way feudalism was hierarchical and authoritarian, not hierarchical and authoritarian the way an army is hierarchical and authoritarian, or even the way a well run corporation is hierarchical and authoritarian.

                  The Church depicted in the New Testament had Bishops. It had a leader, but it did not have a Pope. The leader was merely the voice of the consensus, not the CEO. And this is in fact how a priesthood needs to operate.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Here’s the way I see it… Theological consensus with power is a dangerous thing (and I’m surprised to here you talk about it), but so is theological autocracy.

                  The monarch has to be viewed as God’s representative on earth, the throne gives power to the altar and the altar sanctifies the throne. As such the high priests must be accountable to God’s representative the monarch… but theology should be defined heavily by well known tradition so that any monarch who says that Jesus ordained drag queen story hour can be deemed a madman who has forfeited the trust placed in him by God…

                  So I guess theological consensus can be appealed to, but it must be consensus based on ancient writing of well accepted men. Trying to make new consensus… needs to be treated as entryism.

                • jim says:

                  Exactly so. If you have running code, modify with care under thorough unit test.

                  And for social technology, unit test takes a very long time.

                  The equivalent of Chesterton’s fence in software engineering is that if you have a whole pile of code, and you don’t know what it does, you are an idiot if you do a rewrite.

                • Pooch says:

                  Rather lengthy scriptural basis for Presbyterian from of church government:

                  First, rule by elders alone is found in the Bible. Of course, after Christ’s resurrection and His ascension shortly after Pentecost (Acts chapters 1 & 2), the Apostles ruled. The Apostle Paul took it upon himself to declare what the will of Christ was for the church. In Ephesians 4:11& 12 he says, “He (Christ) gave (to the church) some as apostles, some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ.” These were the gifted men that Jesus raised up to build the New Testament Church (which was the continuing of Israel which was the Old Testament “Church”).

                  Now we know that somewhere near the end of the first century all of the apostles were dead. During the early years of the Church, however, while the New Testament was in the process of formation, prophets existed, through whom Jesus sent specific messages to His Church. All of the apostles had the prophetic gift, but some who were not apostles also wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Such men included Mark, Luke, James and Jude the brothers of our Lord, and the writer of Hebrews. (Incidentally, the last—contrary to the claim of the King James Version—probably was not Paul. Earlier New Testament manuscripts discovered since the Reformation do not ascribe authorship to Paul.) The important point is that whoever may have been the Holy Spirit’s instrument in writing the New Testament was either an apostle or wrote under apostolic oversight and approval.

                  Now Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles which were late in his life. In 1 Timothy 3:1-7 he set forth the qualifications and functions of the office of “bishop.” He does the same in Titus 1:5-9, where he gives rules for Titus to use in choosing “elders” in Crete.

                  It’s interesting that Paul doesn’t use “elders” but “bishops” in 1 Timothy, but in Titus, he begins with “elders” in verse 5 and in verse 7 switches to “bishop” or “overseer” (depending on how the Greek word “episcopos” is translated in varying English versions).

                  It is clear that the same office is in view in both chapters, 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. “Elder” speaks of the maturity of the man gifted to rule. “Bishop” (or “Overseer”) speaks of his function. There is no contradiction here. In American parlance, we sometimes refer to our president as that, again as “chief executive”, yet again as “commander-in-chief,” But it’s one man and one office that he holds.

                  Another matter needs to be considered concerning office in the early church, “pastors and teachers” (Eph. 4:11). It’s one office. A pastor is a “shepherd of the flock of God” (cf. John 10:11-15).

                  All elders need to be highly qualified and to know the Bible in order to honor Christ in their office. They must know the Scriptures so as to rule righteously. Some elders, however, are called to teach or preach the Word. In the OPC we call them “ministers” or “teaching elders.” The distinction is clearly set forth in 1 Timothy 5:17. (Incidentally, the “double honor” in that verse undoubtedly means honor in the general sense—as in “honorable in all things”—but also has to do with “honorarium”—meaning pay for their labors.)

                  That’s why ministers are required to meet the highest standard of biblical education. One of my seminary professors said to us: “Ministers need to know everything about the theology and something about everything else.” I’ve been ordained for 64 years. I think I qualify for general knowledge, but I’m still striving for total biblical knowledge. I’m sure I fall short here and there, but I want to be a learner to my dying day! And, in my understanding of the Bible, ministers and elders are “pastors” or “shepherds,” using the biblical model (see Acts 20:17 and 28 and 1 Pet. 5:1 & 2).

                  Now, in true Presbyterian churches, all rule is by elders (including ministers or “teaching elders” and non-teaching elders). The only higher office in the church today is that of Head of the Church, held by Jesus Christ. And under the teachers and elders (the “Sessions” of the churches) are the members, including teachers and elders. A ruling elder is a member of the local church; a minister is a member of a Presbytery (which oversee the lives of churches in a given geographical area) and sometimes also a member of a local church.

                  As a minister I have been a member of many “Sessions,” that is, ruling over the life of the local church, administering according to the Bible, which is the Word of God. I’ve also sat as a member of many Presbyteries. In addition, I have been a member of many annual General Assemblies.

                  Each of these—Session, Presbytery, and General Assembly—is a “court” of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Matters that cannot be dealt with and resolved by a Session can go for advice or appeal to the Presbytery to which the particular church belongs. Similarly, matters not resolved, or situations where advice may have been improperly given, come to the General Assembly. It’s something like our USA system of courts, though less complicated and (I hope) more just and righteous.

                  Finally, we have seen that Presbyterians do not adopt the Episcopal model of government, because in the New Testament “bishop” and “elder” refer to the same office rather than one being over the other.


                • jim says:

                  This exegesis seems obviously false.

                  Bishop is the higher office, Deacon is the lower office. The apostles appointed seven deacons, and Paul instructed the churches of various cities, or the particular leader of the Church he was writing to, to appoint some more Bishops and Deacons. Not seeing any elders. Where are these elders in the New Testament?

                  The epistle to Titus implies Paul, with apostleship direct from the risen Christ, appoints Titus, and Titus appoints Bishops, which seems fairly hierarchical. We see plenty of evidence that the leaders operate by consensus, but also plenty of evidence for central authority.

                  The centralization imagined by the Roman Catholic Church is an obvious fiction, but the decentralization imagined by the Presbyterians also a obvious fiction.

                  The Roman Catholic exegesis artificially and implausibly projects earthly absolute monarchy onto the New Testament, while the Presbyterian exegesis artificially and implausibly projects the earthly Republic onto the New Testament.

                  A better fit is the feudalism of the Holy Roman Empire.

                • Pooch says:

                  A better fit is the feudalism of the Holy Roman Empire.

                  The feudal lords of the Holy Roman Empire ultimately answered to the Emperor as the final authority. What you describe sounds like monarchy albeit with better parliamentary consensus. How is it not a monarchy? Is the “leader” of your system not a monarch?

                • jim says:

                  Monarchs are never absolute in practice, and attempts at absolutism fail disastrously. They are seldom absolute even in official theory and official reality, and the sovereign of the Holy Roman Empire had very limited power in theory, and even less in practice.

                  You need a high priest, but in matters pertaining to this world, he is subject to the sovereign of his nation, and his authority over the Church is rather more dependent on consensus than the authority of sovereign of the holy Roman Empire was. The holy Roman Emperor was elected for life or good conduct by the electors of the Holy Roman Empire, while simultaneously being a hereditary office.

                  The feudal lords of the Holy Roman empire answered to the Emperor as the final authority, but the emperor was (theoretically) elected, and in practice and theory the feudal lords had broad authority i which the emperor was not supposed to interfere, and was frequently unable to interfere with even when he theoretically had the right to do so.

                  As I said, feudal, not absolutist. Feudalism is hierarchy mitigated by orderly and disorderly anarchy, with a rather small touch of absolutism.

            • TammyFan says:

              I go to a Presbyterian Church and also attend a men’s Bible study there. The pastor is very based. We’re studying the Book of Isaiah now, and he often compares those times to modern America. Isaiah’s mission was to warn the Israelites of GOD’s wrath to come if they did not repent. He was told by GOD that they would be destroyed, but that his mission was to preach to a Remnant of the faithful that would rebuild.

              • Pooch says:


              • Reformed says:

                I have heard several PCA pastors say similar things. And they all have 3+ kids.

                • Yul Bornhold says:

                  Please understand am not trying to be antagonistic but of course men in position of authority (back by God, no less!) will pull women. Have to get pretty severely cucked (to the level of “muh planet”) before such pairings fail to produce a decent number of children.

            • Neofugue says:

              Conservative Presbyterianism tempts disaffected men with the promise of traditional Christianity but upon closer examination is no more or less converged than any other religious group in the West.

              This impression arises from the reputation of Reformed thinkers and theologians. R.J. Rushdoony was the inspiration behind the advent of the American homeschooling movement and Robert Lewis Dabney is perhaps the most influential American reactionary thinker pre-1945, although both the PCA and OPA have repudiated both theologians’ political beliefs.

              Regarding the dozens of Presbyterian and Reformed groups in North America, most differ on petty theological minutia but can be divided into the liberal and conservative factions, PCUSA and PCA the largest denominations of both groups respectively.

              Conservative Reformed Protestants in my experience follow the letter of the law inherited by their spiritual heirs without adhering to the spirit of the law intended by those men. They “homeschool” but school-at-home. Their seminaries are no more or less immune to being converged. Some years back I attended a PCA church service with a friend; the pastor with six children, one of them with down syndrome, broadcasted a video of a single mother proudly being sustained by church money. Neither him nor any other of his friends viewed promoting single motherhood as a problem, and the priest rebuked me after conveying my grievances.

              This is not indented to antagonize, rather to dispel illusions. One should go to church because he believes in the faith, not because he wants something, for attending of the latter reason is bound to lead to disappointment.

              • Pooch says:

                Conservative Presbyterianism tempts disaffected men with the promise of traditional Christianity but upon closer examination is no more or less converged than any other religious group in the West.

                I don’t claim to be an expert, only to analyze. If members of the PCA are reproducing for multiple generations then this certainly reflects less convergence than other groups, many who are dying out as their churches turn to museums.

                This impression arises from the reputation of Reformed thinkers and theologians. R.J. Rushdoony was the inspiration behind the advent of the American homeschooling movement and Robert Lewis Dabney is perhaps the most influential American reactionary thinker pre-1945, although both the PCA and OPA have repudiated both theologians’ political beliefs.

                Not familiar with those names, you may very well be right.

                Regarding the dozens of Presbyterian and Reformed groups in North America, most differ on petty theological minutia but can be divided into the liberal and conservative factions, PCUSA and PCA the largest denominations of both groups respectively.

                Petty theological minutia that is important and significant. This is how Harvard has inverted Christianity over the process of several centuries with its mission to establish “God’s Kingdom on Earth” chucking all the petty theological minutia that was standing in the way of that.

                There is only denomination that claims strict adherence to the original Westminster Standard of the 17th century (I am not sure how flexible they are on that in practice officially) and that is the PCA who split off from the PC of the South who split from the North during the Civil War. Only the Southern Baptists can claim descent from pre-Civil War Christianity.

                All others are splits of rather recent leftism.

                Conservative Reformed Protestants in my experience follow the letter of the law inherited by their spiritual heirs without adhering to the spirit of the law intended by those men. They “homeschool” but school-at-home. Their seminaries are no more or less immune to being converged.

                The seminaries have absolutely been the vector of attack by progressive entryists. The old style Presbyterians have complained about this for a long time and likely is a coup-complete problem.

                The PCA is under attack by entryists as are all actual Christian churches to the extent that they exist. Likely 30-40% of PCA churches are infilitrated by leftist preachers is some way or another, but the actual Christians still hold a majority as we’ve seen at the General Assembly where numorous leftist Overtures were voted down. When the leftists get to 50% of voting power the old style actual Christian Presbyterians will split off again.

                This is not indented to antagonize, rather to dispel illusions.

                I have no illusions. A restoration will only come about with a Caesar or a Constantine. I only seek to make sure a faith will be ready for him when he arrives, which may be centuries from now.

                • Neofugue says:

                  > Petty theological minutia that is important and significant. This is how Harvard has inverted Christianity over the process of several centuries with its mission to establish “God’s Kingdom on Earth” chucking all the petty theological minutia that was standing in the way of that.

                  Harvard inverted Christianity by claiming moral superiority over their neighbors; also, Harvard does not reject theology rather adjusts it to fit whatever wicked agenda they wished to implement. Disagreements over theological minutia is why there are hundreds of Protestant denominations each with their own version of Christianity.

                  > I only seek to make sure a faith will be ready for him when he arrives, which may be centuries from now.

                  The faith we wish to implement has already been implemented; that is why we are “reactionaries” and not “revolutionaries.” All we need to do is show up to church, have families, and wait for Caesar to arrive.

                • jim says:

                  > The faith we wish to implement has already been implemented; that is why we are “reactionaries” and not “revolutionaries.” All we need to do is show up to church, have families, and wait for Caesar to arrive.

                  I would very much like to see that faith implemented as organized religion with Bishops plausibly possessing apostolic succession. But while the state religion is live, that would likely be hazardous for those Bishops and anyone in their general vicinity.

                • Pooch says:

                  Harvard inverted Christianity by claiming moral superiority over their neighbors; also, Harvard does not reject theology rather adjusts it to fit whatever wicked agenda they wished to implement.

                  Untrue. Harvard from its founding was a religious school for ministers. Harvard attacked small minutia of theology gradually starting with the five points of Calvinism, then the divinity of Christ, then sections of the bible, then the entire bible, and finally god himself.

                  Disagreements over theological minutia is why there are hundreds of Protestant denominations each with their own version of Christianity.

                  All are derived from the leftism of Harvard at some year with an attempt to freeze the leftism of Harvard at some year. The PCA seems to be the oldest which traces its leftism to Cromwell and the Westminster Standards of 1649.

                  I suppose SBC can also claim the Baptist London Standard of 1689, but hard to figure how many Baptist Churches are actually using that given the extent of rampant convergence of the SBC.

                  Jim proposes the Book of Common Prayer of 1662 but I see no denomination using it in existence so might as well be as be dead and buried. The Westminster Standard lives.

                  The faith we wish to implement has already been implemented; that is why we are “reactionaries” and not “revolutionaries.” All we need to do is show up to church, have families, and wait for Caesar to arrive.

                  What church? This is the million dollar question. It needs to be an organized institution to be workable. Constantine started quickly integrating the Bishops into the state bureaucracy upon his victory, who acted essentially as the Supreme Court. Likewise Cromwell upon his victory started integrating Church of England according the Westminster Standards.

                • Neofugue says:

                  > Harvard from its founding was a religious school for ministers. Harvard attacked small minutia of theology gradually starting with the five points of Calvinism, then the divinity of Christ, then sections of the bible, then the entire bible, and finally god himself.

                  The Pope wanted what was Caesar’s and thus adopted the filioque and altered the Creed as a means of justifying his power grab and schism. The German princes wanted an end to the conflict with the Papacy and thus sheltered and patronized Luther. The Whigs wanted power over the King and thus proclaimed that the adulterous Queen Caroline was mistreated by George IV. Wicked men desire power over others and then use theology to justify their evil.

                  > All are derived from the leftism of Harvard at some year with an attempt to freeze the leftism of Harvard at some year.

                  Protestants have been splintering with each other since the Reformation.

                  > What church? This is the million dollar question. It needs to be an organized institution to be workable. Constantine started quickly integrating the Bishops into the state bureaucracy upon his victory, who acted essentially as the Supreme Court. Likewise Cromwell upon his victory started integrating Church of England according the Westminster Standards.

                  The church I attend, of course. Since this program is “reactionary,” this would involve implementing old social technology through a restructuring and rebuilding of institutions, similar to how Charles II required his staff to resign and reapply while affirming the new faith.

                • Pooch says:

                  Protestants have been splintering with each other since the Reformation.

                  Along ethnic lines. Luther with the Germans and Calvin with Anglos. Everyone that came after those two were largely holiness spiralers attempting to dive at all the apples rolling around.

                  Calvinism and descendants of Calvinism has been the state religion of the Anglos for 500 years.

                  American Caesar with a state church of Lutheranism or Russian Orthodox or Roman Catholicism is not going to go down smooth with Americans.

                  American Caesar with a state Church of American Presbyterianism will go down as smooth as a milkshake.

                • jim says:

                  > American Caesar with a state church of Lutheranism or Russian Orthodox or Roman Catholicism is not going to go down smooth with Americans.

                  Theology has simplified enormously, now that we no longer have vast numbers of very clever people trying to weasel their way through shill and entryist tests that were intended to keep enemies out of the state religion.

                  Who today remembers the differences between all these versions of Christianity?

                  Hitler famously asked “who today remembers the Armenians?” You might suspect that when we get within smelling difference of power, all this dusty and forgotten theology is going to be suddenly remembered. But who today does remember the Armenians?

                  The only issue that matters today is sex, marriage, and family, of which the gay parade and men in women’s sports is a synecdoche. Successful reproduction requires acknowledgement of the sexual and reproductive differences between men and women, and the resulting very different roles they play in work, marriage, sex, reproduction and family.

                  And any Church that takes these differences seriously is going to get wacoed.

                  It is not where Churches stand on the precession of the holy spirit that matters, but where they stand on marriage and the female role. Does anyone today understand what precession of the holy spirit is?

                  Does Christ have two natures and one substance, or was that two substances and one nature? Whatever. I am pretty sure that no one ever knew what the divine substance and divine nature was, and they have forgotten how to pretend that they knew.

                • Pooch says:

                  And any Church that takes these differences seriously is going to get wacoed.

                  The PSA is reproducing to my amazement and not getting wacoed. Non-violent pacifism was the winning strategy of the early Christians before Constantine, not the violent isolationism of the Branch Davidians. They fucked up.

                  I pray it does not, but the time for Christian martyrdom may come again.

                • aaa says:

                  > Theology has simplified enormously, now that we no longer have vast numbers of very clever people trying to weasel their way through shill and entryist tests that were intended to keep enemies out of the state religion.

                  When the Protestants tore down the fine web of Christian tradition they ended up with a religion a hundred times dumber and more superstitious than the one they tried to “reform”.

                  Catholicism and Orthodoxy promise the existence of a supernatural world in addition to the natural one. Protestantism instead regards the supernatural as the substratum of the world, not an extension of it. You are a Protestant, i.e. you want people to accept natural life on supernatural grounds. But this is stupid. X Y and Z facts about women and marriage are known from experience and nature, not “the Bible” and “Christ”.

                • jim says:


                  Morally decadent monasteries and nunneries that failed to get anyone to show up for religious services?

                  The Roman Catholic Church was in clear violation of Christianity and Christian tradition.

                  When Rome schismed from orthodoxy, it was because the Pope coveted Kingdoms, not rectories. The Pope coveted what was Ceasar’s and prostituted religion to political and military objectives.

                  The church that the protestants rebelled against was grossly decadent and unchristian, and today the vatican is full of faggots and demon worshipers.

                • Jimmy says:

                  The facts on the ground in the US right now are that all denominations are officially given over to leftism in one or more ways, but that certain congregations within the “conservative” churches are active coalescence sites for based men. What has been said about the LCMS and the offshoots of the Southern Presbyterians is 100% accurate on both sides. I have personally been involved with very based congregations that exist as remnants within those groups, as well as the CREC, southern Baptist, trad catholics, several Eastern churches, etc. My favorite (not yet mentioned here) is within the Continuing Anglican churches (those who celebrate the feast day of Charles, king and Martyr). As an aside, Cromwell was so holy he outlawed Christmas, so screw that guy. I say that partially out of love – half my children were baptized in a based PCA church. I will always be one of them on some level and I love you frowning calvinists like brothers.

                  One cannot find these congregations using the church website. They are like speakeasies. But they are real and they are everywhere. These are the only places to find wives and husbands for your children.

                  It’s funny, and is observable in this thread: anyone like us who finds himself in one of these groups points to its denominational particulars as the cause of its preservation, ignoring the (much larger) progressive mainstream in the same tradition. But in my experience in the American churches, which is unusually broad, every tradition has a similar distribution. And the remnants of the several Christian traditions are all more like one another than each is like it’s progressive mainstream.

                  In short, the “liberal” branches are all deserts. No life there. The “conservative” branches are deserts with occasional lush oases. The man in one of these assumes there are no others because they are far apart. But he is incorrect. And this should give the Christian raising Godly seed much hope. Go find one and prosper.

                  These are times of rapid change. The arc of the enlightenment is over, and the church is being reconfigured for the next thing, whatever that is. The church of Christ is a robust thing, and can be tamped down to nearly nothing, but embers remain all over under all the ash.

                • Neofugue says:

                  > Along ethnic lines. Luther with the Germans and Calvin with Anglos. Everyone that came after those two were largely holiness spiralers attempting to dive at all the apples rolling around.

                  The Germans are divided among Lutheranism, Calvinism, Anabaptism, among others sects. The Scottish accepted Calvin, but the English created Anglicanism.

                  > American Caesar with a state church of Lutheranism or Russian Orthodox or Roman Catholicism is not going to go down smooth with Americans.

                  American Whites are not a monolith. There are English, Scottish, German, Irish, French, Italian, Polish, Czech, Russian, Ukrainian, Swedish, Norwegian, Greek etc. White Americans with their own histories and cultures. In the United States, there are more Lutherans and Catholics than Calvinists. The Early Church incorporated all of the various ethnic groups of the Roman Empire into the faith, so should the Church of the future. The deciding factor with regards to adopting Christianity is which church possesses spiritual descent from the early Christians and the Imperium of Rome and gave us Constantine, not an ethnic understanding of the Federal Vision.

                • Pooch says:

                  American Whites are not a monolith. There are English, Scottish, German, Irish, French, Italian, Polish, Czech, Russian, Ukrainian, Swedish, Norwegian, Greek etc. White Americans with their own histories and cultures. In the United States, there are more Lutherans and Catholics than Calvinists.

                  Only the elite matter. The US elite is still overwhelmingly white Anglo. You have mentioned this in the past given your background.

                  We are in a holy war. It is a battle to convert the elite before they convert us and our descendents. The masses don’t matter. The pedigree of the American elite since its founding has always been Protestant Calvinism of the Anglo tradition. Anything else is going to be foreign and alien to them.

                  I prefer Episcopalian/Anglican as Jim but its been entirely consumed. The monarchial bishop structure prevented any splitting to save itself until it was well too later. The Puritans obviously are in power now in their evolved state.

                  The only traditional Anglo-American faith I see that has managed to preserve a remnant is American Presbyterianism.

                • Neofugue says:

                  > The pedigree of the American elite since its founding has always been Protestant Calvinism of the Anglo tradition. Anything else is going to be foreign and alien to them.

                  Pandering to elites never works because it demonstrates weakness and reveals the lower status of the panderer. The way one converts people to a faith is by being as hardline as possible in one beliefs and by demonstrating it through action. Orthodox Christianity works because the faith descends from the Early Church of the Apostles, is spiritually contiguous with Christianity as it has been for thousands of years without theological evolution of doctrine, and has the heritage of Constantine and Vladimir, Byzantium and Third Rome.

                  Elite Presbyterians, like elite Jews, do not believe any more in Presbyterianism than elite Jews believe in Judaism. There is next to no difference between mainline Episcopalianism and mainline Presbyterianism. If a faith is to be revived men must believe in it, otherwise we find ourselves with the problem that the later Caesars had with an ineffectual dead state religion.

                • Pooch says:

                  Elite Presbyterians, like elite Jews, do not believe any more in Presbyterianism than elite Jews believe in Judaism. There is next to no difference between mainline Episcopalianism and mainline Presbyterianism.

                  Elite Northern mainline Presbyterians are post-Christians, decedents of the Puritans and Harvard.

                  The elite Southern Presbyterians are actually Christian. If they had believed they were in holy war against Northern heretics, would have burned Boston and Harvard to the ground after the rout of the Union army at the Battle of First Bull run.

                  Need elite support and a faith for holy war.

                • Neofugue says:

                  > The elite Southern Presbyterians are actually Christian

                  Are they? Do they practice their faith with seriousness? Do they receive media condemnation?

                  Not too long ago we had an entryist by the name of Sarah Riccardi-Schwartz write a report on Russian Orthodox Christians in Appalachia. Do Southern Presbyterians receive the same attention?

                  Constantine and most of his army including generals were Pagans who adopted Christianity because of a vision of the Christian God. Our elite support will come from our Progressive elite, from those disaffected with our current state religion who want something better.

                • Neofugue says:


                  In my experience PCA priests often have 5+ kids but the laity mostly do not. Most PCA priests are cuckservatives.

                  Russian Orthodox Christians in flyover country are just as if not better than most PCA priests. One of our young couples ages 24m and 17f recently got married in one of our parishes in Kansas.

                • Pooch says:

                  In my experience PCA priests often have 5+ kids but the laity mostly do not. Most PCA priests are cuckservatives.

                  There is a massive amount of kids in the local PCA church in my area, to my shock and disbelief. So many that before the pastor delivers the sermon, they send all the kids to “Children’s Church” area so that they do not disrupt the pastor’s sermon. Other commentators seem to have attested to something similar.

                  I have no experience with Russian Orthodox. Are there massive amounts of kids running around in these churches?

                • The Cominator says:

                  Anglicanism was Calvinist from the time of Henry VIII’s death until Charles I, the English accepted Calvinism too… Armianism was Jesuit subversion of the English elite. From William of Orange on it sort of was and was not Calvinist and it was completely subverted in the 19th century.

                • Neofugue says:

                  > I have no experience with Russian Orthodox. Are there massive amounts of kids running around in these churches?

                  Rural churches yes, urban and semi-urban churches not as much. The Russian (Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian, Tatar, etc.) elite in urban areas generally only attend church on Pascha, the Russian elite in the countryside attend church more regularly.

                  There is a reason why Sarah Riccardi-Schwartz infiltrated a Russian Orthodox Church in Appalachia and not on the East Coast.

                • Neofugue says:

                  > The US elite is still overwhelmingly white Anglo. You have mentioned this in the past given your background.

                  Yes and no, I am most familiar with our white Anglo elite, but there are also plenty of Jews, Roman Catholics, among other ethnicities. For security purposes I cannot give out more details, sadly, but our American elite is not as monolithic as it was say in the 1980s.

        • clovis says:

          >All the pastors I have ever known, and I have had quite a few heated exchanges with several that are family or close friends, they all have an almost allergic reaction to male authority

          Among the Lutherans–the Missouri Synod did not allow women to vote in congregational meetings until the 70s. The Wisconsin Synod, a smaller cousin, still does not allow women to vote. Admittedly what you describe here you will still find among pastors in both synods, but particularly among the younger black shirt and round-collar wearing Missouri Synod pastors there is an understanding that women need to be subject to their husbands. I think the Missouri Synod now also has the highest birthrate in any church in America because so many of their younger pastors have rejected contraception and it is not uncommon to see young Missouri Synod pastors with 6, 7, and 8 kids. Or more.

          • Adam says:

            Among the pastors that I know, and men that I know that have many kids (where I grew up families with 5-15 kids or more are very common) they have a couple of things going for them that most do not. They are in a rural setting (lack of options, lack of temptation). Allergic reaction to outsiders. The men all speak as one. And childbirth and children = holiness.

            My neighbors growing up had 18 kids. In a town of 2000 people there had to be several dozen or more families with over 15 kids. These are strict church families, Apostolic Lutheran mostly (or similarly Lutheran). Daughters can’t wear makeup, kids can’t go to many school functions, TV is a sin, pretty much everything is a sin in modern life.

            But the biggest thing especially with the women is, the more kids you have the holier you are. It’s a status thing. The guys are pretty manly because it’s a rural area, but not the caricature of “alpha” that Heartiste paints, or Jim or myself even. But they all stand as one and if you were not born into those churches and families, you are not welcome.

            I wouldn’t say any of the men have a whole lot of power in the marriage though. The wives rule from the bottom. They can’t restrain their wives or daughters if they go bad any more than anyone else. They just do a better job of preventing it, due to the isolation of the community and churches, and their lifestyles.

            • Pooch says:

              I can confirm the same with my church going family members. The wives rule. Has even lead to divorces because of it (after 2 or 3 kids).

              Seems like we have identified the main problem of the churches. The traditional denominations can fight off globohomo fine enough but can’t control their women.

              • clovis says:

                I think they can, or they will be able to again. Conservative Presbyterians and Lutherans and probably others have been kneecapped by the concessions made to feminism in the 20th century, but the younger pastors are moving in the other direction, and the tradition, as recently as the early 20th century, was firmly anti-feminist. About 10 years ago R. C. Sproul’s son put out a video or something called “The Monstrous Regiment of Women” referencing John Knox’s critique of Elizabeth’s reign as anti-scriptural. And the basic point of the video was that women should not rule in the church or home. Yes it will take time, but you are already seeing in my church a growing percentage of pastors who would feel at home with everything or most everything that is said about women on this blog.

                • Pooch says:

                  I can’t help but notice there is also a masculinity crisis in the churches. Yes these men are reproducing but a lot of them just look soft and weak.

                  To command your woman you must feel it in your bones that it is your masculine right as a man to rule over her. Unconfidently ruling her because even if the church is teaching it is not going to cut it. Women are fined tuned to obstruct shit test against male weakness.

                  It’s interesting that the early Christian authors like Tertullian put emphasis on beards as a masculine marker for Christian men to contrast against the freshly shaven faces of the faggot Romans. Paul I believe also writes that long hair for men is forbidden because too effeminate.

        • Pete says:

          Because according to US law, a man is only part of his family as long as the woman says he is. The wife can kick the husband out, take his kids and seize his paycheck any time she feels like it. And the police will back her up with guns.

          Whatever “male authority” a church preaches only lasts as long as the wife allows it to last.

        • Pooch says:

          I guess what I’m trying to work out is the power structure. How does a small town church pastor in the Midwest end up a progressive and speak the words of Harvard and not know it. Obviously it’s in the language in every school. And everything on TV. But it’s deeper than that.

          The seminaries have always been the point of progressive entryist attack against conservative churches going back to the founding of Harvard itself as a seminary.

          I’d imagine any seminary teaching biblical male authority to its pastors would come under serious attack by the state.

          • Adam says:

            I think there are Lutheran seminary’s that teach male authority, I have a friend that went through one not long ago. He preaches male authority in marriage. Problem is his definition is going to be the same as his wife’s definition, and his mothers and his sister’s definition. It’s in name only.

            And at no point would he support a man disciplining his wife it holding her accountable. If your wife is behaving badly, obviously you did something to make her behave that way.

      • FrankNorman says:

        How about “when they stopped believing that Jesus’ resurrection literally happened”?

        • Pooch says:

          The divinity of Christ was attacked rather early with the rise of the Unitarians.

      • Pooch says:

        I would say they were post Christian by 1850

        The last vestiges of Christian supernatural beliefs were chucked out some time in the postwar period.

    • Meat Guy says:

      Check out the SSPX “crisis in the church” series. Explains the origins of Protestantism, liberalism, etc.

      • The Cominator says:

        We’re not in favor of Catholicism here…

      • jim says:

        Father Wiseman correctly calls out nominalism.

        But the key pathology of nominalism is that nothing is real, and one can therefore socially construct reality. And here we are. Reality is being socially reconstructed to immanentize the eschaton. So women can perform male roles and men can perform female roles, and Harvard/Oxbridge graduates Shaniqua as expert in administering engineers.

        In order to effectively denounce nominalism, one has to appeal to natural kinds. And, in particular and especially, those natural kinds that make a huge difference to survival and reproduction – sex and race differences.

        He calls out nominalism, but stops short where it matters.

        • Meat Guy says:

          After listening to the BAP podcast with Bishop Williamson, I’m not sure a single Holy man of God besides himself is as vocal about Jews, women, and our other favorite topics as he is. It’s just not easy right now to hear the truth, especially by men of the cloth.

          • The Cominator says:

            I liked most of Williamson said but he needs to become Orthodox if he believes in tradition. The Vatican and the Jesuits are evil and our enemies and as they are internationalists they cannot be otherwise…

  30. Joe says:

    Every day they outdo themselves in the evil of yesterday. I wonder what evil they will concoct today?

  31. Encelad says:

    Fascinating how she goes to therapy and the shrinks, instead of helping her, make her problems ten times worse. Fascinating, but not surprising, every person I know who graduated in Psychology is a radical leftist.
    On a tangential note, progressive J K Rowling has been lagging behind the spiral from some time now, and she has chosen to oppose the tranny nonsense as her personal hill to die for. She gets murder threats daily, as the times get more grim and leftists even more insane, I am afraid she could find herself to literally die on that hill.

    • Fireball says:

      The old leftists always forget that the revolution doesn’t stop where they are comfortable with it.

  32. notglowing says:

    Good news, Musk bought Twitter. He’s the biggest shareholder now at 9%.

    • Mister Grumpus says:

      How can he push Twitter around if he only owns 9%?

      What will 9% get him that 0% wouldn’t?

      • notglowing says:

        He probably won’t get banned. It’s a public company regardless, so having 51% doesn’t give you real ownership either.
        But he’s the biggest voice among shareholders now

      • A2 says:

        If memory serves. though I may be outdated, 10% ownership can block some activities (like a company sale/merger?).

        Somewhat interesting that he’s the decidedly largest share holder with this, which also confers power. While Twitter has been a money pit, it might be smart for sociopolitical reasons for Musk to control a major social network. (It could also trigger a fight, i.e., rising share prices.)

  33. Mister Grumpus says:

    What could come after the Trans Cult?

    Hating on China is racist so I just can’t see it going anywhere.

    Blade Runner was about androids being the new victim class. If the “same as us and also better” thing worked for negroes, it’ll work for androids. It’s also so perfectly Bible Beastly, that I still think that’s the big one, but it’s decades away still.

    My guess is it’ll be more Gaia Worship Great Reset cruelty, but justified and kindled by Russia Man Bad, casting Christian Middle/Rural America as the “pro-Putin” internal fifth column, “stabbing us in the back” and wrecking the eschaton with their disbelief, who must therefore be Buchenwalded for the greater good.

    • Fireball says:

      >What could come after the Trans Cult?

      Ever heard of furries?

      • notglowing says:

        Ironically furries are more down to earth than trannies. I don’t like either, and they are quite similar, plus pretty much all of them are extreme left and support trannies. It seems several of the vaccine scientists were furries.

        However, they are still more self aware and less self-righteous about it. I think it’s just too outlandish for any normie to take it seriously the way trannies are taken. Even the Cathedral cannot spin this any other way. They’d just be laughed at. Honestly I’d like to see them try.

        • Fireball says:

          Outlandish? There is such a thing as gay marriage two words that never should have been together and we have transsexualism with people that go trough insane medical procedures, mutilating themselves trying to accomplish it.

          There is no such thing as too outlandish.

        • James says:

          You must be young. People were laughing at trannies a decade ago. The idea that women could become men are a punchline even amongst moderate democrats. Now, no one dare laugh.

          • notglowing says:

            I am young. Still, in real life, people laugh at that today here, as I’m not in the US. It is little more than the punchline of jokes among my friends. So I understand what you mean.
            But still, men and women exist. Anthropomorphic animals? That’s something furries literally took from kids’ cartoons.
            It’s just not an idea I can find myself taking seriously as a threat, maybe I’m wrong, but I definitely can’t see it being *next*.

            Furries themselves, however, are dangerous radical leftists. They do plenty of damage outside of their animalistic delusions. And worse, they seem to be suspiciously wealthy, at least a significant number among them are.
            As I mentioned a few of them claimed to be vaccine scientists on twitter, and that research at all levels is full of their kind. Since it’s still an underground thing, I wonder how many in the power structure belong to this group.

      • Drien says:

        They might do this as a bridge to bestiality which would dovetail nicely with the negro worship

    • Adam says:

      The only thing more insane than the idea that a boys can be girls is the idea that life can be death, or vice-versa. Infinite leftism is a death/suicide cult.

    • Pooch says:

      Gay pedophilia comes after trans. We already seeing it mummered in Harvard.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        Nailed it. Child Sex Liberation. Underground Railroads through every school office and family court.

      • James says:

        My money is here. “Only heteronormative patriarchal pedophilia is actually bad” is coming, I imagine.

        • Kunning Drueger says:

          Which is perfect for Them, as it doesn’t exist, so the witch hunt can go on forever. The victims of pedophiles are little boys, the perpetrators are gay men, so the victim base will grow, the guilty will not be punished, and the crusade will continue.

          • James says:

            Sure, but they’re going to say that the little boys are consenting to having sex with the older men, and adult men who have sex with sixteen year olds are deviants who need to go to jail for life.

      • notglowing says:

        They are already effectively promoting it and allowing it, only it’s not explicit.
        Gay men adopting boys is celebrated, and so is them exposing themselves to children, and grooming them into homosexuals.
        When the children do get molested, it’s kept quiet. I don’t know if they’ll ever explicitly promote it.
        It seems the avenue is to just promote “sexual education” ie homosexuality and promiscuity to ever younger boys on one side, and then favour their contact with older men.

        • Pooch says:

          We’ve seen this before in Rome and Greece, in which it was open. tolerated, and celebrated. We can see it in the art of the Roman Empire with sculptures of naked boys.

          It will be interesting when it gets to the point where the Vatican can just be open with its pederasty, no longer necessary to conceal it.

  34. Basil says:

    The events related to the coronovirus and this war convinced me of Lukashenko’s political wisdom. Remaining under the umbrella of Russia, do not cripple Belarusians with vaccination and do not send Belarusians to war. Orban is also great. If any of them had been in Putin’s place, Russia would have won.

    • Varna says:

      They could have peaked on their current scale. A country 14 times the population and constantly fending off attempts to destroy it on a million levels could be above their competence and skill. Putin barely manages to pull it off.

      India and China are currently pulling it off because neither are yet the officially designated devil. If either of them have to endure at least couple of decades of focused attempts to be destroyed let’s see how good they are at it.

      Erdogan is also at his competence ceiling. Turkey has the population of Germany, and also is officially under the NATO umbrella like Hungary. If Erdogan had been a separate power like Iraq, Libya, or Iran, also designated a devil for extermination, we’d see if Erdogan has what it takes to survive.

      Now, if Lukashenko is Russia’s minister of agriculture and industry, Orban minister of education and culture, Erdogan and Modi on the security council by Medvedev’s side, and Xi on the strategic planning side, with Putin channeling their input into policy, then we’d have some fancy shit to witness.

      • Skippy says:

        Luka was designated for destruction at Christmas 2020 and survived.

        Actually Luka’s robust response to that situation and direct accusations to the West pulled the mask off the way the US empire operates greater than any other thing, though I am not sure he has been remembered for it.

        On the other hand he did reluctantly introduce some covid theatre after he survived. He was probably attacked for directly stating that covid is BS and refusing to implement any measures at all.

    • Mayflower Sperg says:

      Ramzan Kadyrov is my favorite to throw Globohomo off a rooftop and become Emperor of the World.

      • Varna says:

        BTW, just now with covfefe, I realized that at least part of Russia’s forces in the Ukraine are not the military proper but the National Guard. They fought the Chechen wars mostly with the National Guard as well, it being “an internal affair”.

        During the Chechen wars the Russian National Guard was called The MVD forces, but today are RosGvardia.

        Here we have recent news of the National Guard taking out guerillas.

        Here on the Chechen TV we have explicitly news about “the Chechen National Guard” doing this and that.

        Which makes sense. Obviously (in hindsight) when Kadyrov has “his troops” they cannot actually be “his” if they are part of the federal army. They can be “his” if they are part of the state-level army, i.e. the National Guard.

        And now that I’ve figured this out I go and check and the bloody Wikipedia has also figured it out. Sometimes I’m so slow.

        And since this isn’t ‘an invasion’, but rather ‘a special policing operation’, at least half the time we see in the news ‘the Russian army did this or that’, in reality it’s ‘the Russian National Guard did this or that’. Not least of all the taking over of nuclear plants.

        If I had to guess, it goes like this:
        1) The federal army proper goes in with tanks, planes, choppers, and rockets.
        2) On its heels comes the National Guard to clean up resistance and set up functioning infrastructure
        3) Half the ‘commando raids’ are done by the army paratrooper commandos
        and the other half by National Guard SWAT

        Of which there are only 16 units, out of 84 units in 84 Russian Federation member states, one of these 16 National Guard Spesnaz being the Chechen unit.

        I feel like I’m finally starting to get a basic grasp on who is doing what.

        The Ukraine also has a 60K National Guard which is also taking part in the war

        It seems that not only is the Russian army clashing with the Ukrainian army, you also have variations where the Russian National Guard clashes with the Ukrainian army proper; the Ukrainian National Guard clashes with the Russian army proper; both National Guards clash; and the armed voluntary militias on both sides doing their thing as well.

        • Varna says:

          The Russian National Guard is 340 000 people.
          The Russian Army ground forces is 280 000 people.

          If in the current war, say half the personnel on the Russian side is always the National Guard, I think this strengthens my earlier theory that all Russian military units are being gradually rotated in and out, to give everyone a taste of ground war.

          By now they’ve probably given all the European federal states army units a whiff of gunpowder and are starting to give the Siberian units a chance to see how shit happens in real life.

          • Kunning Drueger says:

            Consider, too, how this spreads the losses. No sense in burning through groups of men and leaving broken remnants (as Basil and other Russophobes suggest).

            More and more, NATO seems like the great warriors of Europe, pointing at the funny looking Mongols on their little horses and laughing.

            I maintain that UKR is not and never was the goal, but it was a necessary first step. There are lessons being learned, and many young officers are moving up the ranks as generals get killed off or dismissed. Just like real conservatives in the USA, the Russian leadership sees unavoidable war on the horizon. Unlike those conservatives, they’ve decided to take the initiative.

            • Frank Matters says:

              Do you have anything to support this view? I’ve only seen blackpilling from actual russians about the state of the army; namely, Putin is KGB and fears the military may have the ability to destabilize his power. Hence, you see humiliation rituals borne out on troops by mob organizations, and the incredibly high death rate of the upper commanding officers. It seems plausible, and it would explain what looks to me to be a very sloppily executed invasion. However, I am very open to opposing evidence, and in fact wish what you are describing to be true.

              • jim says:

                An incredibly high death rate among commanding officers does suggest a sloppily executed invasion, though I would say the problem was not sloppy execution, but competent execution of World War II thinking, weapons, tactics, and strategy when warfare is now in the Information Epoch, a pathology that every major military suffers from. They are always well prepared to fight the last war.

                But an incredibly high death rate among commanding officers does not indicate lack of enthusiasm and support in the military, rather the reverse, though it is likely to result in lack of enthusiasm and support.

                To remedy that problem, Putin needs to re-orient the military to Information Epoch warfare, and needs to weaponize the state religion, as the Holy Roman Empire and the grandparents of King Alfred did.

                Whether he will do so remains to be seen. If we see a cross on the armored personnel carriers, rather than a Z on the tanks, he is going to win.

                • Varna says:

                  If Putin puts orthodox crosses on his tanks, this will give globohomo the final reason to claim all Christians are fascists, and demand that everyone choose between the cross and globohomo.

                  That would be such an exciting moment.

                • jim says:

                  Tanks are obsolete. Put the crosses on helmets, body armor, armored personnel carriers, and missiles.

                  Drones are the first step in Information Epoch warfare. The next step is smart gunsights that give you thermal infrared vision and access to a mesh network of your buddy’s body armor and guns, and the step after that is helmets that provide augmented reality so that a soldier can see and speak with his buddies even if there is cover interrupting his line of sight, can see where drones have spotted his enemies even if they are behind cover, and can switch to a drone’s eye view.

                • simplyconnected says:

                  This may be a start. In case some misses it: see posted image.

          • Karl says:

            I heard they were not using draftees. How can they do such large scale rotation without using draftees?

            • Varna says:

              The short answer is: the way US politicians say with an honest face “we only have 10K troops left in place X” without adding “and also 40K more blackrock mercenaries made up of retired US soldiers”.

              In Russia an officer comes over to the conscripts and says “this is your lucky day boys, sign these papers to become pro soldiers and I ain’t gonna tolerate any no’s”.

              The long answer is this: after the 2014 Crimea thing everyone made their own conclusions. The Ukraine started building a real army. Russia begun stockpiling gold, and doing a number of other things.

              In 2015 Putin signed two documents. With one he resurrected the “pioneer” Boyscouts in a new post-Soviet version,
              two million kids membership

              and with the other he created the “young cadets” youth movement. One million youths as members.

              Very illustrative images:

              A year later, in 2016, Putin signed into existence Rosgvardia, the current National Guard, which after the restructuring answers basically only to him.

              It has now been half a dozen years since all of this, so one generation of kids became young militarized patriots, and one generation of youths became National Guardsmen.

              In a sense the main lesson after 2014 for Putin was “The next conflict is going to be for real. They will try to crush us for real. I need to have an ally like China, I need gold reserves, and I need to start preparing a new generation of kids I can rely now right fucking now this minute.”

              A fledging Prussia-like construct with banal Austro-Hungarian efficiency is thus far the result.

              • Varna says:

                From the youth cadet website advert for joining

                Деятельность движения направлена на воспитание в юнармейцах доброты, сочувствия, совестливости, верности, достоинства, любви к своей Родине. Большое внимание «ЮНАРМИЯ» уделяет формированию уважительного отношения к институту семьи, памяти предков и учит почтительному отношению к старшим.

                В рядах ЮНАРМИИ формируется активная гражданская позиция, чувство ответственности за свои действия и поступки, развивается инициативность и самостоятельность. Юнармейцы реализуют социально значимые проекты, учатся находить пути решения проблем общества, окружающей среды.

                Отличительная черта каждого юнармейца – хорошая физическая подготовка и здоровый образ жизни. Занятия спортом отлично компенсируют многочасовое пребывание за школьной партой и компьютером. Среди юнармейцев есть победители всероссийских и международных спортивных соревнований в различных видах спорта.

                Юнармейское движение создает условия для совершенствования интеллектуального потенциала личности. Развивая память, внимание и мышление юнармейцы побеждают в соревнованиях по робототехнике, показывают высокие результаты в интеллектуальных турнирах. Занятия по формированию личностных качеств помогают юнармейцам занимать лидерские позиции.

  35. Rando says:

    I was a right-wing atheist for many years, until I started noticing how much my enemies all just absolutely hated Jesus. There are battle lines being drawn and you’re either with Christ or you are with Satan.

    • Kunning Drueger says:

      While I’m not a technical member of any Faith, that is because I’m honest about it and my faith is weak. That’s a failing on my part. I’ve never identified as an atheist, even in my cringiest lefty periods, because it’s such an annoying group of people. As I’ve insinuated myself further into both devout and conservative circles, I’ve yet to encounter an atheist without Progressive priors. While many are not militantly atheist, the few I’ve pressed always seem surprised when, in defense of their atheistic perspective, the stumble upon Cathedral implanted assumptions buried within their own logic. Is there such a thing as right wing atheism? If so, how is it derived? I guess I could see agnosticism, but again, how does one get there without humanism?

      • ExileStyle says:

        Atheism, as a form of radical iconoclasm, is inherently leftist. It can be totalitarian of course but never right totalitarian. Iconoclasm seeks only to level, destroy, and force submission of all to a single law. This is why, despite the pleasure I take in watching isolated groups like the Taliban unnerve leftist gender ideology, I look at Islam and Judaism, and Buddhism for that matter, as essentially one with western Marxist-Leninism: annihilation of all specificity and individual form in the name not of any specific abstract idea but in the name of abstraction itself. Priestly (Levite/Pharasaic) Judaism was the first transhumanism, the Priestly Law as the ultimate idol. Islam is even more radical: submission not just to Law but to the very idea of Submission itself, for its own sake.

        Luckily for the rest of the world, Islam froze culturally very early on and lost all potential for conversion, and Judaism had no interest in converts, otherwise the Left Singularity would have happened over a millennium ago.

        I also lack emotional faith in revealed Christian truths, but I do have intellectual faith in Gnon, i.e. Natural Law or Logos, which I have always found a useful concept for those of us without faith and/or a church. God does not need me to believe in him for his laws to speak his truth. I may need to affirm him to be saved, but that is still something I am working out.

        Atheism is more than a negative lack of faith in a nameable transcendent being. It is the positive effort to obliterate this being, his name, and all his images.

        • jim says:

          > otherwise the Left Singularity would have happened over a millennium ago.

          The leftist singularity *did* happen a millenium ago. Islam had its leftist singularity about a nine centuries back.

          It also happened a century ago in Russia, and two centuries ago in France. Not to mention Barebones Parliament, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, Cultural Revolution, and the Seven Kill Stele. It is a perennial failure mode.

          • ExileStyle says:

            Right, I guess was referring to a Pan-European, Global, or Final Singularity, which is still in the cards.

          • Calvin says:

            Islam had its leftist singularity about a nine centuries back.

            it did? When did that happen, in the period of decadence right before the Mongols facerolled them?

        • The Ducking Man says:

          Perhaps we are actually on same boat.

          I myself are fascinated by God character is Old Testament, fascinated enough for me leave my moslem heritage. Even then I’m never entirely sold on other mainstream religion.

          Judaism >>> Basically Pharisee in 21st century.
          Christianity >>> Not entirely sold on triune gods concept.
          Catholicism >>> Convinced that roman catholic church is (or was) the beast of revelation.
          Islam >>> Convinced that it’s a religion made by Arab for Arab only.

          • S says:

            The Triune god is a compromise because there are an infinite number of rational ways to set Jesus’s divine status with God (and thus call everyone else a heretic). So they picked a totally irrational stance in order to make it so you couldn’t do that.

            • jim says:

              Faith in that completely irrational stance reflects and resolves the human mind body problem.

              It prevents holiness spirals, since there are as you note rather too many “rational” ways to address the issue – none of them all that rational, merely having the appearance of rationality. Each rational stance just buries the issue deeper, and if a “rational” stance succeeds in making its proponent holier than the other guy, some one else is going to dig into the problem and come up with some more “rationality”.

              But, most importantly, the triune God serves as a flag to rally around and club to beat one’s enemies. Embracing a contradiction is a good test to see whose side someone is really on.

              However, since the Cathedral uses as its loyalty test the embrace of lies ever more destructive, hurtful, evil, damaging, and self damaging (that, I think is what is causing the collapse of testosterone and sperm production), demanding that someone speaks as if those lies were false is a good test. If someone can speak the truth, serves the same useful purpose as the triune God.

              This condition (that we have a highly effective rational and materialistic test available) means that the trinity has less military and political utility than it did in the time of Constantine. The triune God made Constantine emperor, and had he not at that faith, probably would have wound up dead. (Histories that focus on secular events of Constantine’s rise to emperor miss what happened, leave out the important parts of what happened, without which the secular events make no sense.)

              The faith of Gnon is a way of using one test without needing to abandon the appropriate use of the other.

              Red pilled Christianity is Christianity that embraces the position of Paul and Peter on sex, marriage, and family, and acknowledges it as an empirical truth about the world, thus deploying both tests.

              The rationality of the Dark Enlightenment is that material and effective causation has moral significance. (As is pretty obvious when we are talking about trannies and the collapse of marriage, fertility, and family)

              The relationship between material and effective causation and its moral significance is expressed in the language of logos and telos – and you know what true Christianity has to say about the Logos.


              • restitutor_orbis says:

                I have been slowly working through an updated theology of Christian war based on rediscovering ignored teachings of Christianity.

                1) Under the Old Testament, Israel was commanded by God to subjugate the Holy Land with force.
                Source: The entire Old Testament. The right for Israel to wage holy war is persuasively argued nowadays by Israeli theologians who have kindly documented it on behalf of Israel.

                Why do we care about that?… Because

                2) The New Testament superseded the Old Testament. Jews lost their status. The Church is the new Israel.
                Source: Matthew 21:33-45 (Parable of Vineyard). The theory of supersession, dominant in Christianity for 2000 years, has been “replaced” since WW2 by “dual covenant” or “dispensationalism”, which has gutted our warrior-priest theology.

                OK, so what is our equivalent of the Holy Land that we’re to subjugate?

                3) In the New Testament, Christians are commanded to “go and make disciples of all the nations” so that “thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven.”

                Source: Mathew 28:19. “Go and make disciples of all the nations”. This “Great Commission” was widely cited by the Spanish conquistadors and “evangelism by the sword” as the justification for putting an end to demon-worship in the New World. It’s nowadays mostly cited by Christian reconstructionism and Christion Dominionism, but sadly combined with Dispensationalism, which we reject.

                4) Since Christians are the New Israel and the World is the new Holy Land, Christians should use force if necessary. God rewards those who evangelize his Church by the sword with rule.

                Source: This is a logical outcome of the above. But we can find Scriptural support in

                Revelations 2:26. “The one who conquers and who keeps my works until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations. He will rule them with an iron rod and shatter them like pottery— just as I have received authority from My Father, and I will give him the Morning Star.”

                Matthew 10:34. “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”

                Luke 22:36: “He that has not sword, let him sell his cloak and buy one.”

                Much remains to be done but by returning to the old interpretations we can reclaim the religion of Constantine and the Crusaders, of Deus Vult and In Hoc Signo Vinces.

                • jim says:

                  An army needs a faith. The faith of the Republic is dead.

                  Restoring the weaponized Christianity of Constantine, the Holy Roman Empire, and the Crusaders is a military necessity, on which Putin urgently needs to get started.

                • Pooch says:

                  Restoring the weaponized Christianity of Constantine, the Holy Roman Empire, and the Crusaders is a military necessity, on which Putin urgently needs to get started.

                  An alternative interpretation of the events of Constantine was that the priesthood of early Christianity provided a superior faith to the dead and dying Roman paganism.

                  Constantine reached out his hand for something and found a live Christian faith.

                  I am disappointed in the Russian Orthodox Church. Putin may very well be reaching out his hand to grab hold of something and finding nothing worth grabbing.

                • jim says:

                  Yes, but he reached out to rise to power. He did not reach out after he rose to power.

                  The critical event was that his (mostly pagan) troops hailed him as Caesar, an honor apt to be fatal.

                  In the Roman official religion, which his army officially practiced, any enterprise required the official priests to sacrifice an animal, and read the auguries.

                  The priesthood, possibly under the influence of demons, probably under the influence of Rome, gave this enterprise extremely bad omens.

                  Constantine claimed, and perhaps had, divine inspiration that he would win. “In this sign, conquer”, and had his army carry Christian banners.

                  And under those banners, he took Rome.

                  Christianity became the state religion under an emperor whose army had carried Christian banners into battle in the civil war.

                  This happened at a time when military technology was tending to favor a relatively small number of elite well equipped well trained troops, in which situation, because elite troops need to be granted considerable room for initiative and independent action, elite cohesion becomes more important.

                  The official priesthood attacked that cohesion. Which attack was weak because no one believed the official religion any more, even though they officially gave lip service, even though Constantine officially gave lip service. Fighting under Christian banners implies and presupposes elite warrior cohesion on the basis of shared Christian faith.

                  The Christian banners celebrated and maintained that cohesion.

                  The analogous event in modern America would be that the Cathedral denounces an army faction as as sexist, racist, homophobic and transphobic, and the hostile force puts crosses on its military vehicles and purges women and perverts from anything that can exercise authority over fighting men.

      • Kevin C. says:

        > Is there such a thing as right wing atheism? If so, how is it derived?

        I’d say so, and it starts with Xunzi.

        I could go on at quite a length, with quotations from both said Confucian sage (often described in the West as the Hobbes to Mencius’s Rousseau), and from Alexander Eustice-Corwin’s “Confucianism After Darwin.” But to try to tl;dr it, societal traditions and rituals — “the rites” in Confucian parlance — are a kind of technology, like writing or agriculture. They allow us to maintain post-Neolithic civilizations despite brains mostly adapted to the Paleolithic. Like any product of Darwinian struggle, their conservation and antiquity serve as attestation of their adaptedness and utility, and one tampers with them at not just one’s own but at society’s peril.

        And that while (leftist) atheists claim to “believe in” Darwinism, in practice they don’t actually believe it — or even understand it, really — except as a vague creation myth and shibboleth, and they react with shrieking and sputtering whenever you point them to its present-day implications.

        A Darwinian materialist universe, properly understood, is no friendlier to Leftist egalitarianism or creation of the New Soviet Man Progressive Genderfluid Individual than the Old Testament is.

        And, as I’ve said to a Catholic friend, with whom I find more in common despite my unbelief than I do any (left-wing) “atheist,” we can dispute whether those who wrote down the Old Testament had any experience with the divine, but we cannot dispute they had experience with *women*.

        • Aidan says:

          The problem with the Darwinian materialist universe is that it carries no prescriptive force and has no ability to fight off religious attacks. “Yes the Darwinian universe is real but as human beings we need to be better than that *insert hostile faith here*”.

          The elite American eugenicist socialist who believed in racist sexist Darwinism was outmaneuvered and defeated with trivial ease within the span of a generation by hostile entryists to his faith; or rather, because it could not constitute a faith, the scientists who professed it were easily infected by hostile memes.

    • The Ducking Man says:

      By your logic Islam holds same godhood as Christianity does.

      Demonic possession with absolute hatred to Allah and arabic prayer are very common in where I live.

    • Anonymous Fake says:

      The most shocking and offensive part of Christianity today is that it declares that one’s genitals are just fine as they are and you don’t need to take a knife to them. Most people don’t believe this now, even most people who claim to be Christian.

      • James says:

        Most people absolutely believe this, but they’re too scared to say so since saying so is apt to get you locked out of jobs that can support a family.

  36. Pooch says:

    Jim, you mentioned that to make Christianity the state religion of the US Empire would require putting someone like Phil Robertson as the President of Harvard. Well, going back in time long enough we can someone like Phil Robertson was actually in fact the President of Harvard. Wouldn’t we just run into the same leftward drift again with subsequent Presidents of Harvard? Given Harvard’s outsize influence as a seminary, wouldn’t it always be in Harvard’s interest to promote ideas that increased its power?

    • Pooch says:

      I should say wouldn’t it always be in Harvard’s interest to select a President who promotes ideas that increase its power? Or would Caesar always be in charge of appointing new Presidents of Harvard in order to curb this?

      • jim says:

        When Caesar takes charge, it is likely to be tranny Caeser, someone who shares Havard’s ideology. But Harvard will not like him being Caesar, and he will have no alternative but to do something about it.

        This is likely to empty out the state religion, and it then becomes possible to do something about it from the bottom. But in the meantime, Caesar, being a true believer, is apt to engage in a suicidal course.

        • Pooch says:

          Yes. As I often say, three centuries between Augustus and Constantine. But when we do finally get Constantine, god willing, will he always be in charge of appointing the top priest?

          • Bouncer says:

            > three centuries between Augustus and Constantine
            Yes, but there was _much_ less time between Josef Stalin and Nikita Khrushchev. Think of GAE’s Caesar as “Stalin 2.0”, ending Lenin’s leftwards tailspin (the whole reason you find modern marxists hating Stalin).

            • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

              Similarly, a rather short time between Caesar himself and Augustus himself.

    • Skippy says:

      Harvard was low church dissenter since the day it was founded.

      • Pooch says:

        The first few Presidents before the Enlightenment were hardcore Puritan Trinitarian Calvinists. As radical as they were, the initial Puritans still were insanely virtuous and red pilled with 6-7 children per woman. After the Enlightenment, the new Presidents quickly started dismantling the trinity.

        • Anonymous Fake says:

          The Enlightenment is something of a boogeyman in this case. Puritanism was always based on voting for one’s elders instead of trusting the hereditary king’s appointed bishops. This is fundamentally being governed by people hungry for power, rather than those born into it, and ultimately it becomes merged with the Cathedral as soon as elections become too big, expensive, and yet lucrative, etc. Contests taken too far reward cheating, not virtue, as it becomes impossible for an honest person to achieve the nominally heroic standards required of the political elite.

          “Fundamentalist” Calvinist types are kept around as a reserve army of the establishment and they don’t even know they’re part of it. But try to bring up monarchy with them and they’ll think of it and you even lower than Pope Francis.

          Federalism is a failed attempt at keeping together a confederation of petty elected officials with virtue and avoiding elite politicians who are simply the most skilled con artists. This never works because the Presbyterian ideology is poisonous from the beginning and you can’t beat the devil at his own game.

          • jim says:

            > “Fundamentalist” Calvinist types are kept around as a reserve army of the establishment and they don’t even know they’re part of it.

            You are seriously detached from reality.

            Harvard was from its founding a religious institution, and very early on became extremely hostile to co-religionists who failed to keep up with the current year.

        • Skippy says:

          The Puritans were virtuous compared to other low church dissenters. They had family but no government, no society, no real religion in the sense that the Church of England was a religion.

          Every generation of leftism looks like rightism by the standards of the following generation of leftism, and like intolerable hitlernaznazi by the standards of the one after that.

          • Pooch says:

            They had family but no government, no society, no real religion in the sense that the Church of England was a religion.

            Untrue. Under the initial Massachusetts colony charter, the Puritans created a government in which Congregationalism was the state church, its ministers were supported by taxpayers, and only full church members could vote in elections. It was in this society that Harvard was founded to ensure that Massachusetts had a supply of educated ministers.

            • Skippy says:

              Which government was impossibly diffuse and ineffective compared to the English government, and faded away without fighting.

              • jim says:


                That rule was strong, authoritarian, highly centralized, and the Crown never successfully subdued it.

                Britain ruled, but its rule was never effective against the strong and centralized Massachusets State Church, which eventually conquered America in the war of Northern Aggression, and now rules the world.

                Globohomo has complete continuity of organization and personnel going back all the way to the ministers kicked out of the Church of England by Charles the Second for doing then what they are doing now.

                The government of Massachusetts is still with us.

                And though the faith of that state Church has changed utterly beyond recognition, that change happened incrementally by small degrees, each small change originating from Harvard, the vatican of that state Church..

                • Skippy says:

                  Britain didn’t defeat Massachusetts, but USG did.

                  The current USG seems to be Quaker-descended, as others have pointed out, and not Puritan-descended.

                  It may be that Puritans turned into Quakers.

                  It may be that the converged Puritan institutions replaced the original Quaker institutions at the top of the pyramid. Quakers died out very quickly from asking women for permission five times for anything, but Quakerism did not die out.

                • jim says:

                  > The current USG seems to be Quaker-descended, as others have pointed out, and not Puritan-descended.

                  Harvard never stopped being a religious institution, and continued to perceive itself as a Christian religious institution all the way to the 1950.

                  Harvard rather obviously rules the world now, and continuously ruled Massachusets from its beginning.

                  Not seeing significant Quaker influence in Harvard at any stage.

                • Skippy says:

                  The history of Massachusetts in the 17th and 18th centuries is a topic that needs a comprehensive and detailed investigation from original sources, like English Society 1660-1832.

                  The English and British restoration governments did make a concerned effort to assert control over Massachusetts and to institute Anglicanism. Not with total success, but it would be dangerous to assume that they caused no damage at all.

                  Massachusetts seems to have entered the USA with a surrender of its status as a Puritan/Congregationalist exclusivist state:

                  “Massachusetts was the first state in the United States to abolish slavery. (Vermont, which became part of the U.S. in 1791, abolished adult slavery somewhat earlier than Massachusetts, in 1777.) The new constitution also dropped any religious tests for political office, though local tax money had to be paid to support local churches. People who belonged to non-Congregational churches paid their tax money to their own church, and the churchless paid to the Congregationalists.”


                  The first seat of the government of the independent American states was at Philadelphia, in Quaker country, not in Boston.

                  The Moldbug story requires more detailed investigation.

                • Skippy says:

                  My hypothesis is that the Puritan government (of course they had one) was church polity and a very weak church polity – the equality of every village pastor. The Puritan “state” was a confederation of villages in which additionally every member of a village could leave any time he wanted and join a different village. Such a “state” is going to have a hard time forming an army and it doesn’t look like Massachusetts Puritans ever succeeded in forming an army, though they had some influence in the armies raised by the official kingly state of Massachusetts, which they generally opposed.

                  Quakers on the other hand had a nebulous and apparently inoffensive belief system perfectly suited for entryism. Quakerism is social poison, so the Quakers killed themselves, but not before entering more institutions, turning them in to factories for more Quakers, and dooming them to death. A pattern we see to the present day.

                  The Puritan aesthetic is completely gone, and Progressives don’t look much like 17th century Puritans at all, but they look almost exactly like 17th century Quakers.

                • Skippy says:

                  “In 1660, English Quaker Mary Dyer was hanged near[37] Boston Common for repeatedly defying a Puritan law banning Quakers from the colony.[38] She was one of the four executed Quakers known as the Boston martyrs. In 1661, King Charles II forbade Massachusetts from executing anyone for professing Quakerism.[39] In 1684, England revoked the Massachusetts charter, sent over a royal governor to enforce English laws in 1686 and, in 1689, passed a broad Toleration Act.[39]”


                • Skippy says:

                  I stand corrected. England/Britain did defeat Massachusetts. James II legally abolished Massachusetts and merged it with non-Puritan territories. It re-established itself in 1688 with questionable legitimacy, and William III confirmed its existence but only on the basis that it was not allowed to continue to be a Puritan theocracy.

                  Moldbug is wrong.

                • Skippy says:

                  Woodrow Wilson came from Princeton in Quaker country, and his “peace without victory” policy seems rather more Quaker than the Congregationalist “God made them as stubble to our swords.” (Cromwell)

                  Princeton educated the Southern elite as neither RIchmond nor Charleston had a major university.

                  Harvard has eclipsed Princeton recently. Every Harvard president has been Jewish since 1991. I’m unsure how significant Harvard was in the twilight of the Congregationalists. The direct and major influence of the universities onto politics essentially started with Wilson and was consolidated with FDR. FDR went to Harvard but had vague religious views.

                  “As we discussed, FDR had had a pretty sunny religious upbringing within a liberal Protestantism that H. Richard Niebuhr once dismissed as “a God without wrath saving a people without sin through Christ without a cross.” ”

                  Sounds more Quaker than Puritan.

    • Red says:

      The first king placed his daughter in charge of his city’s priesthood. Kings appointing the leader of the clergy works and is time tested practice.

  37. Basil says:

    There was no war in the Persian Gulf, but there was a genocide perpetrated by Russian barbarians in Bucha. One of the main outcomes of the war is Russia’s loss of moral superiority. Now, the Russians are not the people who liberated Europe from the Nazis, but Russia is the country of victorious Nazism. Moreover, this is Nazism with a powerful aesthetic of beautiful German girls, beaten Weimar Jews and transvestites, pagan holidays and Hugo Boss, this is Nazism of cowardice, cheap betrayal, poverty and senseless cruelty.

    One of the narratives prevailing in the modern information space of Ukraine and Russia is “The Nazi occupiers were not so bad, there were enough decent people among the Germans, and the occupation authorities put things in order by destroying banditry.” With all the religious attitude to the Second World War, prevailing in Eastern Europe. Now, the place of the main enemy is occupied by Russia and the Russian soldier who came to kill unarmed guys, rape girls, bomb houses and loot. Inside Russia, Russophobic sentiments are stronger every day, as are institutions hostile to Russians. Every word coming from the lips of the authorities of the Russian Federation or the Russian Orthodox Church is perceived as a cynical lie unworthy of attention by default. National separatist minorities and Russia’s neighbors see a window of opportunity before them.

    You will know them by their fruits.

    • The Cominator says:

      You’re some kind of Pole or Rumanian butthurt belter not a Russian.

    • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

      Starman, would you be so kind as to give this man the Woman Question? I am starting to think that there is something wrong with our dear Basil.

      • Basil says:

        Rape of Ukrainian women is bad, because Ukrainian women should belong to their fathers and husbands. In fact, this is a form of seizure and damage to property.

        Putin did not solve the women’s issue in Russia and he will not solve it in Ukraine either.

        • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

          I do not care about the rape of Ukrainian women. I think you are an enemy, and I want to see if you can pass a test. You sound like an enemy, and your presence is starting to smell like an enemy.

          • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

            Basil is an enemy shill confirmed.


            The dead were ethnic Russians in Kiev that Azov butchered. Then they incompetently tried to blame it on Russians.

            • Basil says:

              The reference to Baudrillard in my post hints that I am not talking about real events, but about how these events will be understood and interpreted, including within Russia. They will be interpreted as meaningless Russian war crimes.

              Millions of ethnic Russians live in Ukraine, including many ethnic Russians who are part of the Azov Regiment. Unlike the colonel of the 64th motorized rifle brigade Omurbekov Azatbek Asanbekovich. People with such names committed a real genocide of Russians in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, people with such names commit crimes against Russians inside Russia as “labor migrants”, but in Ukraine they naturally took up the protection of Russians. Don’t be a clown.

              • jim says:

                > They will be interpreted as meaningless Russian war crimes.

                You have limitless confidence in the effectiveness of Cathedral propaganda.

                It is starting to saturate. It is not working any more. Cathedral soft power is big trouble.

                • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

                  Cathedral soft power was just the velvet glove over their hard power. Everyone is starting to see that the glove is empty.

                • Aidan says:

                  Cathedral propaganda, in my experience, is effective on the Russia issue. I met a delightful old woman the other day who spent a lot of time bitching about gooks taking over her neighborhood and driving like shit, and then the conversation turned to the war. “Putin’s a war criminal, Putin needs to be taken out, Putin lost 40,000 men in Ukraine”.

                  “And… you believe that?”

                  “I saw it on CNN”

                  “CNN would tell you that asians are good drivers too”

                  Ironically, leftist propaganda works a lot better when it appeals to people’s normal sense of patriotism.

                • Pooch says:

                  Yes, sadly the anti-Russian propaganda is working on some otherwise solid conservacons because it’s hard for them to disapprove the lies with reality in front of their noses unlike gay and black crime.

          • Basil says:

            Why don’t Russian men in Russia own Russian women? Why in Russia “marriage” is an empty phrase and Russian babies do not appear? Why is a real marriage illegal in Russia, with the exception of the North Caucasus and other ethnic non-white regions of the Russian Federation? Why are you defending the old feminist anti-European KGB prick?

            In order for the people to reproduce and for cooperation to reign in society, men must lead women’s sexual choice. In Russia, the people are not reproduced, and Russian society is simply the standard of a society of low trust. In particular, this is due to the fact that Putin has not resolved the women’s issue in Russia and is not going to solve it.

            • Guy says:

              Very very few people here, maybe none, are of the opinion that Russia has it all figured out. It’s an empire, with all the associated problems and baggage. People praise it relative to the GAE, and in the context that it is helping to push the GAE over the edge. You’re arguing with nobody.

    • bibah says:

      there was a genocide perpetrated by Russian barbarians in Bucha

      Another stupid blunder by Putin. The purpose of the Bucha barbarism was to demoralize the Ukrainians by striking terror into their hearts. On the contrary, the result will be to strengthen the resolve of the Ukrainian resistance and further demoralize the Russian public, which has family members all over Ukraine.

      It appears that Wormtongues are whispering in Putin’s ear.

      • jim says:

        Bucha is not a likely location for Russian crimes.

        it is a likely location for crimes by the Azov brigade.

        We have seen a vigorous effort by Russians to win the hearts and minds of Russian speakers in the Ukraine, which effort shows every sign of succeeding, and proof of its success it the increasingly brutal terror being waged by Zelensky and the Azov brigade.

        • Pooch says:

          Putin is going to need to understand he is in a holy war against demon-infested Ukrainian speakers. I see no signs of him invoking God.

        • Drien says:

          Seriously what is the deal with the avoz people? It just doesn’t compute. They dont seem like actual nazis or rightists, they don’t seem like fake and gay mercenaries like a lot or people say (too dedicated and willing to die.) Are they really just a satanic death cult?

          • jim says:

            Old type leftism was nationalist and socialist. Nationalist leftism hit a decline when no more emperors, thus no more applecarts to knock over, and in the end internationalist leftism crushed it brutally. But in the Ukraine, old type leftists get indulgence from the Cathedral for obvious reasons.

            So, not fake and gay. The real original leftism that the Cathedral is now reluctantly in alliance with, with both sides planning to crush the other once victory is assured.

            • Pooch says:

              Reaching mass grave status now of Nationalistic Ukraine. All Russian speaking people will be genocided in Ukraine held areas after/during this war.

              • Basil says:

                Nonsense, that most of Azov speaks Russian

                • S says:

                  Did you know pol pot was a foreign educated intellectual? Or that Lenin was a noble? Kill everyone else is a repeated socialist death spiral.

            • Joe says:

              Empirical data suggests that support of faggotry is a fracture point for that alliance. Globohomo shills do not like you telling Ukrainian shills that globohomo victory will see their sons turned into faggots.

            • Pooch says:

              Old type leftism was nationalist and socialist

              20th century nationalist leftism was a formidable faith. Russia does not have the combined might of the 20th century internationalist faith to crush it this time. I fear they have brought a gun to a gun fight but not a faith to a holy war.

      • Basil says:

        Putin’s problem is that he has created an environment in which successful information attack on Russia can be carried out, and the possibility of counter-attack operations in the west has decreased.

        The second problem is that he did not create lofty conditions inside Russia. David’s heroic resistance turned out to be more interesting, even in a dysfunctional country like Ukraine, than the country Putin created. This is not just about Ukrainians, foreign lovers of The Soviet prick prefers to stay in a country with transgender, we can say that they live inside the tale of Northern Hyperborea.

        Putin’s third problem is that he is a Soviet prick and cannot become a legitimate Russian tsar because of his nature.

    • Skippy says:

      Basil glows in the dark. His most ridiculous post complained about Putin not implementing school vouchers.

      • Basil says:

        You simply do not understand how rotten the modern Prussian school is… Reactionaries need to talk more about this problem, the idea that the modern school is one of the main drivers of modern leftism.

        It is utopian to think that the Normis are starting to take away their children from school en masse and switch to home schooling, as I would like. It is utopian to think that Putin will abolish general secondary education, he has not done things much less motivated. In this case, it is necessary to weaken the harmful influence of the school and one way to do this is through a voucher system.

        • Skippy says:

          Schools need to be smashed but vouchers are a US meme and really a US liberaltarian meme. Never heard anyone even in the US reactosphere talk about them. Most people in other countries are unaware of the idea. It somehow feels uniquely unRussian. Probably because it depends on efficient and honest bureaucracy for implementation.

          Further thoughts on you. You do not make any Slavic/foreign language errors in English. There are such Russian natives with extreme English proficiency, like Anatoly Karlin, but they’re very rare, and I don’t see any huge body of writing in English from you.

          You’re an American posting from America who has some knowledge of Russian culture. Your glow is dim and sophisticated but no less radioactive.

          • Skippy says:

            Vouchers are a coap mechanism for Americans trying to do what they can with the US Constitution and with their own essential soullessness. Why wouldn’t a Russian nationalist want to give the schools to the Orthodox church? The same post complained that Putin didn’t reimpose patriarchal marriage.

            You post exclusively from within a US mental frame, specifically a US mental frame constructed by a US progressive trying to mimmick a US internet reactionary. Admittedly a much more sophisticated effort than the usual.

            • Basil says:

              I will never take my child to school. My child. Not states, not schools, not teachers, not people who write school textbooks and define their holiness. My. This is a fundamental position. The Bible doesn’t say: find a good Orthodox school and throw your kids into it. The Lord explicitly and repeatedly indicates that parents should educate and raise their children. In this judgment, I have full confidence in Scripture and Christian doctrine. The creators of the modern school themselves say that the goal of the school is to replace family, social and patriotic values ​​with obedience to bureaucrats and loyalty to the faceless Motherland. And the problem is not only in the content, but also in the form.

              I have never concealed the fact that my views combine libertarian and reactionary principles. They complement, not contradict each other.

              • Skippy says:

                An argument I don’t necessarily disagree with.

                Nonetheless a very American argument articulated in perfect American idiom based on the better quality of American libertarian wingnut thinkers.

          • Basil says:

            English is the lingua franca of the 21st century. When I was small, I needed it to listen to the original voice acting in games, not the perversions of FARGUS, and now I need it for my work.

            You have a poor idea of the mood outside of America. In Russia people want less state in their lives. It’s okay to want a reduction in what is killing your ancestors and ruining your life now.

            And no, most of them are not liberals, but ordinary men who do not want to pay taxes

            • Skippy says:

              I am not American. I have worked with Russian native speakers who produce professional documents who cannot place articles with the 100% accuracy that you somehow manage.

              You are saying “hello fellow American libertarians, I am a Russian American libertarian here to tell you that Putin is bad.”

            • jim says:

              > In Russia people want less state in their lives.

              I am sure they do, but in the west Libertarianism as an organized political faction is a 100% Cathedral owned skin suit. The same appears to be true in Russia.

              I don’t think you are either a Russian or a Libertarian.

              To see if you are a libertarian, or a Cathedral operative wearing the Libertarian skin suit, give me the old pre skin suit line on freedom of association. Tell me about freedom of association in Russia and America.

    • Kunning Drueger says:

      Why does your spam always track with GAE talking points?

      • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

        Because he is a lying piece of shit.

        • Mike says:

          While he is indeed a liar, you all are probably reading into him too much. If you’ve been on right-wing Twitter lately you’ll have noticed how the war has essentially split the Dissident movement down the middle. Americans are incredulous that Euros could support NATO/EU/US in any way while meanwhile the Euros are incredulous that Americans have nothing bad to say about Russia.

          While it is possible that Basil is a Russian libtard or something, it is equally possible that he is a Ukrainian or some other Euro simply projecting his ancient ethnic rivalries on the conflict. Finns are doing this, Poles are doing this, Czechs are doing this. Hungary is the only “based” European country that isn’t and it has practically been kicked out of Visegard for not fearing Russia sufficiently.

          • Pooch says:

            He’s a dumb Polak.

            • The Cominator says:

              This, needs to be partioned again.

              • Mike says:

                You are never going to make the European countries east of the Elbe like Russia. It just isn’t going to happen. The US needs to get out of there ASAP so those states’ natural geopolitical worries about Russia are pursued on their own, regional merits, rather than being tied into the insane foreign policy of the US vampire.

              • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

                Indeed. We cannot be allowing idiots to drag us into a nuclear confluct over ancient rivalries. If sanity does not reign them in, then the sane will have to.

            • skippy says:

              He is almost certainly an American posting from America.

          • Basil says:

            Мне нравиться, как российская пропаганда “выписывает” из русских русских, которые имеют вопросы к советской и современной российской власти, но всячески облизывает всяческих нацменов, который стоят на службе режима. Тесак, который приложил огромные усилия для самоорганизации русского общества, сформировал целую плеяду организаций, занятых поиском и травлей педофилов, геев и наркоторговцев удивительным образом убил себя в российской тюрьме, предварительно вырвав себе ногти. Крылов, один из главных идеологов русского национализма, организатор русских маршей, был отравлен фсб. Но Рамхан Ахматович Кадыров, который сейчас пляшет лезгинку на трупах славян это Герой России. Вы в этом сомневаетесь? Просто вы недостаточно русский, вот и все. Русскость определяется по готовности человека лизать задницу комиссару.

    • ten says:

      You are gay.

      No no no, listen. Listen.


      Are gay.

      Fucking gay as fuck.

      Fucking faggot gay ass motherfucker.

      You’re fucking gay.

    • The Chad Russian Rapist says:

      One day (in the unlikely event that you produce progeny) you will attend your young son’s elementary school play. It is a very good school, because your government graciously provided a voucher. The curtains will rise on him dancing around in a miniskirt and thong before he is grabbed and forcibly sodomized by a fat nigger tranny, your son’s homeroom teacher, in full view of the audience. Your country did not have niggers before, but now it does. After finishing, your son, choking back tears, gives a speech on how much he loves cock as the audience erupts in rapturous applause. You clap as well, and keep clapping, knowing you are likely to lose your job if you do not.

      “Thank Floyd”, you think. “Thank Floyd that we fought off Putin. His reactionary state was less than ideal, after all. And the Rainbow Empire let you keep your petty regional nationalism too! Maybe some day you’ll elect a sensible right of center nationalist just like Orban, who will provide subsidies to birthing humans and increase your historically insignificant peasant nation’s TFR by .04 as a result.

      • Basil says:

        The more centralized the school system, the more likely it is that every school in your country will resemble the scenario you describe, and the more likely you will lose the freedom to raise your children in person completely, as the Germans lost it. This, in turn, predetermines the left social catastrophe and dooms the nation to collapse.

        Because under the voucher system, the parents will decide, not the government official. This gives rise to competition between schools, it allows parents to form the school curriculum and the teaching staff. At the same time, this is quite a real reform, and not just another wet fantasy about King Trump.

        Orban showed better demographic dynamics for ethnic Hungarians than Putin for ethnic Russians and does not bring more than 500k migrants from Central Asia into his country per year. Putin also sponsors births through “social assistance” if you didn’t know.

        • Kunning Drueger says:

          1) You’ve been blown the fuck out, yet you persist. Shill tactic, yeah, but also lone warrior tendency. I’ve done it before myself.

          2) You insist that the idea of perfect acquits your opposition to an obvious good. Zoom out from our personal issues (I’m a father dealing with the education industrial complex as well), zoom out from our current era, and look at the broad, historical facts: the GAE had to hide until USSR collapsed. They then declare that History is over, and begin to move in the open. Their inaugural moves are faggotizing entertainment, westernizing the Pact, and pillaging Russia. They continue to grow, even as their American opposition spends it’s blood fighting ragheads. They ignore Russia and assume convergence will just take a bit longer. They pivot to the far East, attempting to use the same tactics against China that worked on USSR. As they realize their eschaton, their incompetence and evil usher in decay and regression. Someone was bound to stand up and resist. It is Putin. This is not optimal, as Putin is far from perfect. The GAE is attempting to portray the Opposition as Putinist, as a personality cult. They need this to be a struggle between their overwhelming power and a selfish, moronic, insane lone adversary. If it turns into a competition of ideology, they are in bad shape for that type of struggle.

          3) Fine, Putin bad. What is better? Who should we look to? Trust the process? Vote our way to Better? Fucking China?

          I commend your resilience. I’m annoyed by your recalcitrance. I wonder about your motives.

  38. Opioidus says:

    Very relevant:
    I read it a couple of years back, to this day, it remains the single most horrifying thing I have ever read.

  39. Anonymous Fake says:

    Opposing the trannies isn’t a very strong position when most conservatives [*utterly alien account of conservatives and conservatism deleted*]

    • jim says:

      You don’t know any mainstream conservatives, and you attempt to discuss the issues in language that does not acknowledge that there is any difference between men and women – even on the sports field. You don’t even know what regular mainstream conservatives are saying and doing on these issues.

      There is a lot that is terribly wrong with conservatism, but the flaws that you depict would never occur to anyone that had any contact with conservatives or conservatism.

      Conservatives are powerless and impotent because they cannot say “degenerate”, “contemptible”, “disgusting”, “inferior”, “defective”, “perverted”, “depraved”, and “evil”. And getting aboard with trannie cult is not going to empower them.

      • The Cominator says:

        The flaws of centre-right cuckservatives at the individual level is that they are in many ways feminine in spirit.

        Too nice as people on average, terrified of being so offensive they’ll be put out of the mainstream. At the strategic level its that they are trying to hold ground not trying to take it.

        • Adam says:

          They always let the left frame the issue, and argue the issue as the left frames it. Better would be a display of force and the word “no”.

        • pyrrhus says:

          Yes, conservatives are led by women, or men pandering to women, being “nice” about every form of depravity…Can’t wait for NRO to publish “the conservative case for having sex with animals”….

          • The Cominator says:

            They are ussually genuinely really nice people and in any sane society would be good men and pillars of it…

            But they just delude themselves. Unlike leftists i certainly would not kill them (their politicians yes) but those with specific lower level political functions… their punishment should be to carry out the great minecrafting.

      • Anonymous Fake says:

        [*Cathedral biology deleted*]

        • jim says:

          If the difference between men and women is merely testosterone, then they can give testosterone to twelve year old girl school has convinced her to transition, and bingo, she will be a man.

          Does not work like that. Testosterone does not work like that even for men, though it is a big help, and declining testosterone levels are a gigantic problem.

          • Anonymous Fake says:

            [*Deleted for sex neutral discussion of political and human sex reproduction and marriage issues*]

            • jim says:

              It is impossible to think about these issues or discuss them in language that fails to reference the difference between men and women, so your contribution is mere noise.

  40. Kunning Drueger says:

    Possibly off topic
    A while back, a commenter here stated something along the lines of “women only post online for 1 of 2 reasons: display or demand”(heavily paraphrased, sorry for lack of direct quote). For the consideration of those here, and with a request for comment, critique, and application, I submit the following:

    Simple Signal Response and Interaction theory

    Female social media interaction appears to conform to some very primitive motivations. The assertion is: every female social media post falls into 2 categories, and each category consists of 2 groups. The categories are “Demand” and “Display.” The groups are “Someone Should Come Get This/Me” & “No One Can Get/Have/Handle This/Me” for the first category and “Look What I Have” & “Why Don’t I Have?” for the second category.

    The groups can be further divided into positive, negative, or neutral. Messages and posts can carry a double valence, requiring the reader/receiver to decide the state upon viewing, a form of Quantum Fitness Testing. This is completely reversible at any point, even ex post facto, even years after the fact. The charge of the message can vary, but the categorization has a direct connection to the status or state the female believes she enjoys/suffers from at the precise moment of the post. For example, a happily married tradwife can make a Someone Should Come Get This post aimed at exes and alphas due to an argument or emotion of the moment. This doesn’t change the many honestly proud Look What I Haves that came before, or after, but in the precise moment of posting, she feels inclined to or justified in …Come Get This posting.

    Posts written over time can contain both categories, of both groups, with all three potentialities, but it is more common to see self-referential or self-reinforcining with a more or less consistently aligned flock of signals. For example, a standard thot that’s recently converted to LTR can post a complicated signal of “No One Can Have” + “Look What I Have” + “Why Don’t I Have ” + “Someone Should Come Get This” all wrapped up in a “Look What I Have.”

    Familiarity with the person behind the post decrypts the nuance of the signalling. Scrolling through Female Twitter will generate unintelligible signalling to a normal, uninvolved male, but if you drill do