The clot shot

In my first post of this series I said:

It is early days yet, but it should be showing up in the death statistics. Has not killed that many so far, though it has killed far more than a normal vaccine.

Well I have been monitoring the death statistics, the excess death rate, and numerous indicators that should correlate with clot shot death rate and getting confusing and contradictory information – information so confusing and contradictory as to reveal that many, probably most, governments all over the world are massively lying about the excess death rate.

What we are seeing is a whole lot of excess death among young healthy people whose deaths are apt to cause attention, like professional players on the football field, or airline pilots in flight. We are also seeing one organization reporting excess deaths and abnormal levels of hospitalization, and another organization not reporting it, or saying it is the holy and awesome covid demon when it obviously is not, or saying several contradictory things at once. It is not happening, it is happening and caused by Covid, and yes lots of people are being taken to hospital with heart attacks, but they are totally fine, no big deal, and it is absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the vaccine. Similarly, stats for scabies and Epstein Barr. I am seeing massive indications of massive though poorly coordinated lying all over the place, rendering excess death statistics in the same league as the American Consumer Price Index or Soviet statistics. Recollect the statistics in Orwell’s 1984. That is what they are worth.

And I have for some time been seeing indications of a large and unprecedented increase in the death rate of young and working age people, far bigger than the excess death rate that occurred during China flu pandemics, indications of a substantial reduction in life expectancy, but it was difficult to accurately say how big. But big.

And then I saw this, which you have probably all seen, but here it is again:

“We are seeing, right now, the highest death rates we have seen in the history of this business – not just at OneAmerica,” the company’s CEO Scott Davison said during an online news conference this week. “The data is consistent across every player in that business.”

The other shoe just dropped. Now we know how big.

Key points:

Deaths among 18-64 year-olds (who don’t normally die) are up by 40% in 2021 vs. pre-pandemic levels

This is huge. HUGE. They’ve never seen anything like this before in their history. Normally death rates don’t change at all. They are very stable.

… The CEO of a major Indiana life insurance company, OneAmerica, claimed last week that death claims are up by a whopping 40% among working-age people (18-64) since the Covid vaccines became widely adopted. This is a company with tons of data, having been in the business since 1877 and holding $74 billion in assets. CEO Scott Davison said that a 10% increase is a once-in-200-year occurrence. …

He did not actually say “since the jab”, and if he had done so, would have surely been Epsteined, but the dates he gave correspond to the jab. He saying Covid is causing it, but the dates he give are jabs, not pandemic, and if it was actually China Flu causing it, we would not be seeing massive coordinated official lying about the excess death rate, and we would not see this story systematically buried. It would be shouted from the rooftops every five minutes. Even though he piously said all the right things in favor of forcing the vaccine on everyone, the way the press and government reacted revealed that everyone read this story as I did. Despite his pious words, they all knew heresy when they heard it. If there was the slightest plausibility to the idea that Covid is causing this, if there was any way it could be spun as an indication of the awesome holy might of the awesome holy Covid Demon, we would hear it on every channel all day.

That they instantly reacted by burying, rather than shouting about, casualties equivalent to a major war reveals that they knew. They have known for quite some time.

Which jab is by the way, not a vaccine. It merely something that dumb official scientists too pig ignorant to understand what they were doing made by decorating it and themselves with random fragments of things great scientists have done in the past that were arguably somewhat related to vaccination. It is snake oil that bears some rather random relationship to an actual vaccine. Vaccine science has been going downhill since 1944, vaccine technology downhill since 1974, and now vaccine technology has fallen off the cliff at the edge of the hill. It is the sudden collapse of technology as the coming Dark Age starts to bite. Other technologies currently in decline are likely to follow. If we do not rectify social decay, pretty soon we are going to be growing crops by scraping the ground with a harrow that uses bits of stone, as people did during post Roman Empire dark age, and people will tell us that overpopulation is causing famine, and we must act now to throw virgins in the volcano to protect us from Climate Change.

This is indeed huge, but probably not news for most of my readers. What is relevant to this blog is how our officially unofficial state religion is dealing with it.

By lying about it of course. Official excess death statistics have been blatantly false for some time.

But in order to coordinate a lie, you need the holy faith to tell the liars this is a noble lie. “Well, yes, it does seem that we are killing people, quite a lot of people, a huge number of people. But we must not let the people that we are killing, that we intend to kill, know, because it might promote vaccine hesitancy. Killing lots of people is a regrettable but acceptable price for making sure everyone worships at that altar of the Awesome and mighty Covid Demon. THIS IS A GOOD THING”

I have been telling you for some time we have an official religion of demon worship and human sacrifice. Here is the proof.

I am not telling you the news that the Jab is killing a lot of people. You knew that already. I don’t cover the latest news. Plenty of other people doing that. I am telling you the news that our masters know full well that they are killing a lot of people, and have chosen to go full speed ahead anyway. When they started cooking the excess death statistics, they knew. They know they are mass murderers, and feel good about it. The more they murder, the holier they are, and we are seeing intensifying competition to be the holiest.

And our enemies’s reaction to this data reveals that they know this.

In addition to unusual excess deaths I have also been seeing an epidemic of permanent disability – permanent brain fog, permanent partial heart failure that makes it impossible for the victim to put out any effort for any length of time without his heart screaming at him to stop. The brain fog is sufficiently common to have a substantial impact on car accidents. Chances are you have been seeing noticeably more erratic driving lately.

Also, an epidemic of illnesses suggestive of the destruction of people’s immune systems, notably scabies.

The CEO of one America cannot give us hard numbers on it, yet because temporary disability claims are only now starting to turn into permanent disability claim, and if he keeps giving us hard numbers, is likely to meet same fate as those Friends of Clinton who were overly talkative, but it is starting to look as if most of the long lasting temporary disability claims are going to turn into permanent disability claims.

The very short term and immediate effect of the jab is to massively worsen your vulnerability to China flu. Then it gives a few months of protection against severe China flu, but no substantial effect in reducing your chances of being infected, and it probably increases your chances of spreading it to friends and family. Then it stops being protective, and puts you at higher risk of infection, of spreading the disease, and of suffering very serious consequences from the disease. Whereupon they want to give you another jab. And another. It looks like the protective effect of each successive jab may well be shorter, and the dangerous consequences worse, though it is hard to tell as yet, because of massive coordinated lying about the question.

This could be Original Antgenic Sin, or it could be general damage to the immune system, or both. Needless to say, no one is looking at it very hard to find out what is going on, and anyone who tries too hard will probably be Epsteined or put on a ventilator for his own good.

What is the motivation? Well, it is a holy religion and you have to be holier than the next guy, or else you are likely to sleep with the Friends of Clinton, and also it is likely that the fags want to everyone else’s immune system destroyed the way theirs is destroyed.

Bottom line is that they hate us, they want us to die, and they want to kill us. And in the end there well may be no other way for us to survive except we kill them. And since you have to bring a gun to a gunfight, and faith to holy war, if we have to kill them and manage to kill them, we will have to do so in the name of the Lord. Holy wars tend to turn very nasty, but it may well turn out that nothing less will allow us to live.

Tags: ,

709 Responses to “The clot shot”

  1. Red says:

    I met a 34 woman who has congestive heart failure. They told her it was from drinking, but she had none of the signs of a hard drinker. I asked her how long she was abusing alcohol for and she said about a year before the heart problems started(drugs and such before that). Later she told me she’d caught 2 different strains of COVID probably Alpha and Delta and then gotten the 2 dose vaxx afterwards because her doctor recommended it. The heart problems started within a month of the second jab.

    After talking to her for a bit, she ask me if I thought the vaccine had caused it. She’d heard about young men being harmed by it, but nothing about women. I told her probably COVID then the vaccines since the vaccines seem to really pile on the damage after having had COVID.

  2. Starman says:

    Fun Factoid:
    2.4 million PMCs in South Africa but only 94,000 police and 75,000 military over there.

  3. IDK says:

    I had an extreme immune reaction to the regen monoclonal antibodies for covid – I sadly let the covid fear porn get to me. Big pharma is just evil. Stay safe safe frenz.

    • simplyconnected says:

      Sorry to hear and thanks for the warning.
      May you make a full recovery.

      • IDK says:

        Thanks. I’ve never had allergies – now I do (hopefully they recede over time). Sounds similar to some vax side effects.

        One reason I didn’t take the vax was because it’s massively experimental – but then I go and get massively experimental antibodies infused directly into my blood? It’s just an opportunity to get them fell into my lap and I went with it.

        Covid at its worst feels pretty bad (I even wished I had gotten the vax at one point), but by the time I got the antibodies I was nearing the end of covid – I felt fine walking in to the appointment.

        Your body is a temple. Viruses happen – be healthy and fight them off. I fell astray of Gnon and paid for it.

  4. Tityrus says:

    Don’t publish this post.

    [*What am I supposed to do with it then. There is no point in responding to a shill in private, because he is not permitted to hear anything I have to say*]

    Your responses to me were all about Santayana’s supposed rabid leftism.

    [*Absolutely none of my responses were about his supposedly rabid leftism, and whether he is or is not a rabid leftist by the standards of his time, let alone today, is completely irrelevant to the arguments that I was making, arguments that you continue to ignore, and continue to assume that no one makes, or ever would make, or have ever been made by anyone in the past two millennia of Christianity.*]

    As to Christianity, I still maintain that the outlook of the Gospel is inward-looking and ascetic, and represents a fundamental shift from the outward-looking and worldly attitude of the old Jews.

    [*That is a defensible and plausible argument, but the trouble is that in the nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty first century, it means that female emancipation, the gay parade, the family courts, transexualization of children, child protective services, drag queen story hour, the holy sacrament of abortion at female whim, and the lavender mafia in the Vatican having sex in a great big pile while worshiping Satan, are of no relevance to Christianity.

    I suppose you could cast Jesus taking a whip to the money changers in the temple as other worldly asceticism, but it is not all the same thing that post Christians have in mind when they tell Christians about other worldly asceticism.

    What the enemies of Christians and Christianity mean by “other worldly asceticism” is a one legged post-Christian Christianity that lies quietly in its death bed. This is fundamentally different from and almost the opposite of what might quite plausibly be called the other worldly asceticism of the New Testament.

    By their fruits you will know them. If no fruits, no Christianity.

    You are using the method of fake consensus. “Christians believe X”. In fact Christians believe nearly the opposite of X, but you can dig up words and phrases from the bible that can be plausibly framed as meaning Z, and Z can be plausibly framed as meaning Y, and Y can be equated with X.

    I fast, and so forth. But this is not the other world asceticism that you would like to have us read into the New Testament.*]

    This should really be obvious

    [*no it is really insane*]

    — Paul may have said good things on marriage, but it is a nonobvious proposition, which you nevertheless insist that everybody consider obvious, that Paul’s discourses about faith, sin, grace, resurrection, are all an elaborate symbolism intended to prop up marriage, and also tax-collection and commerce.

    [*Not my account, nor Paul’s account. It is not what Christianity is, it is not what the Dark Enlightenment says Christianity is, it is atheist branch of the Dark Enlightenment telling each other why they should shut up about atheism.

    So not only do I not insist that everyone consider that proposition obvious, I deny that proposition and everyone in the Dark Enlightenment, every single one, denies that proposition, the atheist branch as much as anyone. Everyone in the Dark Enlightenment thinks that Paul’s discourses do prop up marriage, tax-collection and commerce, but absolutely no one in the Dark Enlightenment thinks that they are elaborate symbolism intended to prop up marriage, tax-collection and commerce.

    Your motte is that Christianity is not merely good social technology, and you are trying to use your motte to occupy the bailey that Christianity is not good social technology, and should have nothing to do with social technology, that it should not be good social technology, indeed, should be the worst possible social technology, and that if it is not utterly destructive, ruinous, and self destructive to individual Christians and to the political and economic order of Christian societies, not genuinely Christian.*]

    [*Excessively lengthy discourse sliding back and forth between your readily defensible motte and your indefensible bailey deleted.*]

    • jim says:

      I promised to debate you, and instead censored you, but that is because you not only attributed to Christians beliefs that are almost the opposite of what Christians believe, you attributed to me beliefs that are almost the opposite of what I believe.

      I am censoring you for argument from false consensus.

      If I believed anything remotely resembling the beliefs that you attribute to me, why would I deploy the demon worshiper test? Why is the demon worshiper test, which concerns itself purely with other worldly matters, so effective?

      Not a word in it about social technology. It is all purely about other worldly matters, but somehow, strangely, no one who fails the demon worshiper test is able to condemn the family courts and child protective services.

      If anyone in all the world believed in their hearts what you tell me everyone in the entire world and throughout all of history has always believed, why this strange correlation between beliefs about this world and the next? Why this strong correlation between beliefs about social technology, and beliefs about the next world?

      If anyone in the Dark Enlightenment thought that Christianity was merely social technology, we would not apply the demon worshiper test. If anyone among our enemies genuinely believed it was only other worldly, the demon worshiper test would not work.

      The reactionary and dark enlightenment debates on Christianity were the red pill debates on women all over again.

      The early red pill sites said, in essence “Women chase alpha, largely by running away, but running very slowly. Here is how to fake being alpha”.

      Then they said “well, faking alpha does not work very well, you have to internalize it deeply”

      Then they said, “well, if you internalize it deeply, you actually become alpha. Here is how to be alpha”

      And similarly the dark enlightenment on Christianity.

      I am not fake alpha, I actually am alpha. I am also actually Christian, and so was Paul, and while there are probably quite a lot of people in the Dark Enlightenment who plausibly doubt that I am either alpha or Christian, none of us doubt that Paul was Christian.

      One can believe that Christianity is good social technology, must be good social technology or it is not genuine Christianity, and was intended from the beginning to be good social technology, without believing it is merely a Machiavellian mask for advocates of good social technology, without believing that it is merely good social technology expressed in doubletalk rhetoric.

      Just as one can believe it is desirable to be seen by women as alpha, without believing that alpha is nothing more than a mask.

      • Tityrus says:

        > If I believed anything remotely resembling the beliefs that you attribute to me, why would I deploy the demon worshiper test? Why is the demon worshiper test, which concerns itself purely with other worldly matters, so effective?

        Well, someone who claims to be a Christian, and cannot affirm basic tenets of Christianity, is thereby revealed to be dishonest. Dishonest on one thing, likely dishonest on others.

        A person could hypothetically be committed to some heretical version of Christianity, while still keeping good ideas on morality etc. In practice, of course, doesn’t happen often, but not because the belief in the Trinity in itself has any special efficacy in preserving morality, but because it is the established and orthodox opinion, and adherence to it signals adherence to orthodoxy, which incidentally includes social technology. Do you believe it is the Trinity in itself prevents leftism, or the historical orthodoxy of the Trinity prevents leftism? I always saw you as believing the latter.

        • notglowing says:

          The ultimate consequences of these heretical beliefs lead to immoral behaviour. That’s the point. One thing derives from the other.
          It’s why some of the original thought leaders who started heresies were not otherwise wicked people, but then later generations of these groups would keep getting worse.
          Cathars ultimately believed that men and women are the same, that they have the same “soul”, a surprisingly progressive idea for a movement that has no direct connection with progressivism, and they did so because of their adherence to Gnosticism and Gnostic ideas.
          This shows why some metaphysical aspects of Christianity have great importance beyond what might superficially look purely symbolic or arbitrary.

        • jim says:

          The Trinity itself prevents leftism, and vast ingenuity and effort has gone into creating deviant heretical versions that permit leftism, as for example Socinianism.

          Our enemy wants to take this world out of Christianity, but strangely finds he has to excise the Trinity also.

          If the Trinity, then social entropy bad. Christ being, among other things, the human incarnation of divine order, so, no excuse for human disorder.

          Notice how fundamental it is to left wing fake Christianity to reduce Christ to yet another Jewish community organizer. I regularly rant on this at considerable length. Not only do I think it true, our enemies act as if it was true.

          Now a Dark Enlightenment atheist could say “Well, the social technology of Jesus was good for his day, but we have better: Double entry book keeping, blockchains, lots of good stuff. We have game theory, we have evolutionary psychology”. And he would be right. But if he was to go on and say “So we know better than Jesus and can ignore his stuff”, he would be wrong. Ignore his stuff and your double entry books will strangely fail to reflect reality. He will find that no matter how good his social technology is in theory, it somehow strangely fails to be implemented in reality.

          > not because the belief in the Trinity in itself has any special efficacy in preserving morality, but because it is the established and orthodox opinion, and adherence to it signals adherence to orthodoxy

          We see lots of people loudly signaling adherence to the Christianity that you and Santanaya invented, a Christianity that is purely other worldly, and focused exclusively on the next world, with no implications for this one. And yet, strangely, they tend to fail the demon worshiper test.

          • Tityrus says:

            > If the Trinity, then social entropy bad. Christ being, among other things, the human incarnation of divine order, so, no excuse for human disorder.

            That interpretation is plausible and tortured. And in any case God did not accept many excuses from the Jews before Christ.

            One could of course say something about how Christ makes God man without granting actual divinity to man as the gnostics did etc, and usually in these matters the Church made the right calls from a poetic, though not a rational standpoint.

            > Notice how fundamental it is to left wing fake Christianity to reduce Christ to yet another Jewish community organizer. I regularly rant on this at considerable length. Not only do I think it true, our enemies act as if it was true.

            That is denial of divinity of Christ, which is obvious apostasy.

            Our enemies, for the most part, seem to reject the Trinity for more prosaic reasons: if one is going to go on a revisionist spree, you might as well deny the Trinity, because it is rather hard to understand.

            > We see lots of people loudly signaling adherence to the Christianity that you and Santanaya invented, a Christianity that is purely other worldly, and focused exclusively on the next world, with no implications for this one. And yet, strangely, they tend to fail the demon worshiper test.

            > Our enemy wants to take this world out of Christianity, but strangely finds he has to excise the Trinity also.

            If a leftist signals that adherence to promote communism, he is of course intentionally misinterpreting the Gospel. There is also the dont-fight-back interpretation they meme mainstream cons with. Both are misinterpretations and neither are what I am talking about. The Gospel just doesn’t have much to say about society— the idea “society” appears entirely absent. It has things to say about morality, but only from an individual standpoint. So the Gospel, taken in itself, is just not very useful to us. Christianity, which is more than the Bible, is obviously worthwhile and cannot be thrown away, but we learn better from it when we do not assume that everything is laid out there for our own use. It is inevitable that a religion with its roots in an ascetic sensibility and a supernatural belief (the real belief being in the resurrection and heaven/hell, not “the existence of God”) will have elements that are not reducible to the ordinary regulation of human affairs. But I suppose you will interpret it that way no matter what. Though it offend truth, it cannot be too bad, seeing as it is what the general run of people, who are not naturally religious, have always done.

            • jim says:

              > Our enemies, for the most part, seem to reject the Trinity for more prosaic reasons

              Our enemies, not your enemies. You are one of them. Cut the hail fellow reactionary stuff. You don’t sound like a reactionary or a member of the Dark Enlightenment, and you keep pumping enemy memes by false consensus. You keep telling me what I believe, what Christians believe, what everyone has supposedly always believed, when it is not what anyone has ever believed.

              You tell me what the new testament says, and it is not what it says. You tell me what I said, and it is not what I said. Friends do not act like that. Allies don’t act like that.

              > The Gospel just doesn’t have much to say about society— the idea “society” appears entirely absent. It has things to say about morality, but only from an individual standpoint. So the Gospel, taken in itself, is just not very useful to us.

              It surely is not useful to you, but it is mighty useful to me personally and to the dark enlightenment. Works. We would not be having this conversation if it did not have much to say about society.

              Back when Christianity was powerful, our enemies wanted very much to pass as Christians, and still today, practicing entryism against our movement, they loudly proclaim their other worldly Christianity, and yet, strangely, the Trinity gave them hives back then and gives them hives now.

              Worked then, works now.

              The major immediate social benefit to me in my personal life of the social message of the Gospels is in the last line of this comment.

              This whole conversation has been going on for two millennia. Christians keep thinking that the Bible has a great deal to say about society, and people who do not like what those Christians think it says about society tell them that they are wrong.

              You are not only telling me that those Christians were wrong. You are telling me they did not think that and don’t think that, that I don’t think that.

              • Tityrus says:

                > You tell me what the new testament says, and it is not what it says. You tell me what I said, and it is not what I said. Friends do not act like that. Allies don’t act like that.

                What did I tell you you said? Your change from “religion is bullshit but we need it anyway” to the outward repudiation of that view has been swift, and you flip-flop, using arguments presupposing the first frame while saying you hold to the latter. For example, the Trinity: you have most certainly not been clear that the Trinity is itself anti-entryist, and not just anti-entryist for sociological reasons, because its incomprehensibility and orthodoxy makes it a good social signal etc. This is okay, and does not indicate dishonesty, it just means you are in a state of transition.

                > Worked then, works now.

                If all you need is Paul on marriage, and the other stuff is fine for you, then it will work, for a time.

                My initial point last thread was that the most fully jimian Christianity has already existed: Protestantism. If you want an empirical datum, well, from a crude empirical point of view, Protestantism failed. We might say, oh this was because of reasons X Y and Z, but crude historical empiricism seems to be definitive to you, so there. I think this is because there is a fundamental discrepancy between the symbolism of Christianity and the faith the later Protestants intended to support with it. You do not see, or refuse to see, this discrepancy, which is good for you, but will not prevent others from recognizing and exploiting it. This is why Protestantism gradually shed all its dogma, and turned into vague pietism, state moralism, and idealist philosophy: it wasn’t expressing the faith well enough, so the commentary ended up crowding out the text.

                > This whole conversation has been going on for two millennia. Christians keep thinking that the Bible has a great deal to say about society, and people who do not like what those Christians think it says about society tell them that they are wrong.

                > You are not only telling me that those Christians were wrong. You are telling me they did not think that and don’t think that, that I don’t think that.

                As for the first part, that is true. But one can also tell them that they are wrong, because he believes that they are wrong, and because he recognizes that that something may be true without being useful.

                Ultimately you do not hold to a very different reductionist view. Do you swallow Augustinian Platonism and Hieronymic asceticism wholly? Of course not. Those two might be great Church fathers, but while not accusing them of heresy you do not regard their theologico-intellectual wanderings as definitive; not just non-definitive in content, but in spirit. You say, there is a kernel of the Gospel which is the real thing, but such-and-such percent of the accretions on top can be taken or leaved. It is therefore odd that you present yourself as a traditionalist, and your “real Christianity” as the univocal conclusion of the ages. Not only do you say they can be taken or leaved, you say that nobody with any sense has ever taken them quite seriously, that they have always conceded precedence to jimism, that they are just “poetry” and do not express the “real” Christianity, whose character happens to not just include but coincide with yours.

                • jim says:

                  > > You tell me what the new testament says, and it is not what it says. You tell me what I said, and it is not what I said. Friends do not act like that. Allies don’t act like that.

                  > What did I tell you you said? Your change from

                  Argument from fake consensus

                  I keep claiming that all existing strands of Christianity (except for those rapidly becoming post Christian, which is a lot of them, though those Churches are strangely empty, and will soon become, or have already become, anarcho feminist bookstores, or shrines to the climate change or Covid demons) are rooted in a strand that begins with bronze age nomadic shepherds, and passes through Jesus Christ the Lord, and that this rooting strand, including the most ancient root of this rooting strand, is fundamental and essential to their being.

                  And you keep ignoring this claim, denying this claim, and presupposing, taking for granted, that absolutely no one takes it seriously, least of all me, that no one has ever taken it seriously, that no one has ever thought that anyone takes it seriously

                  Your “responses” are invariably “responses” to something totally different and entirely unrelated, usually something I never said, sometimes something I said long ago, but not in response to any of your shill payload.

                  You respond to all sorts of things, real, imaginary, plausibly made up, or made up out of thin air, but you never respond to me challenging your central claim that you make over and over and over and over again.

                  Christianity just does not work if one does not take its rooting strand seriously, which is why the shills are pushing this totally and obviously fake consensus, which is just as absurd, and just as obviously absurd, as the fake consensus pushed by the troofers that there was no airliner sized and shaped hole in the pentagon, that building seven fell suddenly straight down onto its foundations for no apparent reason, that molten steel was pouring out of the trade tower, that no one saw the airliners hit the trade towers, and so on and so forth.

                  The story that you continually presuppose that everyone agrees with, that I agree with, is not the story that I am telling, the story that I have continually repeated in my responses to you, the story that every Christian Church for the past two millenia has been telling. Which continual and space wasting lengthy repetitions you resolutely ignore.

                  If no incarnation, my role in my marriage as alpha would be impaired, my capacity to represent this role socially and get away with it socially in front of my friends would be impaired. And every Church on every issue is in the same boat.

                  “> religion is bullshit but we need it anyway” to the outward repudiation of that view has been swift, and you flip-flop, using arguments presupposing the first frame while saying you hold to the latter. For example, the Trinity: you have most certainly not been clear that the Trinity is itself anti-entryist

                  Is the affirmation, the demon worshiper shill test, not clear enough?

                  “Religion is bullshit but we need it anyway” is the position of the Dark Enlightenment atheist faction. We need both factions, both factions are united in the faith of Gnon, I speak for both factions, and many key people in the Dark Enlightenment have moved, as I have, from the atheist faction to the Christian faction. Both factions are in agreement on the things of this world, and the atheist faction doubts that the things of the next matter.

                  But when I adopted the demon worshiper test for those purporting to be of the Christian faction, I presupposed that the things of the next do matter for this world, and that the test is so strangely effective is evidence that they do.

                  > > Worked then, works now.

                  > If all you need is Paul on marriage, and the other stuff is fine for you, then it will work, for a time.

                  I need the whole thread all the way back to those Bronze Age shepherds, and so does every Christian Church.

                  I keep saying that, over and over and over again, and you keep speaking as if I have said the opposite, as if everyone, including me, knows and agrees the opposite.

                  > My initial point last thread was that the most fully jimian Christianity has already existed: Protestantism. If you want an empirical datum, well, from a crude empirical point of view, Protestantism failed.

                  You guys murder a respected institution, gut it, and wear it as a skin suit. When the skin suit rots and falls apart, you announce that the respected institution failed.

                  Protestantism was very successful for a very long time. It gave us science, rapidly advanced technology, gave us industrialization and empire. And if we want to get to the stars, looks like the best path for getting us there. Why did it fail?

                  It failed, according to me, and according to “British Society 1688-1832”, due to enemy entryism, Socinian entryism. Socinians are not Protestants. they are not even Christians, but rather post-Christians. Christianity has long had a problem with enemy entryists, starting with Simon the Magician. Lots of strands of Christianity have failed due to enemy entryism. It is a perennial problem. It has happened before, many times, for example Christian Egypt. It will doubtless happen again, many times, but the methods for preventing enemy entryism are well known and effective. They just have to be vigorously applied. If William Wilberforce had been charged with apostasy and sent to Jamaica to cut sugar cane, Kings would still rule England.

                  As we spread among the planets, the asteroids, and the Oort cloud, some branches of the Church will be taken over by entryists eventually, many branches will fail, but if we have an organization resembling that of the Orthodox Christian Church, with vast distance ensuring lots of sovereign habitats each with their own national Church, each Church independent but collegially united to all of the other true Churches, not all of them will be taken over, and those not taken over will continue to expand to the nearby stars. The gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church founded by Christ.

                  > I think this is because there is a fundamental discrepancy between the symbolism of Christianity and the faith the later Protestants intended to support with it.

                  Nuts. That is as silly as the troofer claim that molten steel was pouring out of the Trade Towers. There is no fundamental discrepancy, no discrepancy at all. The Church of England failed for the same reason as so many Churches before have failed, and many Churches may well fail in future. Enemy action within.

                  It did not die of natural causes, and it is simply absurd to claim that those natural causes you suggest exist. It was murdered.
                  “British Society 1688-1832” gives the story at great length, and ever since then you guys have been trying those successful tactics over and over again against every enemy religious institution.

                  > > This whole conversation has been going on for two millennia. Christians keep thinking that the Bible has a great deal to say about society, and people who do not like what those Christians think it says about society tell them that they are wrong.

                  > > You are not only telling me that those Christians were wrong. You are telling me they did not think that and don’t think that, that I don’t think that.

                  > As for the first part, that is true. But one can also tell them that they are wrong, because he believes that they are wrong,

                  People who believe what they are saying do not argue from false consensus. It is reliable tell for a claim not genuinely held, but rather a falsehood deliberately concocted to deceive and harm one’s enemies. Manipulative tactics reveal insincere claims.

                  If someone genuinely believes something, he is going to lay out the reasons he believes it to be true, rather than cleverly dance around. If you actually thought it was true, you would respond to my reasons for thinking it untrue, thus implicitly acknowledging that not everyone thinks it is true, that you are pushing the story that you are pushing, rather than purportedly pushing some random unrelated story that presupposes the story you are pushing to be true, and that everyone already knows and agrees it to be true.

                  Over the past two millennia, we have seen plenty of strong and sincerely held disagreements about what the Bible says about society, and plenty of fake and fraudulent disagreements, and the difference was always obvious in the rhetorical tactics used.

                  > Do you swallow Augustinian Platonism

                  Augustine was a Platonist?

                  He was an Augustinian. And Augustinian realism is fundamentally incompatible with Platonic idealism, even though influenced by it in many important ways.

                  Christianity absorbed Greek philosophy, and the Jews had been absorbing it long before Christ, but the Christians also fundamentally transformed it in the course of integrating it into Christianity, while for the Jews it remained an influential but alien thing that in the end they largely rejected.

                  One important difference between Greek philosophy and Christian assimilation of Greek philosophy being that Platonic ideals are and remain in another world, but the Logos became fully flesh, and doubtless worked up a good sweat and smelt pretty bad after hand sawing a bunch of logs into planks.

                  Saint Augustine may well have thought, as I think, that the days of creation are symbols of Platonic forms, rather than literal days, but I am pretty sure his position on what the Logos smelt like after a hard day in Dad’s workshop is similar to my own position. So in so far as I am an Augustinian Platonist, I am no Platonist, nor was Saint Augustine, nor is any genuine Christian. Some form of realism is integral to Christianity, and is necessarily contrary to Platonism. Hence the passion play.

                  and Hieronymic asceticism wholly? Of course not.

                  You are lying about what those two believed. You are lying about what I believe. You are lying about what everyone believed.

                  What is “Hieronymic asceticism”? Has anyone in all of history ever used the term except you? The phrase makes no sense, except to slide a lie past the reader, the implied lie being the supposedly shared knowledge that Saint Jerome was one of those pole sitters.

                  What Saint Jerome primarily addressed was how a good Christian woman should live her life, and particularly a good Christian widow.

                • Tityrus says:

                  I know what you claim. I don’t agree. I don’t even think that the original Bronze Age inspiration is wholly pure in the Old Testament, because the Book of Job and the prophets plainly represent, not a return, but an advance on the Bronze Age faith.

                  Christians believe that God revealed his intentions slowly over time, adding new laws and abrogating old ones, which is why Christians don’t follow the law of Moses. So, yes, they acknowledge a lineage, and a Mosaic root, but do not say that Christianity was the real religion of Moses.

                  Look, you will never agree. You need a religion, so you will have a religion. You are a narrow practical person and can only understand narrow practical things. That is fine.

                • jim says:

                  > I know what you claim. I don’t agree.

                  And then you go right on telling me I claim, and that all Christians have always claimed for two millenia, the opposite of what I just claimed.

                  > I don’t even think that the original Bronze Age inspiration is wholly pure in the Old Testament, because the Book of Job and the prophets plainly represent, not a return, but an advance on the Bronze Age faith.

                  And Christianity is that prophesied advance on the Bronze Age faith. That has been the position of all genuine Christians for two millennia.

                  For this to be an argument against my position, you have to presuppose that that I agree, that all Christians have always agreed, that Christianity is new and rootless, and that therefore Christians have to justify its newness and rootlessness with argument that God changed his mind.

                  > Christians believe that God revealed his intentions slowly over time, adding new laws and abrogating old ones, which is why Christians don’t follow the law of Moses.


                  Christians do follow the law of Moses. They follow the spirit and intent of that law.

                  Once again, instead of making an argument, you presuppose that your interlocutor already agrees, that everyone has already agreed, that a position that no one holds is the unquestioned and unquestionable consensus that everyone already agrees with.

                  No this is not why Christians “don’t follow the law of Moses” – once again, you invent hateful, wicked, and foolish positions for your enemies. The problem was and is that Jews don’t follow the law of Moses. Legalism had become rejection of the commandments, instead of observance of them.

                  The problem was legalism. 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 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 got themselves covered in the blood of a Roman cop who was 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.

                  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.

                  There is a pile of law in the old testament, such as tassels, which Jesus ridiculed, that is transparently silly when transplanted to a different place and time, and a pile of law, such as the laws on blood contamination, that are intended as a particular material way, particular to a particular place and time, of materially honoring a universal, unchanging, and unchanged spiritual law. People in the first temple period were not much worried about literally getting contaminated by literal material blood, but rather by spiritual and metaphorical blood, the blood that Lady Macbeth was unsuccessfully trying to wash off with material water, the blood that the Jews copiously spilled in a foolish and wicked effort to avoid minute and microscopic contamination by material chicken blood.

                  And there is a pile of personal hygiene laws and public health laws that relate to the public health problems, the diseases and sources of contamination, that they had then, which are different from the ones we have now. Do you observe old testament law on contamination of building interiors by mold, or do you grab a bottle of Windex mold spray?

                  No one in practice observes such Old Testament law, Orthodox Jews less than anyone, because much of it is just too silly in a different time and place.

                • Tityrus says:

                  I know what you think. You say the original spirit of the Jewish law is what (early) Christianity is about. The Jews were spiralling on legalism etc etc etc. And that original spirit, for you, is about capitalism, women obeying their husbands, etc.

                  I have already said that I think early Christianity is distinguished from old type Judaism by its notes of anguish, despair, unworldliness, and supernatural hope. The old Jewish optimism according to which God rewards the righteous man with fame, wealth, and many children on Earth, while heaping indignities on the wicked, is obviously and intentionally contradicted by the life of Jesus. That was the point. The old Jewish materialism was denied: God rewarded the good, but only after death, and only their souls. And goodness was not “whatever worked”, it was often a road that led to disaster. The world was a snare, flesh was a temptation. Instead of pleasure and success, one has “grace” and “love”. This indicates an entire reversion of feeling from Bronze Age Judaism. This is what made Christianity so attractive and pathetic to those submerged masses that embraced it. How do you not see this? Christianity had moral content, but it was not Jewish morality, “do such-and-such and thou shalt be happy and live long on the earth”, but “do such-and-such and you shall be saved”, which is completely different. God chooses the weak and base things of the world, to confound the wisdom of the world and bring to dust all that is.

                  I am indeed saying that the early Christians were not jimians. I only say this because it’s true. Not saying Christianity is bad. Not saying jimism is bad. Just saying they’re different.

                • jim says:

                  > I know what you think. You say the original spirit of the Jewish law is what (early) Christianity is about. The Jews were spiralling on legalism etc etc etc. And that original spirit, for you, is about capitalism, women obeying their husbands, etc.

                  Well, you are finally, at long, long, long, last, responding to what I have been saying all along. But you continue to deny what Christianity is and always has been.

                  > I have already said that I think early Christianity is distinguished from old type Judaism by its notes of anguish, despair, unworldliness, and supernatural hope.

                  That is not what Christianity is or was.

                  From the first century to fifth, Christianity was despairing and pacific, because the circumstances made despair rational, and war unwise. From the seventh century to the fifteenth, Christianity was optimistic and warlike, because the circumstances made optimism rational, and war not only wise, but overwhelmingly just.

                  Despair is not what Christianity is or was. It is Christians accurately perceiving the circumstances of a particular time and place.

                  Despair is not what Christianity is or was. It is the tactics of Christians dealing with the circumstances of a particular time and place.

                  Same Christianity, different enemies, different circumstances, different tactics.

                  We are now in the same situation as early Roman Christians, before Christianity became the state religion. Hostile state, hostile state religion.

                  We optimistically look forward to being in the same situation as seventh century Christians. We did it before, we can do it again. Our past accomplishments give us rational basis for not despairing. Early Christians did not have those accomplishments to look back on. In this, our circumstances are similar, but in that important respect, not the same.

                  > I am indeed saying that the early Christians were not jimians.

                  Paul is Jimian, or rather Jim is Pauline. Jesus, on the other hand, was not happy with his forthcoming crucifixion, and in this he does not sound Jimian at all, but in his parable of the wicked vinedressers he looks forward to and prophesies Jimian Christianity, the new Jerusalem, that his Church will, after terrible plight, prevail, not only in the next world, but in this.

                  The big difference between me and the writers of the New Testament is that they rationally expected to be killed, and long period of decline and darkness, while I rationally hope and expect to see at least the beginnings of the new Jerusalem. Things are looking mighty bad, but our enemies are self destructing. There is a high risk of new and long dark age, but I think we can, and likely will, pull out of this.

                  Same Christianity, different assessment of outcomes and appropriate tactics.

                • Tityrus says:

                  > Well, you are finally, at long, long, long, last, responding to what I have been saying all along. But you continue to deny what Christianity is and always has been.

                  Hm? That is what I have always been doing. That’s what I did the first time I brought Santayana up. I assumed you would remember that was my position. I assumed you would understand when I object to your position not in its exact words, or positions logically equivalent to your stated position, or positions that logically follow from them.

                  > From the first century to fifth, Christianity was despairing and pacific, because the circumstances made despair rational, and war unwise. From the seventh century to the fifteenth, Christianity was optimistic and warlike, because the circumstances made optimism rational, and war not only wise, but overwhelmingly just.

                  Yes, I recognize that early Christianity despaired, later Christianity was more optimistic. In fact I pointed that out. I don’t think this is because the Christians’ demands were met, but because different people were Christians. As I have said so many times, the late antique Christians were exhausted, overcivilized people, the medieval Christians were newly converted barbarians. The latter put their own feelings and ideas into the symbolic and mythical system handed down to them from the former. By doing so, they falsified the original intent. Not maliciously, of course, and it still kept wisdom about marriage etc. But it glorified a different kind of person, exhorted a different kind of morality, was, essentially, a different religion. I simply do not think that medieval Christianity was the culmination of what men like Paul and Augustine worked for, but rather its destroyer.

                  Despair is not what medieval Christianity was. It is definitely not what Protestantism was. This just proves my thesis. The passionate metaphysical despair, the “vanity, vanity” of the early Christian, cannot be satisfied on earth— that’s why he looked toward heaven.

                  > Despair is not what Christianity is or was. It is Christians accurately perceiving the circumstances of a particular time and place.

                  You assume that the early Christians despaired at the socio-political conditions of their time. Well, Judea was definitely going down the shitter in the first century, but then why the hostility to Rome? Rome was in full flower. It was the Augustan Age. It was by no means perfect, but no era is perfect, and it was definitely in a better spot, materially, than anywhere in Europe was in the seventh century. Of course one could augur decadence will come sooner or later, so? I can also predict that ripe fruit will fall from the tree, and I can predict that when winter comes we will have no more fruit for the time being. But this makes sense if you consider that they hated Rome for its worldliness.

                • jim says:

                  > > Well, you are finally, at long, long, long, last, responding to what I have been saying all along. But you continue to deny what Christianity is and always has been.

                  > Hm? That is what I have always been doing.

                  You have always been denying that Christianity is what is and always has been, but this is the first time you acknowledged that I disagree.

                  You still have not acknowledged that Christians disagree and always have disagreed.

                  > The latter put their own feelings and ideas into the symbolic and mythical system handed down to them from the former. By doing so, they falsified the original intent.

                  The original intent was made clear enough by Jesus in the parable of the wicked vinedressers, by Paul, and in Revelations. The later Christians were giving effect to the original intent by methods and tactics appropriate to the time and place, as Christians were commanded to do, as they have always been commanded to do, and in substantial part have always done.

                  Christians have never accepted what you claim is the original intent.

                  Our enemies have always told us that the plan was that all Christians should die quietly and childless, and those strands of Christianity that survived did not believe them.

                  It is the will of God that those obedient to his commands shall fill the universe and subdue it.

                • Tityrus says:

                  You have always been denying that Christianity is what is and always has been, but this is the first time you acknowledged that I disagree.

                  Not at all. Look at the discussion in the thread “demon worship in the Vatican”.

                  Would not make sense to argue if I thought you agreed.

                  > Christians have never accepted what you claim is the original intent.

                  > Our enemies have always told us that the plan was that all Christians should die quietly and childless, and those strands of Christianity that survived did not believe them.

                  > It is the will of God that those obedient to his commands shall fill the universe and subdue it.

                  The mass of Christians, at least from the time when Christianity became predominant, have never aspired to sainthood, nor could or should they have. But the typically holy man of Christianity, the “saint”, is a reflection of that old moral ideal which, if taken to its extreme, would lead to all Christians dying quietly and childless. This is a contradiction, but the world lives off contradictions. The old motifs of Christian piety reflect it: the oppositions between “the flesh” and “the spirit”, “the world” and “heaven”. Martyrdom is comprehensible in this light. The whole psychological lashing of one’s self for one’s “sinfulness”, so characteristic of pious literature, is comprehensible in this light.

                  If God’s will is for us to fill the stars and subdue them, then the monks and saints were not quite on the right track. Their religion was an imposture or a delusion; or if not wholly delusional, at least mixed with delusion. Real holiness is found among husbands, merchants, politicians, and colonial administrators. And what do you know, this was the final conclusion of Protestantism. It was not the traditional conclusion.

                • jim says:

                  > > You have always been denying that Christianity is what is and always has been, but this is the first time you acknowledged that I disagree.

                  > Not at all. Look at the discussion in the thread “demon worship in the Vatican”.

                  > Would not make sense to argue if I thought you agreed.

                  In that thread, you never argued as if I disagreed. You argued as if I agreed with your primary payload, that Christianity is rootless, and we were arguing about something else entirely irrelevant and utterly trivial. Argument by fake consensus.

                  You repeatedly told me what I said, and it was not what I said.

                  > If God’s will is for us to fill the stars and subdue them, then the monks and saints were not quite on the right track. Their religion was an imposture or a delusion; or if not wholly delusional, at least mixed with delusion. Real holiness is found among husbands, merchants, politicians, and colonial administrators. And what do you know, this was the final conclusion of Protestantism. It was not the traditional conclusion.

                  The theory underlying the monasteries and nunneries was that the monks and nuns would spend their copious spare time contemplating the divine. In actual practice, the nunneries tended to be full of women sent there because their immorality made them unmarriageable, embarrassed their families, and their families did not want to raise some random thug’s bastards, plus they tended to send the whores there when they shut down a whorehouse in order to stop the whores from whoring, and the monasteries tended to be full of layabouts sent there because their poor character made them unemployable, and people did not want them stealing stuff.

                  It was, or had become, a welfare system, in which unwanted people got food, housing, meaningful work, discipline, and community. And perhaps contemplated the divine. And it was a very good welfare system, much superior to our own, and we should implement something similar, but with considerably less hypocritical fake holiness. Though we probably should force layabouts to at least go through the motions of contemplating the divine. We need to provide the underclass with work, discipline, and community, which they did successfully, and we are conspicuously failing to do. And the underclass might well be improved by contemplating the divine a bit also.

                  To ensure that the monastery or nunnery was indeed contemplating the divine, there was a time consuming daily round of religious observances, and religious observances attended by at least some of the monks and nuns were supposed to be running twenty four seven.

                  A lot of people came to notice that the people running this system were somehow strangely getting indecently wealthy, and did not seem to be contemplating the divine a whole lot. And the King and the aristocracy noticed that a whole lot of wealth was in priestly hands, rather than aristocratic and Kingly hands.

                  And then they noticed that the religious observances that were supposed to be running twenty four seven were not in fact happening. which gave them a legitimately Christian excuse for laying hands on that wealth.

                  The one English nunnery that survived the dissolution of the monasteries was the one that had indeed kept going with twenty four seven religious observances. None of the English monasteries survived, and none of them had been doing the supposedly continual religious observances.

                  The reformation claimed to be returning to old Christian ideals, and they were. The monasteries also claimed to be an implementation of old Christian ideals, and in caring for the unfortunate, and providing them with work, discipline, and community, they were an implementation of the old Christian ideals. But these ideals got holiness spiraled and corrupted, and reformation was right to reform them.

                  So, this was not a substitution of a new rootless Christianity for an old rootless Christianity, but rather the abandonment of a branch of Christianity and Christian activity that had become conspicuously and embarrassingly holiness spiraled and corrupted. The complaints that Christians had about monasteries and nunneries go back a long way.

                  Christianity has a long tradition of holiness spiraling on celibacy. And that was wicked, a cover for corruption similar to that which was exposed in the dissolution of monasteries, and a cover for the lavender mafia.

                  But this does not make Jimianity a brand new rootless Christianity that proposes to replace a marginally older previous rootless Christianity, for if I have my way Bishops and recruits for our priesthood will be selected as follows:

                  Paul’s first epistle to Timothy, chapter 3:

                  A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

                  Paul’s first epistle to Titus, chapter 7:

                  ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:

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

                  Our priesthood is going to be recruited from married men who have successfully raised children and raised them well, for the reasons that Saint Paul vigorously explains at some length.

                  And we will probably have something very like monasteries and nunneries doing good works, but this time around, the inquisition, mindful of what was revealed in the Reformation, is going to keep a watchful eye on them for holiness spiraling and the gay mafia.

                  Holiness spiraling on celibacy goes back a long way, but some in the communion of the Saints disputing it also goes back a long way.

                  Celibates and the gay mafia had the upper hand for a long time, but the reason that married priests got the upper hand in due course was not a new rootless Christianity replacing an older equally rootless Christianity, but because by their fruits you will know them, and these were fruits indeed.

    • jim says:

      A worthwhile conversation, but no twitter conversation is worth having, because shill memes get upranked, while failure to adhere to the the fake consensus gets downranked and shadowbanned. And in this twitter conversation to which you have linked, fake Christianity will get upranked, and the real thing downranked and shadow banned.

      If you want to hold that conversation, we can hold it here.

      • notglowing says:

        If the rationale for believing in Christianity is that it *works*, as a social technology, then what prevents a future priesthood from questioning it and dismantling it in the same way?
        If that is the basis for the belief, rather than purely metaphysical faith, then arguments can be made against it. Indeed to an extent leftists do this, even if they are wrong, they argue that Christianity and traditions are bad for humanity in a utilitarian sense.
        You’ve said before, if you can logic yourself into something, you can logic yourself out of it. Perhaps traditions worked precisely *because* they were formed organically through unintentional trial and error, where the people did not realize they were doing trial and error, and took the traditions as unquestionable fact.

        And trying to restore through an intellectual argument wouldn’t work in that case, because the process is similar to the process that our enemies use to construct ideologies to replace traditions and working “social technology” along with them. Of course, it’s not the same, because the actual tenets being taught *are* tested, rather than made up.

        In fact, I would say the mistake of all ideologies is to think they can construct a working social order from ideas they come up with, which is rooted in the mistaken belief that they are smart enough to understand fully why and how societies work.
        But the complexity of the real world is too great for one mind to simply “solve it”, and the only process that seems to reliably work is trial and error.

        • notglowing says:

          Either way, while I understand Jim’s argument for Christianity as “social technology”, and I agree with it, I don’t feel good using that word to describe Christianity. I can see why many Christians would take issue with it, especially since it sounds very materialistic (in the philosophical sense) and consequentialist.
          When I was a utilitarian, I came to this conclusion, because I realized I could justify any traditional deontological moral laws in a consequentialist manner.
          But it also seemed to me like it was self-defeating, because utilitarians didn’t seem to get to those ideas rather often. If believing in utilitarianism doesn’t lead to the outcome utilitarians want, and rather leads to hubristic decisions, then utilitarianism is self-defeating. Whereas Christianity *did* work.

        • jim says:

          > If the rationale for believing in Christianity is that it *works*, as a social technology, then what prevents a future priesthood from questioning it and dismantling it in the same way?

          That their stuff demonstrably does not work.

          By their fruits, you will know them.

          > And trying to restore through an intellectual argument wouldn’t work

          But it is working.

          Obviously you need passion as well as reason, but that modernist Christianity and the postmodern replacement for Christianity is fake and gay manifests as being fake and gay on sex, women, the female role, and family. Which generates all the passion you need.

          Why did I adopt Christianity?

          Much the same reason as I say society needs to adopt Christianity.

          “Men, who say they know the secrets of women on the internet always seem like… – …very bad people.”

          No, I say, those who deny the truth about women are very bad people, and God will punish them in this life and the next.

      • 7817 says:

        One hand holds the other. Christianity as preached in many churches does not work. The failure of this Christianity, in it’s false blue pilled counsel regarding the nature of women, makes it fake, ghey, and not worthy of respect. This failure caused me to reevaluate my faith several years ago, and I had to dig into understanding what Classical Christianity was, or else probably would have lost my faith.

        The social technology aspect of Christianity must accurately represent reality. This is absolutely essential for True Faith, and that’s what we see only in old type Christianity. The modern religion of Christian niceness is completely doomed.

        I believe in Christianity, truly, but also in the social technology aspect. We need two legs to walk, and these two legs support each other.

  5. Kunning Drueger says:

    Hypothetically speaking, if the conservative spectrum collectively agreed that the game is unfixably rigged, where would they logically reload to, and how best to proceed, as in all at once en masse, organized stages, multiple places across a region, multiple regions across an area, one target city with various groups splashing all around a single target, etc?

    If I were switching Minecraft servers, I’d want to go to one that had lots of resources, very little local organization, and rugged terrain. Locals in desperate need of some protection would be a plus. I’d also send staged groups, pathfinders, set up people, then families. After a certain point, I’d cut it off and say anyone after is an enemy agent.

    • Pooch says:

      It looks to me, as of now, there are very few places to flee to.

      • Pooch says:

        El Salvador looks like it could be an obvious candidate; embracing Bitcoin, leader looks to be openly in opposition of American regime in many ways. However it seems to be violent and lawless in large areas of the country.

        • jim says:

          The El Salvador branch of the lightning network is alarmingly dominated by central El Salvadorean authority.

          Which does not stop you from running your own Bitcoin taproot full peer and using it to supply enforcement for your own bitcoin lightning wallet gateways and connecting to lightning network gateways outside of El Salvador, but that requires a lot more knowledge and work than the typical normie possesses.

          The lightning network as it stands at present is dangerously vulnerable to, and largely dominated by, central authority. Taproot was designed to make it possible to upgrade the lightning network in ways that make it more resistant to central authority, and got through because beyond Shaniqua’s comprehension. But the lightning network is curiously far from being upgraded, last time I checked.

    • Joe W. says:

      American conservatives are the most heavily armed group of citizens on the planet and we control something like 90% of the land in the United States.

      Our enemies are a bunch of unarmed weaklings and degenerates who crapped their pants after Jan. 6 and have spent two years being deathly afraid of a virus with a 99.99% survival rate for healthy people under age 60.

      Any talk of fleeing the country, or even surrendering big parts of the U.S., is both cowardly and moronic.

      • jim says:

        American conservatives cannot take collective action without a legitimate leadership that directly and physically contests the outcome of blatantly fraudulent elections. If you are not breaking heads at the polling booth, American conservatives are not going to get anywhere.

      • Kunning Drueger says:

        A real Fed shows up and nobody bats an eye. Jk, but can anyone tell me what would happen if it became trendy for young American conservatives to move to Argentina and their parents and friends basically impoverish themselves on paper by sending reverse remittances? They StayCons withdraw from productive society after transplanting their on paper wealth to the younguns overseas, and immediately get on welfare, disability, whatever. De-participation in the productive economy. What would the Cathedral response be to a nosedive in college applicants, most of small business, most of the legal scutt work that justifies the lawyerly class, and a massive percentage of the upper middle and upper class taxbase? Not to mention all the trucks, cars, guns, and groceries purchases.

        A mass migration of young adults, then a mass migration of tangible wealth, then a mass expansion of the social welfare rosters. I think this might destabilize the status quo a bit.

        • Pooch says:

          I honestly think they won’t care. Their goal is to replace us with mass amounts of immigrants/slaves anyway.

    • Arqiduka says:

      The ideal candidate for this question is the same wether asked by libertarians a decade ago or neoreactionaries today: New Zealand. Great land, completely isolated, more surface area than Japan, very scantly settled.

      Of course, no one would move there en masse or would be allowed to if they wanted, but that’s the low difficulty setting if it comes to that.

  6. restitutor_orbis says:

    I was browsing here yesterday and saw the mention of the book “The Ancient City.” That book seems to have a lot of insights that are more-or-less taken for granted as known or understood by the thinkers on this blog.

    And Jim occasionally drops references to historical information (Socinianism heresy for instance) that the typical person has never heard of. This has made me wonder: is there a list of the canon of Jimianity? E.g. major books one should read to understand the doctrine? To understand Moldbug it sure helped to have read Jouvenal. To understand Jimianity…

    • notglowing says:

      > The Ancient City

      I have it. Haven’t finished it yet, but would strongly recommend.
      Jim also recommended English Society 1660-1832 in regards to the restoration.

    • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

      A brief offering towards a Perennialist shelf in your bookcase.

      Ancient Law; Popular Government — Henry Sumner Maine
      The Ancient City — Fustel de Coulanges
      The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity — James C. Russel
      The Generative Principle of Political Constitutions — Joseph de Maistre
      Chartism; Latter-Day Pamphlets — Thomas Carlyle
      Origins of Contemporary France — Hippolyte Taine
      English Society 1688-1832, 1st Edition — J. C. D. Clark
      Parallel Lives — Plutarch
      Anabasis; On The Duties Of A Cavalry General — Xenophon
      Patriarcha — Sir Robert Filmer
      Anthropomorphics — Dennis Bouvard
      Science, Politics and Gnosticism — Eric Voeglin
      Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace — Harry Elmer Barnes
      Reflections of a Russian Statesman – Konstantin Pobedonostsev
      The Bow of Ulysses; The English in Ireland in the Eighteenth Century — James Anthony Froude
      The Chatham House Version — Elie Kedourie
      Modern Warfare — Roger Trinquier
      Three New Deals — Wolfgang Schivelbusch
      Chronicles of Wasted Time — Malcolm Muggeridge
      America’s Decline: The Education Of A Conservative — Revilo P. Oliver
      The Climax of History; Socialism; Feminism; The Fundamental Problem In Monetary Science — Correa Moylan Walsh
      Correspondence & Conversations — Alexis de Tocqueville with Nassau William Senior
      Rationalism in Politics; Experience and It’s Modes — Michael Oakeshott
      Beautiful Losers; Shots Fired; Race and the American Prospect — Samuel T. Francis
      Modern Egypt — Lord Cromer
      War Dog: Fighting Other People’s Wars: The Modern Mercenary in Combat – Al J. Venter
      The French Revolution In San Domingo; The Revolt Against Civilization; Into The Darkness — Lothrop Stoddard
      The Place of Thomas Nashe In The Learning of His Time; The Medium Is The Message — Marshall Mcluhan
      The Crowd — Gustave Le Bon
      Public Opinion — Walter Lippmann
      Society Of The Spectacle — Guy Debord
      The Formation of Men’s Attitudes — Jaques Ellul
      Why I Am Not A Liberal — Jonathan Bowden
      The Psychology of Political Extremism — Josh Neal
      Heaven On Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism — Joshua Muravchik
      Spiritual Authority And Temporal Power; Perspectives on Initiation; Initiation And Spiritual Realization; Symbols of Sacred Science — Rene Guenon
      Metaphysics of War; Metaphysics of Power; Fascism Viewed From The Right; Notes On The Third Reich — Julius Evola
      Political Theology; The Nomos of the Earth — Carl Schmitt
      Nihilism — Fr. Seraphim Rose
      A Farewell to Alms; The Son Also Rises — Gregory Clark
      Double Lives — Stephen Koch
      The Singapore Story — Lee Kuan Yew
      Memoirs of the Conquistador — Bernal Diaz del Castillo
      La Restauration Française; La Légitimité; Le XVIIIe Siècle — St. Bonet
      A Treatise concerning Civil Government – Josiah Tucker
      Memoirs of Service Afloat — Adm. Raphael Semmes
      The War for Righteousness — Richard M. Gamble
      The Land Of The Dollar — G. W. Steevens
      The True History of the American Revolution — Sydney George Fisher
      Shall Cromwell Have a Statue? — Charles Francis Adams Jr.
      The Roving Editor — James Redpath
      A South-Side View of Slavery — Nehemiah Adams
      The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government — Jefferson Davis
      Sherman: Soldier, Realist, American — B.H. Liddell Hart
      Why the South Lost the Civil War — Richard E. Beringer et all
      Country Squire in the White House — John T. Flynn
      This Is My Story — Louis Francis Budenz
      Witness — Whittaker Chambers
      The Great Deceit — Zygmund Dobbs
      Liberty, Equality, Fraternity — James Fitzjames Stephen
      On The Resistance of Evil By Force — Ivan Ilyin
      The True Believer — Erik Hoffer
      Law of Nations — Vattel
      On Power — Bertrand de Jouvenel
      The Passing of the Great Race — Madison Grant
      The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire — Edward N. Luttwak
      Discussions — Rev. R. L. Dabney
      The Ruling Class — Gaetano Mosca
      Political Parties — Robert Michaels
      SJWs Always Lie — Vox Day
      The China Story — Freda Utely
      Democracy: The God That Failed — Hippity Hoppety
      The Ethics of Rhetoric; In Defense of Tradition; Language is Sermonic; The Southern Tradition At Bay; Visions of Order — Richard Weaver
      Philosophical Melancholy and Delirium — Donald W. Livingston
      The Theological Origins of Modernity — Michael Gillespie
      The True and Only Wealth of Nations — Louis de Bonald
      Poetry, Language, Thought — Heidegger
      After Virtue; Whose Justice? Which Rationality? — Alasdair Macintyre
      Knowledge and Decisions; Intellectuals and Society; Conquests and Cultures; The Quest For Cosmic Justice — Thomas Sowell
      Philosophical investigations — Wittgenstein
      On Probabilities — Laplace
      Essential Peirce Volumes I-II — Charles Sanders Peirce
      The Foundations of Science — Poincare
      Epistemic Authority — Zagzebski
      Tractatus de Intellectus Emendatione — Spinoza
      The Incoherence of The Incoherence — Averroes
      Commentary on Politics; Commentary on Posterior Analytics — St. Thomas Aquinas
      The Genius of Christianity; Memoirs from Beyond the Grave — Chateaubriand

      • Cloudswrest says:

        “America’s Decline: The Education Of A Conservative — Revilo P. Oliver”

        This is one of the most entertaining political tracts I’ve ever read. Also Oliver had me referencing a dictionary multiple times per chapter.

      • Mr.P says:

        Thank you for the reading list. It’s a great list.

        Two suggested additions:

        The Controversy of Zion — Douglas Reed

        Suicide of the West: An Essay on the Meaning and Destiny of Liberalism — James Burnham

        • jim says:

          “The Controversy of Zion” — Douglas Reed

          Douglas Reed has Israel on the brain.

          Israel is unduly influential. So is China, so is Saudi Arabia.

          And the Jews we have to worry about, such as Soros, do not want Israel to rule the world. They want to rule the world. And their power base is here, not in Tel Aviv. They would like to destroy Israel, and I think they are succeeding. They are doing to the Jews what Hitler tried to do and failed.

          Are there a bunch of evil Jews who want Israel to rule the world? Of course there are. But that conspiracy is an insignificant conspiracy among the conspiracies that are destroying our civilization.

          • Mr.P says:

            Reed’s history of Talmudic Zionism ends with the Suez Canal crisis in the mid-1950s, so maybe, maybe not, relevant to current year 2022. Nevertheless, the untold influence of Talmudic Zionism from the French Revolution onward on West Civilization is / was, to me at least, eye-opening. After reading each chapter, I found myself shuddering, “I had no idea.”

            • jim says:

              Lot of influence, lots of bad things done.

              But Talmudic Judaism wants Jews to rule the world, while globohomo does want them to rule even Israel.

      • jim says:

        “Philosophical investigations — Wittgenstein”

        What is Wittgenstein doing in this otherwise excellent list?

        He was a faggot. He struggled with the problem of pure reason, which is insoluble, because that is not what consciousness is. We don’t grasp things that way. That path leads nowhere and it did not lead Wittgenstein anywhere.

        “On Probabilities — Laplace”

        Laplace is the beginning on probabilities, but that is a long road. Laplace is foundational on probabilities, but hard part is that you want to know the probability of a probability from incomplete information. And if you are not going to walk a very long way down that very long road, not seeing the value in starting upon it.

        And I, who have a huge shill problem on this list, would add to that “English society 1688-1832” by Clarke, which should be read as a prequel to “The True History of the American Revolution — Sydney George Fisher”. “English Society” tells us that the ancient regime lost power in England by tolerating Socinian entryism into the Church of England, and “The True History” tells us of the same conspiracy creating the American Revolution, then deliberately losing to it.

        This list is too long, and also incomplete. Needs some weeding. Quite a bit of weeding.

        Further, a lot of it is parts of a story, and needs to be put together into a bigger story – thus “English society 1688-1832”, “The True History of the American Revolution”, and “The Bow of Ulysses” are all parts of the same story, about how our highest and best functioning civilization, “what English society 1688-1832” calls the Ancien Regime, fell to enemies within.

        Some of these books need to be organized into parts of a bigger story.

        • Aidan says:

          “English Society” by Clarke is on the list, near the top; and I notice a few enemy books on the list, such as Lippmann, but I assume they are on there because it is good to understand the enemy.

          For me, all history is worth reading in a Jimian perspective, because the lens of Jim makes otherwise inscrutable history understandable. A lot of the time historians will wonder “why did this happen” or “why did x do y, which seems mysterious”, but with the right perspective, the reasoning becomes obvious and the dark corners of history a lot brighter. Any primary source really.

          I would add Froude’s History of England (~1500-1600).

          Spengler’s Decline of the West is, imo, necessary to synthesize with Jim, or at least to understand as a complete and exhaustively argued theory of history that stands alongside it.

          I have never read a good history of the Dark Ages, and one is necessary. All sources are curiously silent on how Viking settlers in the north of France became, within two centuries, the most advanced civilization and powerful military force in human history until that point. But I would probably have to research and write one myself, because a Jimian perspective on cooperation, warfare, and religion is necessary to fill in the gaps between the primary evidence.

          • jim says:

            > “English Society” by Clarke is on the list, near the top; and I notice a few enemy books on the list, such as Lippmann, but I assume they are on there because it is good to understand the enemy.

            The list needs metadata. Why is this book here, what do you get from it, and how does it relate to other books on the list?

            Also categorization into friends, allies, forbidden truth speakers, and enemies.

          • ten says:

            Let me pull an outline out of my ass:

            Norse life was utterly rural and barbarian, coastal and piratical. They had lots and lots and lots of kids, and most of them died. In most regions, every farm wasnt just a freehold but an actual sovereign with no earl or king above, except temporal campaign kings – “the danes are fucking with us, we need to organize a defense. Hakan Bloodeye for king!”->”Now the danes have been dealt with, no more king.” or “Let’s take this show on the road, half the danes have joined us, impressed with our capacity! lets go fuck with the french and get some sophisticated pussy!”

            They killed each other in kin feuds, honour feuds, close to all men were warriors who would kill each other when they got angry, they had mean baltoslavic neighbours and lots of them died raiding.

            But within every sovereign microcomponent, they were exceptionally virtuous. martial and cohesive, because a small degenerate sovereign will be swept away at once in the boiling sea of decentralized pagan violence.

            Now take such a group, teach them tit for two tats, writing and postroman technology, and give them land in the heart of europe, where they are not constantly decimated, and you will see their exceptionally virtuous, martial and cohesive ingroup explode in numbers at least sixfold a generation, emanating wave after wave of second sons to claim their glory.

        • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

          > Laplace is the beginning on probabilities, but that is a long road. Laplace is foundational on probabilities, but hard part is that you want to know the probability of a probability from incomplete information. And if you are not going to walk a very long way down that very long road, not seeing the value in starting upon it.

          Laplace was a landmark in the formal instantiation of statistics as a realized object, and much ground has been trod since; but like many foundational genii, he also contained within himself subtleties of expression grounded in bridging the thought of his time that in some cases preempt those who would come later; a wanderer making to range forth along a wending way, only to find following a clear path leads back to where he started.

          For every one book on one topic, I could often provide a further portfolio of readings that buttress and fill out the subject, but I wondered at how lengthy i wanted to make it, with works explicitly touching on matters of epistemology being especially difficult in this regard; that is, either not really including any at all, the matter itself often being touched upon in rightly crafted philo-historical works – or on the other hand spiraling out into a whole interconnected ecosystem of technical tomes touching on various facets.

          My thought then was instead of trying to make something all in one go, to make a more modest initial posting that was briefer but also broader, and see what topics would garner more feedback and interest for filling out.

      • alf says:

        Missing the bible

      • Tityrus says:

        > The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity — James C. Russel

        Jesus Christ, this book expounds the exact same thesis that jim has accused me and George Santayana of being shills for supporting.

        • Tityrus says:

          Also, if I could make a book suggestion, one of the great reactionaries of the 20th century was the Columbian philosopher and aphorist Nicolás Gómez Dávila, whose major books are “Textos” and “Escolios a un texto implícito”. Selected translations can be found here.

          What one learns from him is not so much a theory as an attitude.

          • jim says:

            Let everyone notice that this advice comes from someone who is pushing an unfamiliar shill payload but persistently uses shill tactics – He never responds to my arguments, but instead argues something irrelevant that presupposes that I already agree, that everyone agrees, with what I have just spent three or four screens and two comments rebutting repetitiously at great length.

            • Tityrus says:

              I have responded to your arguments many times, and have never “presupposed you agree”. What I see is you somehow missing the point of what I type [*shill payload deleted yet again*]

              • jim says:

                You casually mentioned the Latin Church father Anselm as an example of an incompatible new Christianity inconsistent with early Christianity, and incompatible with other strands of Christianity.

                Which he arguably was.

                To which I responded with three screen worths and two comments on the development of doctrine, and noted that the Anselm was part of what the Reformation was revolting against in its claim to be returning an older and truer Christianity, and that the Roman Catholic Church quietly walked back from Anselm after the sack of Rome in the Counter Reformation.

                Where is your argument? Where is your response?

                Every heresy gets destroyed eventually, though the Judgment of Gnon is often long delayed.

                In 1870, Roman Catholicism adopted a new heresy by denying conciliairism, explicitly denying what it had long furtively and implicitly denied, the doctrine that the Church acting as a whole could remove one Pope and install another for sufficient cause. And then rather recently they removed another Pope, now under the doctrine that the nest of demon worshiping sodomites in the Vatican have the right to remove, and the sole right to replace, Popes. The judgment of Gnon on this heresy is surely coming, though it will take a while.

                • Tityrus says:

                  [*shill payload deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  I did not “acknowledge the truth of your view”

                  I just claimed at length in numerous comments, including the one you reply to, that to the extent that a strand of Christianity abandons its roots, it vanishes or is forced to retreat back to its roots, as the Roman Catholic Church was forced by the sack of Rome to retreat back to its biblical roots in the counter reformation.

                  So yes, some, many, strands of Christianity do lose connection to their biblical roots. And then return, or perish.

                  But your payload is that these Biblical roots are trivial, irrelevant, or alien, and these heresies from their biblical roots are the true being and identity of these religions, and true being and identity of the peoples who fell to those heresies.

                  My payload is that we can become orthodox by conversion and convergence, primarily convergence, American Orthodox, and American Orthodox will be as American as apple pie, that Biblical Christianity is not an alien Jewish faith, but fundamental and integral to the European identity, with deep and very ancient roots in the Aryan identity, the Aryan identity as it was back before that identity was fragmented by ancestor worship in place of, instead of in support of, worship of the one true God, and subsumed by demon worship.

                • Tityrus says:

                  [*True facts reframed to be compatible with shill payload deleted*]

                  I have already said that the warrior-Crusader Christianity is not quite apostolic in either intent or spirit. Can you prove to me that it is?

                • jim says:

                  Sure. Second cheek, extra mile. Which policy cost them dearly.

                  They kept accepting the surrender of groups that had unsurrendered before and who promptly proceeded to unsurrender again, in accordance with the command of mercy and forgiveness. In the game theoretic language of the Dark Enlightenment, kept pursuing cooperation with groups who were aiming at cooperate/defect, rather than cooperate/cooperate, which is how the paladin Roland died.

                  If Christians had gone Old Testament when appropriate, people whose faith descended from Christianity would still rule the middle east, though I am far from confident that they would still be Christian.

                  When the Castilians expelled the Mooriscos and the Jews, they had seven hundred years of damned good reasons for so doing.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  It would often cost them, but they would often ultimately prevail anyways, due to superior organization.

                  In the event, the particular ‘correlation of forces’ would prove more adaptive than that of the competition at the end of the day.

        • jim says:

          Perhaps it does. I have not read it and had better check it. But shills routinely reframe their opponents as agreeing with what they disagree with. You reframe me as agreeing with what I passionately disagree with at considerable length.

          The Christianity of the pioneers was distinctively American and pioneering. But it would be absurd to claim it was a brand new Christianity incompatible with previous versions. Rather, finding themselves in an environment that resembled the environment of the Old Testament a more than it resembled the first century Rome in which the New Testament was written,, they looked more to the Old Testament root of Christianity and less to the New Testament stem from that root than did their European forbears.

          Russian Orthodoxy is Russian, and Greek Orthodoxy is Greek. But that is pretty much irrelevant to the shill payload you are pushing.

  7. Mayflower Sperg says:

    Found this memo in a government trash bin:

    White supremacy is a mortal threat to American democracy, where no one is illegal and every vote must be counted. White-supremacist organizations must be infiltrated so the racist criminals who perpetrated the cold-blooded murder of Heather Heyer and the 1/6 insurrection can be arrested before they strike again. This requires a two-pronged attack.

    We can hire Indians in Bangalore to infiltrate on-line forums, but it’s hard to arrest people who hide behind proxies. We need to lure white supremacists into physical places.

    The FBI informs us that they will be forming a fake nationalist organization of a few hundred physically fit young white men with a generic name like “Patriot Front” or “Proud Boys” to march around with matching casual outfits and American flags, and see who takes the bait.

    The problem is, how can we be sure that this fake white-nationalist militia won’t suddenly become a real one? White men are so cunning and evil that a hundred of them with FBI badges, vehicles, and firearms could easily overthrow the government.

    Any suggestions? Perhaps an affirmation of “Joe Biden is a brilliant leader who legitimately won the 2020 election with 81 million votes”?

    • HerbR says:

      That does not read to me like an authentic government memo, or even an academic or corporate memo. It reads like an attempted mockery by a mediocre alt-right intellect, such as your average Sigma VHIQ Lord reader.

      This being clown world, maybe there really are internal memos that look exactly like the worst outsider parodies of what such a memo might look like. But I doubt it. The shibboleths are all wrong to be either reactionary or progressive – it’s a confused mix of both, written by someone who isn’t sure which ones are real and which ones are satire.

      • Arqiduka says:

        Yeah, it’s a literary vehicle to make a point, not a facsimile or even an attempt at a facsimile of a real thing.

        If a jab at the recent spirits of the departed that visited us here, I think that was not a planned attemt in the vein of the above, but an event we triggered ourselves by mentioning a certain acronym over and over in the comments. You know, the “tactics needed to win” one.

      • Mayflower Sperg says:

        If it were a real government document, it would be a hundred pages long and would only vaguely hint at the core question, or avoid it entirely.

        What I’m trying to ask is, how can the government create a fake honeypot right-wing movement with no risk of it morphing into a real right-wing movement that’s well-positioned to take down the government? Especially considering Jim’s assertion that those who practice any religion ironically will soon be practicing it unironically.

      • Mayflower Sperg says:

        Leftists say 1/6 was an insurrection that nearly succeeded in overthrowing their “democratically elected” government, and rightists say it was a fed op. I say, maybe it was both. Maybe there are a lot of men with guns in the federal government who are not happy with the woke faggotry that’s turning the country into another Haiti.

        I don’t expect answers any time soon. It’s been over thirty years since Tiananmen Square, and still no one outside the CCP really knows what that was all about.

  8. Aidan says:

    The plight of Ducking Man below got me wondering about a reactionary theory of depression. I feel like we need an answer to “psychology”, a discipline that exists to spread enemy memes; see Jim’s rectification of “sociopath”, and our long arguments over the existence of, causes, and essence of “PTSD”.

    Most of these mental illnesses are fake, but we need answers as to why certain ailments exist and how to fix them when we say “psychology is bunk, throw it in the trash”.

    Obviously, when most men are depressed, it is because they have good cause to be depressed. Thus it is no more an illness than having a sore foot due to a pebble in your shoe. They have no hope of marriage and reproduction, little hope of fulfilling their telos, and the manly things that make men feel good and fulfilled are generally low status if not illegal.

    But Ducking Man tells us that he heard the abyss calling for him from a young age. Maybe there is just something broken in the neurons, but I doubt it. People can recover from serious brain damage, bullet through the head kind of brain damage, because the brain can and does rewire itself. It’s not, imo, possible for “his brain just doesn’t work right”, because we would be able to see damage on that scale. It takes something like half of the frontal cortex being removed before you’d even notice somebody acting oddly. Not to mention the Darwinian angle, that even a slight predisposition toward suicide would be selected ruthlessly out of the population over the course of human history.

    Rather, I think mental illnesses are generally self-inflicted. People accrue mental habits; the more you use a neural pathway, the more your brain slips into it, like walking the same route through a forest day after day until you have a trail. Negative thought patterns become encoded in the brain, until you have perpetual recurrent despair. At some point in Ducking Man’s young life, he had the passing thought of suicide, and chose to dwell on it rather than reject it, and this went on until the abyss was roaring at him; he no longer has the ability to push it away. It’s been ingrained in his neurons because he chose to let the abyss in.

    The reason why most mental illnesses are not really attested in the historical record too heavily is because we used to have prayer and religious ritual, which reinforce positive thought patterns and dissuade negative ones. Pretty much every “mortal sin” will fuck you up if you let it occupy your mind. I still struggle with lust; I spend a big chunk of my life getting laid and trying to get laid, and still, when I have a few minutes free of distractions, I am assailed by thoughts of being balls deep in fresh young pussy even though my woman is taking care of my physical needs. It is really hard to break yourself out of ingrained neural pathways, and “your brain is infested by devils” is a practical analogy, close enough that no real distinction needs to be made between the physical and spiritual. It is much easier if you imagine you are saying no to a demon that wants you to do something, versus intending to rewire neural pathways.

    • jim says:

      I think the old Christian take on this is more accurate than the modern shrink take.

      Ducking man sinned a great deal, and this allowed the demons in, whether they be real or metaphorical.

      You are giving an interpretation and explanation of Christian take to be consistent with the modern shrink take, and that is a valid description. But I suspect the old type Christian description to be at least as accurate as your interpretation of it within the modern shrink terminology, or at least no more inaccurate, and it has the benefit of being a great deal shorter and more actionable.

      If the Ducking man pursues his telos to the best of his ability and in accordance with his nature and talents, he will necessarily live more virtuously, and I think his suicidal thoughts will go away.

      • Aidan says:

        The modern shrink take is “your brain does not produce enough serotonin for reasons we don’t care to try and understand, here are some drugs”. Ducking Man clicked on the devil’s malware and it installed itself to root.

        Post-restoration, the Christian take is simpler, and has proven itself effective, but like the concept of GNON, for reactionaries to talk to each other and convince those who need convincing, we need to speak the language of material and effective causation. And neural pathways are not shrink garbage, they are material and effective causation. If a young man posted here who was feeling depressed and considering SSRIs, and he did not buy the Christian take, I wouldn’t tell him “you are infested by devils”, I would tell him “You physically rewired your brain to think bad thoughts all the time, and need to rewire it back through force of will. You need to practice mental hygiene, and avoid bad thoughts like you avoid human feces.”

    • Guy says:

      You got it 100%. Habitual indulgence in negative thoughts is key, I know from experience that macarbe and self pitying thoughts can be rewarding, maybe due to reinforcement from elders who foolishly pity you when you’re expressing them at a young age.

      People are also often weirdly unaware that they have a good degree of control over what they think about, your mind can drift but you can always steer it back.

      I have an employee who loves to talk about her “manic depression” and all the things that are out of her control because of it (sleeping, eating). Chicks love having mental problems as an excuse for them being shitty, today’s feminine men do the same thing.

      I imagine all male depression is caused by a lack of a father, or a bad father. The physical mechanisms are up for debate but the behavioral patterns would not survive in a functioning family.

      • jim says:

        > I imagine all male depression is caused by a lack of a father, or a bad father. The physical mechanisms are up for debate but the behavioral patterns would not survive in a functioning family

        Nah, nearly all of it is caused by inability to pursue our telos, and that successful pursuit of telos is socially shamed, instead of socially honored.

        Lacking a father who successfully pursues his telos – family formation, is likely to make pursuing one’s own telos more difficult, but it is not the final cause.

    • Adam says:

      My opinion on guys who are demoralized, depressed, and defeated, is that often it is the absence of a path to heaven.

      If your not trying to conquer the world, defeat your enemies, climb the highest mountain and reach for the highest point, your going to be missing something. Your not doing what you were made to do.

      Once you start walking on the path to heaven weather real or metaphorical, becoming virtuous and worthy, a lot of things clear up naturally as you are doing what nature intended.

    • Cloudswrest says:

      People can recover from serious brain damage, bullet through the head kind of brain damage, because the brain can and does rewire itself. It’s not, imo, possible for “his brain just doesn’t work right”, because we would be able to see damage on that scale. It takes something like half of the frontal cortex being removed before you’d even notice somebody acting oddly.

      This got me to thinking onetime. Although the cerebrum is probably what makes us human intellectually due to it’s capacity, it’s probably not all that complex hardware wise, relatively speaking, compared to the rest of the brain. It’s probably just billions of duplicate “processors” in parallel. Simple in the same way a large ram array is simple. Which explains it’s redundancy and “rewiring” capacity. If you get a bullet to the “more primitive” interior parts of the brain you’re permanently fucked, or dead. Due to it’s capacity humans have probably “uploaded” a lot of their more “primitive” hardware up into the cerebrum, sort of like how bios is uploaded into dram for speed.

    • Red says:

      I can speak a little on depression and suicide. I wanted to kill myself starting at age 10. My father is a weak man who ran away from his family with work(often 60-80s hours a week when it wasn’t necessary) and my mother was extremely upset that he failed to lead the family and she took it out on me when he wasn’t around(which was always). My sister who was 4 years younger than me but she was elevated far above me in family status, I was given no responsibilities and authority, routinely ripped down, and generally my parents thought I was strange and broken. I’m a sperg so I was always pointing out truths that scandalized people and my parents disliked me for it. I have dyslexia and it wasn’t until the 3ed grade that I taught myself to speed read that I could really even read in a normal manner(I now read 3x faster than most people I know). There was no support from my parents with those sorts of struggles.

      I still struggle with writing to this day because I was never really taught how to write well and dyslexia makes it quite hard to see the mistakes I’m making.

      I knew from very early age I was low status and I was confused as to why. I knew the first born should have high status and responsibilities and I was amazingly intelligent, but my parents were always ripping me down and my sister would routinely abuse me via lies told to my parents about my behavior. I was punished over and over again for things I didn’t do. I felt like I was just bad kid despite being both moral and good to my friends and family.

      This was highly damaging. I hated my mother and despised my father for many years for it. My sister was showered with status, support, and love. I received no support for college, so I ended up at a much cheaper college I paid for while working while my parents invested all their resources into sending my sister to expensive schools.

      I did very well in college and work and where I was well recognized for my abilities and I’ve been routinely called a genus by teachers later my coworkers. I make very good money. I gained status in such things, but I’ve had very little status in my personal life and with my family. When I was able to turn my professional status into a picking up a girl, I quickly failed shit tests and was soon again single. Nor was the sorts of girls I was fucking the type I wanted(single mothers are awful). I knew early on that raising another mans child was wrong, despite everyone telling me it was the moral and virtuous thing to do.

      As a teenager in my local church where I hoped to pickup a nice virgin bride and start a family, the pastors sons(he had 5) were hogging all the girls leaving nothing for me and the other boys of our small church. My parents were too busy being holy Christcucks with a progressive leanings who invested their daughters and gave fuck all nothing to their sons. To this day I think all the boys in my family suffer from having a weak male example in my father. We needed the sort of manly example a good father provides influence to help us grow up strong men. I didn’t get laid until my early 20s and I had huge hang ups about it for years thanks to my upbringing.

      I think depression is failing to fulfilling the proper roles we evolved to fill as men and women. About 10 years ago I’d finally gained enough experience and knowledge from the now defunct manosphere to really understand women and the evolutionarily role as a man I was failing to achieve. I also finally understood female behavior even if I still have difficulty putting that knowledge into action. I’m no longer depressed or think about suicide but I’m still a weak man and weakness is disgusting.

      I’m kind of in failure mode now as a man(far more whores than girlfriends), but I’m working to change that. I’m lifting iron, I got my testosterone issues fixed starting a couple of months ago, I honor my Father and my Mother, and I’m working in every area possible to fulfill the role I was born to do. I think the key thing missing item for my life is religious belief. I don’t feel like God has my back and I have a hard time feeling the strength one should have from embracing God because I don’t really believe. Religion just seems like nonsensical play acting to me because, Sperg.

      I’ve been reading that book Aiden suggested “The Ancient City” and it’s quite enlightening. The Aryanians worshiped the one true God and all of their male line everyday with the man acting as the priest for the family. I think that I’m going to start doing the necessary religious rituals to honor the one true God and all my forefathers every morning and evening because I have a responsibly to them. I would not be here today if not for them and I owe it to them to fulfill my proper role as a man of their linage. My Father is a weak man, but his Father was not. I can worship my Grandfather and I can emulate his manly behavior. Ironically, I think my Father and I share the same problem, his Father was always away for work without him so he never really had a chance to grow into a strong man as he was raised by women.

      If fake it until you make it works for women, why not fake it until you believe it with religion? It’s worth a shot. Giving up after what all my forefathers gave me isn’t an option. I don’t believe in an afterlife, but I believe in fulfilling the religious obligation of my fathers.

      • Neofugue says:

        > fake it until you believe it with religion

        The words of St. Theophan the Recluse:

        > It is written [in St. Macarius of Egypt’s Book of Discourses], “One must force oneself to pray, even if one has no spiritual prayer.” And, “In such a case, God, seeing that a man earnestly is striving, pushing himself against the will of his heart (that is, his thoughts), He grants him true prayer.” By true prayer, St. Macarius means the undistracted, collected, deep prayer that occurs when the mind stands unswervingly before God. As the mind begins to stand firmly before God, it discovers such sweetness, that it wishes to remain in true prayer forever, desiring nothing more.

        In other words, when we fight by forcing ourselves to pray despite whatever thoughts or concerns we have, God fights with us. Even if we do not believe in it now, we end up believing it the more we partake of it.

      • Pooch says:

        My father is weak, my fiances father is weak, and my uncles are weak. Something about the boomer generation just produced the weakest of men imaginable while their fathers who fought in WW2 were the exact opposite. The strong men good times meme in its truest form, at least what I’ve witnessed in my life.

        • Red says:

          The meme is wrong. Men are weak because our state religion is evil and seeks to create weak men. When I was a young child I stole a few some toys from a family we visited as family(this was before my father basically fled family life). They had so many toys and I had almost none(We were very poor). When we got home and my father discovered the theft he demanded I call the family up and apologize for it before he returned the toys. I refused to do so. My Father threw me up against the dishwasher and held me there and told me I was going to call them and apologize for it. While crying I called them up and apologized. I never stole from anyone again.

          Many years later my father apologized for doing this to me. He’d had years of being told that using physical force or humiliation to discipline your children was evil. I told him I had never admired him more than when he did that. Stealing from good people is wrong and I was punished in a manner that corrected that behavior permanently. What he did was righteous. The state religion makes men weak by telling them good is evil and evil is good and the longer they marinate in it the weaker they become.

          • Pooch says:

            Agreed and it’s particularly the feminism part of the state religion that makes men weak. But during WWII the state religion was plenty evil yet those men were strong. It’s just odd that the drop off in masculinity was so stark from the greatest generation to their children. I believe Jim has mentioned that they rolled back feminism before the war to allow for a manly fighting force, returning to it in accelerated form afterwards in the 60s. So maybe that’s it.

            • Red says:

              After the war the state religion was afraid the warriors they had raised up to win the war would take over, so they subverted their children while leaving the warriors alone for a while.

            • jim says:

              It is entertaining how suddenly and quietly first wave feminism vanished.

              • Varna says:

                The second wave like Naomi Wolf now count as reactionary fascists. She’s practically Nick Fuentes now from the updated globohomo perspective.

                • Anon says:

                  Since around 2014, Wolf has been described as a conspiracy theorist.[a] She has received criticism for promoting misinformation on topics such as beheadings carried out by ISIS, the Western African Ebola virus epidemic and Edward Snowden.[10][11][12] She has objected to COVID-19 lockdowns[13] and criticized COVID-19 vaccines.[14] In June 2021, her Twitter account was suspended for posting anti-vaccine misinformation.[15]


      • alf says:

        why not fake it until you believe it with religion?

        It’s part this, but eventually there’s also a part where God ‘reveals’ himself. Which is to say, if you live virtuous, you are rewarded, not just in the next life, but in this one as well. Which might take some time depending on how much demon baggage you are getting rid of, but for me at least, there became a point in my life when I realized: ‘holy crap, I was depressed and had nothing, and now I have gotten everything I wanted.’ Which yes, you might interpret as cause and effect, but it is very easy, and justifiable, to believe God has the back of the righteous.

        In fact it is better to believe the latter over the former; I initially leaned towards believing cause and effect to be the cause of my success, and it led to me being very energetic and infatuated with pride, which in turn led me to abuse my health and almost f*ck up what I had. Whereas now I feel much more at peace with whatever life may have in store. Nothing beats being a humble man under God.

      • Aidan says:

        Sad because low status, which is a normal reaction to low status. Good to hear you’re turning things around. I don’t worship my ancestors, but if something seems hard for me to handle, I think about my manly and heroic forebears, who suffered much worse and made it through. It gives me strength.

        Being a sperg seems hard to me, but you can leverage a sperg’s blunt and socially tone-deaf nature into a forceful and outspoken personality.

    • Mister Grumpus says:

      You guys bringing the toolbox to depression/anxiety is not a distraction or digression at all. It is profound. It is powerful. This is speaking directly to what guys are really living with, but in entirely new language that, this time, doesn’t feel like being lied to.

      Rectifying names.

      It’s a religious conversion, effectively, to say to someone “You’re completely wrong about why you’re sad / you’re actually failing at X / what you really need is Y”, and for that new description to make 100x more sense, at the gut level, than the previous one.

    • X says:

      Yes, and also, usually, heavy metal poisoning, chiefly mercury. Low-level and often chronic mercury poisoning results from amalgam teeth fillings (metallic/black in appearance), vaccine thimerosal, broken fluorescent lightbulbs, from your mother during gestation, and if you’re old enough, contact lens solution, pesticides, and a number of other sources. Heavy metal poisoning is most likely the cause of all autoimmune disorders and, from a mechanistic perspective, most psychiatric disorders (including depression). It often presents very differently from man to man and there’s strong evidence that even enough that doesn’t result in acute illness will cause subtle and pervasive changes in personality, temperament, and cognition, including high-functioning autism.

      Good news is all fixable, yourself, at home, cheaply, without a holy M.D.’s imprimatur. The chelation protocol, named after Dr. Andrew Cutler, revolves around taking low doses of alpha-lipoic acid on its half-life (to maintain steady state) for a few days at a time. Too much to explicate here, but this is a good introduction:

      (resubmitted with fixed sentence and intended line-spacing)

      [*previous submissions trashed, which I assume was your intent in resubmitting*]

      • Aidan says:

        Heavy metal poisoning usually presents in men as a short temper and lack of self control. I don’t see that, I see men who too meek and unaggressive. Poison is a big part of men having issues today, but men are lacking in testosterone, which makes them sad and anxious like teenage girl.

        • X says:

          You’re thinking of lead poisoning! Nowhere near as common as mercury toxicity though, nor usually as big of a deal.

          (Yes, Jim, that was my intention. Thanks!)

    • The Ducking Man says:

      Hey man, I know it’s kinda late.

      But thanks a lot for the concern.

      > But Ducking Man tells us that he heard the abyss calling for him from a young age.
      I had real severe brain injury at 3 y.o. because of car crash. I had glass shard inside my brain till this day.

      My mother also like telling that I was not normal baby literally since minute I was born. Something like a newborn carrying very serious face, and very not needy baby. Perhaps I am on heavy side on asperger.

      > Ducking Man’s young life, he had the passing thought of suicide

      I only remember having overwhelming inferiority complex during my young age. I mean, I was dumb, broke, with barely have any social skill.

  9. Cloudswrest says:

    Saw this Gab today on the lab leak hypothesis.

  10. Tech Priest says:

    I think you’re misinterpreting the psychology of my colleagues.

    People are uncertain about whether it’s the shot (as am I), so when they think about it, crimestop kicks in (in the Orwellian 1984 sense). That makes them stop thinking about it.

    Only if they have a full story straight about how it is definitely not the shot can they think about it. Which means in practice they will never fill out that story unless someone gives them (and they understand) a full script, in which case they will be very very relieved and excited and gush the story of the script everywhere.

    Taking and giving their kids the shots lets them show they aren’t one of those awful heretics who would consider the possibility that the shot could possibly be harmful.

    That being said, there is some moral culpability there imo since a lot of child care decisions seem to me based on what will get people praise/blame rather than the actual good of the child.

    • jim says:

      There are people whose job it is to monitor mortality, and thus excess and unusual mortality.

      They have clearly decided that this information was evil, sinful, and shocking, and have refused to look at it.

      That is mighty culpable.

      • Tech Priest says:

        To be clear, by “colleagues” I mean my fellow tech priests in general – I am not in the biomedical field.

        I am actually not sure if there’s anyone whose job it is specifically to notice and analyze excess mortality. That is, from a public health standpoint; clearly there are insurance people as mentioned in the post. It sounds like a job that a competent and sane civilization would be likely to have, but not one which I am aware that our actual civilization has.

        BTW Jim, I think you are sort of wrong about what kind of holiness made the space shuttle so expensive. The space shuttle was required by the military to have a long cross-range capability. Which requires high lift-to-drag, and to get high lift-to-drag wings are an entirely sensible solution. Now, it’s entirely possible that the military guys asked the NASA guys whether large cross-range was feasible, and the NASA guys thought to themselves “if we say yes we’ll get to give it wings, awesome” and so said yes. BUT the wings only make it a substantial fraction more heavy and expensive than it would be without wings, not many times more expensive. The real problem with the space shuttle is that almost all of its dry mass either goes to orbit (the orbiter) or almost to orbit (external tank). Only the boosters get dropped early. This is holiness related itself (Single stage to orbit is holy for some reason, so almost single stage gets a bit of that holiness) and the same type of holiness also doomed the X-33 (which they made fully SSTO) but it isn’t wing-holiness specifically.

        • jim says:

          > I am actually not sure if there’s anyone whose job it is specifically to notice and analyze excess mortality.

          There used to be people whose job it was to record mortality data, and make that data available. When the jab came out, that data suddenly stopped being available. I know because I was closely monitoring it to figure out what was happening with Covid (which was that deaths from heart disease and so forth strangely went down by the same amount as deaths from Covid went up, except for the first few months when they were murdering a lot of people by ventilator.)

          And then, suddenly, I could not find that data. And when I could find it, it was strangely changed.

          > The space shuttle was required by the military to have a long cross-range capability.

          For an orbital or hypersonic vehicle, cross range capability is the ability to maneuver in the atmosphere at very high speeds.
          The military did not ask for wings. After the wings had already been decided upon, they asked that the wings be slightly less useless at at very high speeds.

          Still fairly useless. If you want to know what cross range capability looks like for such a vehicle , look at the Chinese and Russian hypersonic missiles – the proposed Rocket Lab Neutron is also designed for cross range capability, since it has to turn around and return to its launch site, and it does not exactly have wings, any more than the Chinese hypersonics do.

          The military did not get its way. Had they gotten their way, would have looked more like the Rocket Lab Neutron rocket.

          • Tech Priest says:

            OK, that does seem pretty suspicious. But I still think that there isn’t a conscious belief that the shot is causing this, more an unwillingness to think about it plus some anxiety that it could be seized on by antivaxxers and thus get them in trouble, without them consciously thinking that the antivaxxers would be right.

            For the space shuttle, if the wings had already been decided on, that is evidence for wings being holy, but not that they are the most important factor.

            The thing is, the way the rocket equation works you need exponentially increasing wet-to-dry-mass ratio as you increase the delta v. But, you need some of that dry mass for tanks and engines. At some point, if you don’t drop off some dry mass early, you need all the mass for tanks and engines, and the thing stops working entirely. That point is pretty close to orbital velocity, which is why SSTOs don’t work very well. Shuttle is close enough to an SSTO to make it a lot harder than a proper 2-stage rocket. The extra weight of wings amplifies this but the near -SSTO design is the main problem I think.

            Also a minor point that what flyback boosters do is very different from orbital landing cross-range; they use active rocket use to fly back (if not landing on a barge downrange) and then use drag to land. They don’t need much lift-to-drag.

            • jim says:

              > But I still think that there isn’t a conscious belief that the shot is causing this

              “Your honor when he died after I hit him, and I buried him a shallow grave, cleaned the blood up, and lied about him ever being here, that was not because I thought I killed him. I knew I was innocent, but I was worried that it might look bad.”

              Covering up the evidence implies mens rea, consciousness of guilt. They know they are murdering large numbers of people

              > what flyback boosters do is very different from orbital landing cross-range; they use active rocket use to fly back

              The Rocket labs Neutron is intended to fly higher and achieve considerably higher horizontal velocity than the SpaceX first stage. The original design of the Rocket Labs Neutron was to land on a barge, which meant no requirement for aerodynamic lift, no requirement for cross range capability. They are now planning for it to turn around and fly back to its landing site, which because of the rather large horizontal velocity, would be very expensive to do on rocket power. For this to feasible, it has have large cross range capability, which means hypersonic aerodynamic flight, to turn around using the atmosphere, fly back to its launch site, and then land like a rocket should land.

              It is designed to do what the military were unhappy with NASA not designing the shuttle to do.

              • Tech Priest says:

                > Covering up the evidence implies mens rea

                I don’t think covering up implies mens rea; it just requires some level of awareness that trouble might ensue if they didn’t cover up. And presumably these are not the same people who designed the shot (and even those probably don’t know whether it meaningfully contributes to the excess deaths).

                > The Rocket labs Neutron is intended to fly higher and achieve considerably higher horizontal velocity than the SpaceX first stage.

                Falcon 9 first stage already goes well into what is essentially vacuum; if Neutron goes even higher, seems very unlikely that aerodynamics would meaningfully contribute to the change in direction.

                The amount of fuel needed for flyback is not as much as people tend to think, because the boosters are nearly empty when they do the flyback (and extra weight on the boosters is much cheaper than on orbital stages, because they don’t need to go anywhere near orbital speed. It’s a lot different from reentry on a vehicle that’s already been to orbit).

                • jim says:

                  > The amount of fuel needed for flyback is not as much as people tend to think, because the boosters are nearly empty

                  Think about it in terms of delta V. Every drop of fuel spent returning has to be lifted up by a much larger quantity of fuel at launch.

                • Tech Priest says:

                  > Think about it in terms of delta V. Every drop of fuel spent returning has to be lifted up by a much larger quantity of fuel at launch.

                  That’s actually kind of my point. It would have to be a much larger quantity of fuel if it went to orbit. But if going much less than to orbit, then might be more like doubling the fuel amount or so.

                  And the extra delta-v for flyback is applied to a much smaller mass than the whole rocket. When going up, the booster needs to accelerate all the fully fueled mass for both stages, but for flyback, only the dry mass of the booster plus the fuel needed for landing, which is a lot smaller.

                • jim says:

                  You are confusing yourself by talking about fuel.

                  Just think about the delta V and the horizontal velocity. Delta V is expensive. Very, very expensive. It is less expensive once you have released the payload, but it is still expensive.

                  This is what the military were talking about when they talked about cross range capability. To return to launch site after having achieved high horizontal velocity is cross range capability, which requires hypersonic aerodynamic flight. Landing downrange on a barge does not.

                  If your booster is landing at the original launch site after having primarily gone straight up, not a problem. If your booster is landing downrange on a barge far from the original launch site, not a problem. If your booster wants to achieve large horizontal velocity and then return to launch site, big problem.

                  Musk is using stainless steel, which can take rather high temperatures, but rocket lab is using carbon/carbon composite, which can take considerably higher temperatures.

                  Musk relies on primarily aerodynamic breaking, but he just has to decelerate so he does not need to vector the thrust, does not need aerodynamic lift. He just needs drag, does not need force perpendicular to the motion. If the Rocket Labs Neutron rocket wants to turn around horizontally, needs aerodynamic lift.

                  Cross range capability is the capability to get an aerodynamic force on the rocket that is in substantial part perpendicular to the direction of motion.

                  It is what the wings on the shuttle failed to do until the last few moments before landing.

                  Because delta V is very very expensive, it is simply impractical for a booster to land as if in a vacuum.

                • Tech Priest says:

                  Delta-V gets very expensive when you need enough of it that you are reaching the point where the tanks and engines are eating up your dry mass budget so you can’t have very much payload.

                  At lower amounts, it is not so expensive, particularly if you are only moving a smaller mass through this delta-V.

                  Neutron is using carbon composites, I am not aware that they are carbon-carbon composites, or that they have better or comparable heat resistance than stainless steel.

                  A large horizontal velocity makes it harder to return with rockets than low horizontal velocity, but still manageable as long as small relative to orbital speed.

                  It’s also very hard to get decent lift-to-drag ratios at hypersonic speeds. Even the space shuttle was only about 1, increasing to 4.5 at subsonic speeds. It’s unlikely that Neutron even reaches 1 at hypersonic speeds, judging by its shape.

                  OK, after you release the second stage you are in near vacuum and continue on a suborbital trajectory until you hit thicker atmosphere. Then your aerodynamic lift can kick in but you are already hundreds of kilometers downrange. Now, at 1:1 lift to drag each epsilon radians you turn through causes you to slow down by a factor of 1- epsilon. After turning through Pi radians you are slower by a factor of e^Pi, or 23. Admittedly the lift-to-drag can go up as you slow down, but probably not be much on something shaped like neutron. Good luck getting back to the launch site.

                • jim says:

                  > A large horizontal velocity makes it harder to return with rockets than low horizontal velocity, but still manageable as long as small relative to orbital speed.

                  Their pictures of what they think it is going to look like presuppose that the reusable first stage does achieve a good part of orbital horizontal velocity, that the horizontal velocity is not small relative to orbital speed.

                  The design objective of the Proton Labs Neutron rocket is that the expended upper stage be small and cheap, the reusable first stage big and expensive. The lower the horizontal velocity, the less it achieves that objective. The design objective, which it may well have difficulty achieving, is a horizontal velocity that is not small relative to orbital speed.

                  The starship system, on the other hand, which aims for a fully re-usable upper stage is that the re-usable upper stage be as big and expensive as possible. It is smaller than the booster stage, but not much smaller. The Proton Labs Neutron design on the other hand is depicted and proposed as a having an upper stage that is tiny relative to the first stage, which, if achieved, presupposes a first stage that achieves a horizontal velocity that is a large fraction of orbital velocity.

                  This can be accomplished by downrange landing on a barge, but this is expensive, and prevents rapid re-use. The other way of accomplishing it is cross-range capability, which is to say, hypersonic glide, allowing return to launch site.

                  The less the Rocket Labs Neutron achieves a large fraction of orbital speed, the bigger the expendable second stage has to be relative to the Neutron, and the more money they are spending on an expendable stage.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  Spitball: booster stage shaped like a air foil, but stood up on it’s end, so it goes up like a rocket in one angle of attack, then glides back to base in the other.

                  Other spitball: hydrogen envelope that carries orbital stage to the edge of the atmosphere, then in turn acts as a reactant tank for an engine (be it chemox, ion, or nuclear thermal) to push it the rest of the way (possibly with a mechanism to ‘reel in’ slack), then floats back down to base.

                • jim says:

                  You are describing the Russian and Chinese hypersonic anti carrier missiles, and I am holding a debate on whether you are describing the Rocket Labs Neutron rocket. (Whose design is still in flux. The final model may or may not have hypersonic glide capability, but if it is to return to launch site, rather than land downrange on a barge a very long distance away, needs hypersonic glide capability.)

                • Starman says:


                  ” You are describing the Russian and Chinese hypersonic anti carrier missiles, and I am holding a debate on whether you are describing the Rocket Labs Neutron rocket. (Whose design is still in flux. The final model may or may not have hypersonic glide capability, but if it is to return to launch site, rather than land downrange on a barge a very long distance away, needs hypersonic glide capability.)

                  Hypersonic glide capability isn’t needed to return to launch site, the Falcon 9 can do this with just a boost back burn. The Neutron appears to do the same as well. And of course Starship Booster stage does a boost back burn as well.

                  And besides, a hypersonic glide vehicle still needs to be relatively flat and any shape that deviates from a bottle shape is very bad for rocketships because such a deviation kills propellant mass fraction.

                  (Shown: a Falcon 9 returning to launch site via boost back burn)

                • jim says:

                  > Hypersonic glide capability isn’t needed to return to launch site, the Falcon 9 can do this with just a boost back burn

                  The falcon nine is does not have the horizontal velocity that Proton labs would like to have in its Neutron rocket.

                  The starship booster will not have it either, but will not need it because it launches a very big upper stage.

                • Starman says:


                  ”booster stage shaped like a air foil”

                  Will fail, and it did fail, for 60 years.

                  Shaping a rocket stage like an air foil kills propellant mass fraction.

                • jim says:

                  Like an airfoil yes, but take a look at the Chinese hypersonic missiles.

                  They are shaped, not like a subsonic or supersonic airfoil, but they are shaped for hypersonic air flow.

                • Starman says:


                  ” The Proton Labs Neutron design on the other hand is depicted and proposed as a having an upper stage that is tiny relative to the first stage, which, if achieved, presupposes a first stage that achieves a horizontal velocity that is a large fraction of orbital velocity.”

                  The Neutron upper stage is entirely enclosed inside its reusable first stage. This eliminates any need for aerodynamics for the upper stage and allows the upper stage to hang on top of the first stage instead of sitting on top of the first stage. All of this to increase the upper stage propellant mass fraction to a great degree.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:


                  I am also not talking about something that has been done at any point in the last 60 years.

                  It is also not one i would in would personally rank as most attractive, but part of an inventory of possibilities that come to mind.

                  But then there’s a funny thing; people are most likely to respond to parts of things they disagree with (or think they disagree with); and in turn one may feel obligated to go further out on a limb to reasonably justify it; and then one ends up being defined by their own least favorite ideas.

                  An airfoil with a high lift/glide ratio will, naturally, also have a very large cross-section. But if stood up on it’s end, it instead has a cross-section of a rapier, much like a more conventionally streamlined lift vehicle. The trick is letting go of the mental box saying a vehicle can only ever point in one direction in all aspects of operation. That’s the short of that tangent anyways.

                • Starman says:


                  You described a space plane booster. That idea failed for sixty years. If it’s not a spaceplane, post an image link that closely matches what you are trying to say.

                  Since this topic is visual, not word-based, here’s the intro:

                  Ideal shape of an airplane or airfoil.

                  Ideal shape for a rocketship.

                  Note that the Neutron
                  (both stages) fits the bottle shape more closely than the Falcon 9 does.

                • Kunning Drueger says:

                  I know very little about aerospace, but I didn’t think the delta wing was the ideal airfoil.

                • jim says:

                  Delta is the ideal airfoil for supersonic, mach two or three. Not as good as regular wings at subsonic. Fairly useless for hypersonic.

                • Starman says:


                  ” I know very little about aerospace, but I didn’t think the delta wing was the ideal airfoil.”

                  The flat aerodynamic shape is the ideal airplane, the delta wing is just one variation adapted to supersonic atmospheric flight. I could’ve also shown a picture of a butterfly.

                  Which is diametrically opposed to the rocketship’s ideal shape, a bottle.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:


                  You don’t need to tell me about frailties of space-planes because i have made those exact same arguments myself, more than once, and you have seen me make them.

                  To illustrate, a high aspect ratio airfoil, such as like on the U-2, has the cross section of a barn door when facing it’s front axis, and the cross section of a pencil when facing it’s side axis.

                  In the matter of a conventionally streamlined rocket, every degree of deviation from the aerodynamic minimum of a spitzer profile represents a debt that needs to be made up for with greater impulse in the boost phase, which itself in turn incurs a cascading effect of debts to be made up for in the whole of the design. Greater interaction with the airstream, for atmospheric maneuvering, necessarily entails greater drag, whereas in a boost stage to orbit you want as little drag as possible, making a ‘space plane’, as commonly understood, almost a contradiction in terms.

                  The cross-sectional area necessary for a vehicle to generate enough lift for a controlled landing practically defeats it’s utility as an orbital booster along that same axis, which can be seen in uni-axial designs, like the shuttle, buran, or virgin galactic, where the direction of boost is also the same as the direction of glide. However, there is no rule saying the axis on which you go up, needs to be the same axis on which you go down, which is most commonly seen in VTOL designs. So one of the speculative ideas i considered was the taking of a conventional booster, more subtly shaped such that it would effectively be a high aspect ratio airfoil if viewed from the ‘side’, such that when stood on it’s end in launch position, it goes up with the cross section of a pencil, and then glides back down with the cross section of a barndoor.

                • Tech Priest says:

                  > Their pictures of what they think it is going to look like presuppose that the reusable first stage does achieve a good part of orbital horizontal velocity, that the horizontal velocity is not small relative to orbital speed.

                  Not to me. The booster is carrying much more weight, so is much larger in proportion to the delta-V it is producing. So the second stage being smaller does not mean it is not doing most of the delta-v. Also, half (say) of orbital speed is vastly easier than orbital, not anything like half as difficult, because of the mass ratios getting infinitely bad near orbital.

                  > The design objective of the Proton Labs Neutron rocket is that the expended upper stage be small and cheap, the reusable first stage big and expensive. The lower the horizontal velocity, the less it achieves that objective. The design objective, which it may well have difficulty achieving, is a horizontal velocity that is not small relative to orbital speed.

                  In a traditional expendable rocket, each stage tends to do a roughly comparable proportion of the delta-v, in order to stay as far as possible from high-delta-v-per-stage problems. In reusable rockets, as seen in the falcon 9, the trend seems to be to put even more of the delta-v on the upper stage, apparently in order to make reusability of the first stage easier, despite the second stage being expendable. If Neutron bucks this trend, it will probably not be by much. Even if they do, it will still be easier to do it with rockets than with lift, for the reasons I gave above.

                • jim says:

                  > In reusable rockets, as seen in the falcon 9, the trend seems to be to put even more of the delta-v on the upper stage, apparently in order to make reusability of the first stage easier,

                  The problem is that if you put too much speed on the first stage, it is going to burn up on re-entry. Falcon first stage is limited by the amount of aerodynamic braking it can do without burning up. Presumably the starship booster is also, though it is designed to be more heat resistant than Falcon first stage, so should be able to do a higher velocity re-entry. Starship second stage is intended to be going to be a lot more more heat resistant. Proton neutron first stage is intended to be more heat resistant.

                  The design trend is for first stage vehicles that can take greater re-entry heat.

                • jim says:

                  > So the second stage being smaller does not mean it is not doing most of the delta-v.

                  The second stage being smaller does mean it is doing less of the delta V.

                  The first stage is carrying the stuff that shields against max q. Which makes a whole lot of sense, since max q happens quite early in launch. And makes rather less sense, because on the falcon it is the internal pressure in the fuel tanks in the falcon second stage that provides most of the strength against max q. It only makes sense to do it this way if your second stage is rather small, and is not providing a lot of the delta v, if a whole lot of your second stage is the potentially fragile payload.

                • Cloudswrest says:

                  it would effectively be a high aspect ratio airfoil if viewed from the ‘side’, such that when stood on it’s end in launch position, it goes up with the cross section of a pencil, and then glides back down with the cross section of a barndoor.

                  There are two issues here. One, cross section, is addressed above. The other is weight. The airfoil adds more surface area to the spacecraft, which adds more dead weight.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  Sure, but the question isn’t abstract optimization puzzles, the question is what requirements do you have, and solutions for meeting them.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I’m not one for mindlessly trusting the experts but I don’t think most of us have much to contribute in our theories of rocket design…

                  I know enough to know that aerodynamic considerations are moot for travelling in space (you’d want something almost sphereical to maximize inner volume over expensive surface area) but important to try minimize air resistance when you are launching.

                  I don’t know whether you need to take aerodynamics into account for reentry or whether you can ignore that entirely and have a good heat shield.

                • Pseudo-CHrysostom says:

                  Perhaps this makes a good illustration of why one should not think out loud, even amongst those you may think are close. Most people can’t help but take you as making assertions of advocacy, and have little interest in participating in the same process themselves.

              • ten says:

                I have family members in government and medicine, and i can account for their attitudes and cognitive steps that allow them to avoid facing reality re covid and jab.

                1, the basics of our power structure is sound, it is merely infested in some parts by lunatics. These rotten parts are quite isolated, and only control policy and signal concerning niggers, women, family, welfare and god – the rest is fine, so any signal or policy coming from the still pure parts can be trusted to at most being mistaken, never misleading.

                2, since these pure parts do not signal jab is bad, for jab to be bad would require me to be wiser and smarter than everyone else involved combined, and i am not.


                In a previous discussion, i stated official statistics on excess mortality contradicted official statistics on covid lethality. Family members googled, and came back triumphant – not so! Confused as to how this could be, since i had checked both statistics myself, not heard it from someone else, i rechecked – and the official statistics had mysteriously ceased to show excess mortality for years prior to 2019, which was a sigma 3 anomaly for low death rate.

                So either the anomaly is real and misleadingly presented as baseline, which presentation was actively changed to its manipulative state during the weeks between me checking the stats and discussing it with family, or the anomaly is itself fake. There is no possibility that whatever government authority that presides over the presentation of statistics is not actively lying.

                To this, they make faces of discomfort and go silent, and the next time we meet have forgotton all about it.

                At least my father and one of my sisters-in-law doesn’t automatically forget – a quantum of solace.

                • Tech Priest says:

                  Interesting, I try to keep an open mind about things but didn’t consider the possibility that the excess mortality might be an artifact of previous manipulation intended to hide a decline of excess deaths during the start of Covid. Do you have any ideas where to get this data now?

                • jim says:

                  The past is always changing. Only the future is certain.

                • jim says:

                  One uncontaminated source of data is social security payouts and life insurance payouts.

                  From social security, you can infer the death rate among older people, and from life insurance, the death rate among working age people.

                  I don’t have the life insurance data, and I fear it is about to go away. I looked at the death rate before the vaccines, and it showed excess deaths in the first few months, when ventilators were being used indiscriminately, and then the excess deaths went away – to not even normal flu season levels – a hilariously harmless flu.

                  I have not looked at them post vaccination, and if I did look at them, would probably not help much, because the excess deaths seem to be primarily occurring in working age people.

                • ten says:

                  I’m sure i could dig it up, but we’re talking sweden specific data here.

                • Tech Priest says:

                  Wait, you said 2019. So, that’s not covid, must be a fluke unless it was itself manipulated?

                  And hiding earlier higher death rates would make sense if they wanted to make covid look bad, but then once vaccines come out, they hide that in turn because otherwise they would be accused of antivax. I guess.

                • ten says:

                  Perhaps i was unclear.

                  2019 in sweden was a sigma 3 anomaly with low death rates – thus, 2020 was way above 2019. This is manipulatively blamed on covid, the difference is called excess mortality.

                • Arqiduka says:

                  Drives me nuts that excess deaths are calculated on some average of the year or years before instead of on mortality tables, which figures are far more resilient to abnornal years.

                  Life insurers know what the deal is, but are keeping mum. Wouldn’t want to be CEO of one of those right now lol.

  11. Adam says:

    What is the will of Gnon with regards to husbands who’s wives have left them and or committed adultery? Assume this question is for me as well as other men in similar situations.

    I’ll keep this brief but I got shotgun married at 18. I was always a natural chad, and I got Barbie pregnant after a few months of dating. I may have married her regardless she is was less crazy than most and she was very pleasant and wanted a big family like the one she came from. We knew each other growing up, very rural area, same school etc.

    After a number of years of marriage I grew tired of her, moved us across the country and started doing the kinds of things I did in high school before I dropped out. Lots of drinking/drugs. Not very attentive, not really interested in the life I was living. Just wanted to have the kind of fun I had before I got married.

    After year 7 she moved back to her parents with our 3 kids. I didn’t know it at the time but this white knight faggot came to get her with her brothers to move her to her parents. They ended up having some kind of fling. I didn’t find out until many years later. After a couple years at her parents she moved back with me. Told me about the white knight eventually. In the way women usually confess these sort of things. Lots of lies. Eventually I think I got the story. Or enough of it.

    I ended up getting my shit together, she moved out again, I went to rehab, got everything on track, making decent money again. She asked for a divorce as I was not at all committed considering I didn’t really trust her. I said yes no problem.

    We got together again for coffee a week ago. She has definitely been looking in the mirror a lot (like I had to). She seemed like the girl I first dated 25 years ago. She has not found anyone, I haven’t even tried.

    So what does God or Gnon have to say if I want to take ownership of her? Is God behind me in that? Or is it up to me? She’s a pretty awesome chick overall. I don’t think I married the wrong girl. I just got forced into it young and wasn’t made out of the things I’m made out of today. Or is this all foolishness?

    If I had to ride out the end of the world she would be the kind of help I would be looking for. She started plucking feathers off chickens for dinner when she was like 6. And I never really have seen her as anything other than “mine”. I’ve never acted any other way either. Despite her best efforts I don’t think she can find the man to beat me. And in this day and age, she’s a lot better than most.

    This is entirely up to me. If I invest, she will invest. I would say cooperate/cooperate is restored, or will be just as soon as I make her a part of my life again.

    I would like to hear from the vets on this. In general, I do not think O.J. did anything wrong. His wife and lover got what they had coming. But I’m not O.J. and neither are most guys that are going to be in this situation.

    • Aidan says:

      The key moment was when another man came to abduct your wife. Should have put a shotgun on his chest and told him to mind his own business if he liked having lungs. Failing that, should have gone to her parents house to abduct her and your kids back to your place.

      I am not sure what God commands for a man who let his wife be abducted, and was not all that interested in preventing it, and then gets second thoughts and wants his wife back. It’s probably somewhere in the Old Testament. A woman is commanded to stay with a poor husband, and being a drunk and itinerant is indeed being a poor husband, and she is meant to use her puppy dog eyes to guilt you into not being a piece of shit, which is remarkably effective.

      Early 40’s though, you have a shot at having more kids with a fertile age woman in her 20’s, and with a wife in her 40s you really do not.

      • Adam says:

        Yeah. I didn’t know the guy was with her brothers. And while I agree with what you say, I wasn’t made out of that kind of stuff back then. Everything was really easy when I was young, then things got really difficult. I was not a strong man back then. I was mean and I was tough but being a thug is not a good long term strategy.

        I don’t know that I want more kids. I’ve lived a very full life so far. I’ve explored all the territory I wanted to explore. I’ve had my adventures. I already have three obedient kids with an ex-wife who would love to be the wife she started out as.

        I am not special in my situation and this story is not new. I was foolish and I paid the price. I just want to enjoy my life and watch my kids have kids and be the man I always should have been. I wouldn’t have a problem finding another girl to have kids with. If I go to church or AA or whatever the girl will find me.

        I didn’t really expect this as far as seeing my ex-wife last week. I had not seen her in a year and a half. Since rehab a few years ago I’ve focused on being a strong man and a good father and not much else. Reading this blog though over the last few years has helped me understand just how bad I had screwed up and now having things out together pretty well I just want what I had to start with.

        • jim says:

          If she looks hot in her forties, you have wife goggles.

          Which is a good thing, and makes for a very comfortable old age, but after she banged someone else, the wife goggles should have dropped. That they did not drop is a very dangerous thing, and may well bite you.

          If you have children with a woman, the wife goggles tend to stay on, with good reason – but it is far from clear that the reason is good enough.

          • Adam says:

            They did drop. After learning about the other guy and all that I did not see her the same.

            I wouldn’t say she looks hot now, although she does look good for her age. She was just very pleasant and playful and fun like she used to be.

            At this point in my life I would probably error on the side of comfort over youth/hotness. The effort I have put in over the last 6 or 7 years has had somewhat of an effect on me. And having a lot invested in my life and now in a pretty good position I am a lot less eager to take the kind of risks I used to.

            • jim says:

              Not having wife goggles any more, your old age will be considerably less comfortable than it would otherwise have been. And since she has probably been sleeping with someone more alpha than you, harsh shit tests ahead.

              On the other hand, if you get in a younger woman, which you surely could do, and do not have kids with her, you will likely not develop wife goggles, in which case your old age is also going to be uncomfortable.

          • SJE says:

            “If she looks hot in her forties, you have wife goggles”

            Cannot agree with this, Jim muh m8. I was never so pleased, as when I got to be 40, and found that contrary to what I always feared, I had begun to find women of my age group attractive.

        • jim says:

          If you have three obedient kids, good reason to keep her around to look after you in your old age and help handle the kids. That is what the wife goggles are for.

          But if she has slept with someone else after sleeping with you, chances are, more alpha than you, which is likely to lead to trouble.

          It is a hard case. You have to figure out if she is going to cause problems in future.

          • Adam says:

            I am not sure she slept with someone more alpha than me. I know the guy, his locker was 15 feet from mine for 10 years. He would have been the last person I would have suspected. He was always a normal, nice guy. We were never friends but he’s friends with her brothers.

            So the story goes he came down with her brothers to help in case me and my friends tried to stop her. Months later they started hanging out and after a while it got physical, they didn’t have sex but almost a couple of times (her words). It was a lot of bullshit. I have no idea what actually took place. She was not particularly stable and I think she ended up running him off. Or he didn’t want to deal with her and me. Her and I never stopped sleeping together. I would fly up for the weekend every couple months.

            Talking about girls that jump back into the same troubled waters that you just pulled them out of, that’s her and I’m the water.

            The guy ended up with another single mom a year later or so, had a kid with her.

            I can’t imagine it’s a case of he’s more alpha. He’s just not. I’m bigger, better looking, smarter and a hell of a lot meaner (or I was). I never knew beta bucks was a thing. I never thought a girl would leave someone like me for something more comfortable. I grew up in foster care I found out really early from foster girls about what kind of guys they found interesting.

            My first thought was what kind of retard goes out of their way to save a girl from a guy like me. That stuff doesn’t work.

            Looking back it’s kind of horrible how I treated her. But in the moment it worked as far as I needed it to work. Not without some trouble though. I can’t remember the last time she shit tested me. It’s been mostly comfort tests that I had a problem with.

            If I show that I’m in it for good or at least in it to build a future I think it’s probably a lot of smooth sailing. Which at this point is exactly what I want.

            • Aidan says:

              Sounds like alpha widowhood to me. If he continued to bang her, unlikely she found someone more alpha. My experience is that if you bang a woman infrequently, every few months or so, she will be actively and consciously looking for someone more alpha, and if she does, will become unavailable, but the act of continuing to bang her keeps her from settling for someone more beta than you to henpeck.

              If you’re happy with your progeny and consider her a good companion then go for it. Can’t really beat that bond of teenage impregnation and shotgun marriage

              • Adam says:

                She was definitely looking for someone to defeat me. It sounds like he kept waiting for her to end it with me or give him the green light. You have to treat the situation as if the light is always green. The kind of guy that white knights like that isn’t going to see it that way. It doesn’t sound like he wanted to be messing with a married woman either.

                People talk about being a natural and being dark triad as if it’s this great thing, and yeah as far as getting the milk for free it’s great. But in every other way in modern society it is not great. I see all these guys that want to be dark triad and it’s just not something that’s going to end well. I would never want my son to go down that path.

                After finding Jordan Peterson years ago on Rogans podcast, to the Red Pill and then Jim’s blog, I just don’t see things like I used to. I’m an axe wielding terrorist who’s hung up his axe (for the time being). My kids are incredible. I will have a lot of beautiful and healthy grandkids. My ex wife and I have a ton of chemistry and have a lot of fun together. She had never had an orgasm before we dated. In 25 years I don’t think she has ever stopped praying for me. She treats me like a king and has always taken exceptional care of our kids.

                After a lot of self reflection I just don’t know that it’s going to get much better than this.

                • Varna says:

                  Go forth and be happy.

                • Tsymbal says:

                  The thought of my woman having sex with someone else is so maddening to me that I wouldn’t be able to be with her after that.

  12. Pooch says:

    I believe Jim said fleeing to Siberia could be an option if it comes down to that. Looks like Russia is extending that offer.

    • Herman says:

      Yes Vladimir Zhirinovsky says that – a guy in the opposition who got vaxxed 7 times.
      If you are of Russion decent – maybe otherwise I don’t think so.

      • Varna says:

        Zhirinovsky is of the aggressive pro-vax nationalist populists, like the Philippine prez. Not like Bolsonaro at all.

        In Russia currently only the hard reds (commies) and the soft reds (social dems) are playing the role of populist republicans about the vax mandates. Voting against on fed and state level, organizing pickets.

        United Russia, the nationalists, and the liberasts are all fused in pro-mandate ecstasy. The Stalinists are firmly against. Strange days.

    • Mike in Boston says:

      I have always assumed that Zhirinovsky’s amazing ability to get ballot access means that he is an actor playing a role for the ex-Soviet deep state.

      That same deep state is murdering pretty girls in Kamchatka, next door to Siberia, with their Sputnik V vaxx mandates.

      Former RT editor Riley Waggaman chose the really stupid name “Edward Slavsquat” for his blog, ensuring that no one will ever take him seriously. But that’s too bad, because he’s done a good job pointing out that

      The Russian government should be held to the same standards as every other government. You don’t like Big Pharma clot-shots? Well, guess what? The Russian government has partnered with Big Pharma and its clot-shots. You think VAERS is under-reporting vaccine injuries? Well, guess what? Russia doesn’t even report post-vaccination complications. You don’t like Klaus Schwab? Well, guess what? All of the major players involved with Sputnik V have ties to the World Economic Forum and some of them are even Great Reset fanatics (like Hermann Gräf).

      • Pooch says:

        Incredibly disturbing. The number of countries not implementing some sort of vaccine tyranny, even outside of American hegemony, appears to be shockingly small.

        • Varna says:

          If America, Europe, Israel, Russia, and Turkmenistan are all going through the same motions, then yeah, something really serious is up.

          China I suspect is going through what externally looks similar steps but on the inside follows a parallels logic. For a few years before the kung flu they kept getting hit with epidemics that wiped out their pigs, chickens, and various harvests, so they believe they are under constant biological attack from globohomo.

          Thus every time some infection appears they seal the city and treat it like a life and death situation. In their minds they are already in a slow-motion WWIII with unpredictable villains.

          What the rest of the northern hemisphere is doing is following a different great reset logic.

          Which is possibly why China is doing working lockdowns and using a trad vax, while the great reset players are doing lockdowns which don’t stop anything except the economy and basic freedoms, and absolutely refused for two years straight to develop a trad vax. Or even import one.

          Two parallels processes. China believes it is fighting for its survival in an undeclared war, while the great reset part of the world is doing its own perestroika at the same time.

          • ten says:

            Multiple completely baseless speculations coming in:

            The wuhan lab etc has or is about to achieve programmable vaccine resistant bioweapon virii, who uses DNA-rewriting as attack vector, necessitating mRNA-vaccines as counter measure.

            Either by accident or by whistleblowing by a lab employee, a sort of harmless test species was released with sufficient information in its genetics to imply the potential of other strains to be world ending if so programmed.

            Public knowledge of doomsday weapons might plausibly induce panic, especially when a noob variant of the weapon is sweeping through them already, so anyone who knows is made to shut up.

            World leaders, including Putin, hunker up and scrap for a vaccine defense and a dress rehearsal.

            Noone told Bolsonaro because they really don’t like him and brazil doesn’t have anyone in-house to figure it out.


            • Arqiduka says:

              This, error and cover up, deliberate release of a geezer-killer that would become harmless in a few cycles, these and more explain what we are seeing.

              Which is more likely though? My money is now and has been since April 2020 on a deliberate release to crash the economy ahead of the election , failing which (due to Powell being competent, as I’ve said elsewhere) evolved into lets mail in votes. Now they can’t shut the hysteria down because holly creed and need to up their game with a competing religion.

              • ten says:

                Doesn’t explain Putin and others who are not cathedral affiliated joining the party.

                Which is very strange if it is merely an election ploy.

                • Arqiduka says:

                  You will never meet a state that does not get hard on sheer power, and this theater has given them all ingent excuse. Let’s not think that states unaffiliated with globohomo are run by minarchist saints. They are still shitty thugs riding a tiger, but perhaps a bit more cohesive at the top.

                  Except Bolsonaro who is just an extraordinary man.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Shinzo Abe was a lot quieter about it but he essentially followed an anti Covid demon and now anti-vax policy (my understanding is that much like a “retired Shogun” he still makes all the major policy decisions in Japan).

            • Aidan says:

              Viruses are poor bioweapons, given their tendency to evolve into their own vaccines. Every historical plague has been bacterial; the Spanish Flu was not bioweapon-deadly, and that was the worst viral event we have on record. Trying to turn a virus into a bioweapon would be stupid in the first place, the west doing the research in China would be doubleplus stupid, and if they’re smart enough to engineer it, smart enough to realize why it’s stupid.

              mRNA “vaccine” technology has been collecting dust on a shelf since 2012, because the animal trials for the SARS-1 mRNA vaccine had unpleasant results for the vaccinated animals, but why design a bioweapon to only be defeatable by an mRNA vaccine when the technology was almost there, sitting on a shelf for almost ten years?

              When the rona first hit here, there was speculation among right wing dissidents that it effected Asians much worse than other races, but it turned out it didn’t, it was a mild plague, and many were fooled by the chinks in hazmat suits marching around and the fake videos of men dropping in the street. That would have been an indicator of a bioweapon, but it was not the case.

              • ten says:

                I cheerfully assume (in this toy scenario) these hurdles to have been overcome technologically, and that it was a chinese bioweapon, not an american one. Secretly developing a bioweapon in a lab funded by your enemies isn’t all that stupid.

                My neonate idea was that the vaccine would be the other edge of the sword, and the hard place to the rock of the bioweapon. Try to get rid of the virus? Have fun with cytotoxic induction of mass organ failure and VAIDS.

                • jim says:

                  > Secretly developing a bioweapon in a lab funded by your enemies isn’t all that stupid.

                  The trouble with that hypothesis is that it was not secret from those funding it. Darpa called the research out for what it was: Gain of Function Research

                  You want gain of function research in your crop plants, not in your diseases.

  13. Mister Grumpus says:

    Please kindly re-link to your “Social Networking” white paper here, and/or add it to your home page

    • jim says:

      It is on the home page

      Which is otherwise totally out of date and needs a major rewrite. It will get one when I go public with the project.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        Thank you. I’ll understand this thing if it nearly kills me.

        I can still buy an AR15, but Stephan Molyneux can’t tweet.

        They really did give away the game. This is where it’s at. They’re not afraid of bullets. They’re afraid of the truth.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        I’m really rooting for you on this. I hope you can tightly package this as a “ISO/IEEE” definition of a “__-compliant social network”. If you can clearly describe it then you can give it a name, and once it has a name, implementing it is a trophy that others can compete for.

        There are the wise understanders and deep thinkers, and then there are the spunky shit-doers. I want you to try on the idea that you’re quite possibly THE man to describe this, but NOT the guy to pull it off.

        You remember how bright your candle burned when you were 13-33, and also how uninformed you were. It’s a pattern as old as time. Perhaps only your brains and experience can compose this spec and explain why it has to work this way, but only THEIR energy can get it over the finish line.

        Just don’t bogart the concepts man. Neither Moses nor his brother Aaron could fist fight, but many battles lay ahead.

        This is like Mount Everest or the Manhattan Project now. Oppenheimer and his clique were needed to understand how it could possibly work, but the other 99.99% of guys involved simply respected and trusted them, and wanted to help get it over the finish line (and save their friends in the Marines from becoming hamburger on a Kyoto beach somewhere).

        The window is still open to get this described and communicated. As for who picks it up, who knows. Someone inspired Satoshi, and whoever that was, we owe him a lot, and also, I bet he doesn’t know who Satoshi is either.

        • jim says:

          The design of the feeds is easy, since the ultimate authority over blockchain corresponding to each feed is a single moderator.

          The trouble is the design for monetizing it – needs to be a proof of stake blockchain that corresponds to a structure of a startup enterprise.

          Which turns out to be hard.

          • Mister Grumpus says:

            Even if you can’t solve it by yourself, the better and clearer you can express and describe this fundamental paradox that you’re struggling with, the better.

            You have a ton of social proof out here, so you’ll be taken seriously. The exact same words from a random anon would instantly vaporize.

            You don’t have to know everything, and if a bus hits you you’ll wish you’d tried harder to describe what’s vexing you.

          • Pooch says:

            The trouble is the design for monetizing it – needs to be a proof of stake blockchain that corresponds to a structure of a startup enterprise.

            Interesting critique of PoS I came across. So what stops USG from just printing money and buying enough stake to take control of any PoS currency they view as a threat?


  14. Two Indian origin scientists defy the cathedral line on Omicron and suggest that it is a natural vaccine:

    Naturally the cathedral is unhappy with such defiance from official doctrine.

    • someDude says:

      Let’s wait and watch. Let’s see how the various Indian provinces respond. Some provinces have already begun lockdowns.

    • p says:

      As if Omicron cares whether the “experts” will “allow” its spread or not. 🙂

  15. notglowing says:

    I’ve noticed two interesting articles in the endless covid psyop feed google forces in my phone notifications.
    First one is describing how Spain is “normalizing” covid now, they do not count infections, and want to treat it like “a flu” and an endemic illness, since it’s not very deadly anymore, and it’s not like it can be destroyed.

    Second article is some academic in Italy saying they should do like Spain, since we are mostly vaccinated anyways, of course both articles don’t fail to insist that the vaccines are important, but they both point to stop constantly reporting infections, and how it’s no longer such a big deal, and things need to return to some level of normalcy.
    How it’s not useful to know the number of positives if they are not symptomatic.

    Of course, as I mentioned, both articles do mention the vaccine mandate in passing and support it, but it doesn’t seem to be the main focus.

    • notglowing says:

      Something like this seems to have been on TV now as well.

    • Fireball says:

      It has been happening for the last week or so. Some articles, specialists and tv talking heads talking about “living with the virus”.

      I am not really sure what is happening.

      • notglowing says:

        I’m not sure, it’s hard to be optimistic. But many of the restrictions here “expire” on the 31st of march. Maybe if the official line turns before then, they won’t be renewed.

        • Fireball says:

          Maybe but just stop by itself? And done preemptively before it runs out of gas? And removing the power of life of death that some people gain? Doesn’t sound right.

        • Pooch says:

          There is a more pragmatic elite faction that wants to stop destroying the economy and continue with slow Brezhnevian decline/looting/stagnation. In the US we saw this recently when the head of the CDC reduced quarantine time from 10 days to 5 days. This was done purely for economic purposes of infected workers and the holy Covid Demon worshippers freaked out about it and continue to freak out about it.

          My guess is the Brezhnevians and the Covidians come to an agreement to continue with a more gradual holiness spiral that allows for economic activity which has been to become the trademark of the Anglo-American Empire.

          • Arqiduka says:

            I don’t see a deal, rather each faction trying to get hold of the narrative independently, hence schizoid narrative. PCR test are gone BUT you have to report RAT resuls, quarantine goes down BUT every minute we hear of the plight of the paramedics, news speak of getting.over it at home BUT the third shot is made mandatory.

            They are playing chess, and the slow decliners appear to be winning. But the branch covidians have faith, so we’ll see.

            • Pooch says:

              Yes a schizoid battle of narratives is a good description.

              My prediction is that Covid Demon becomes something like what Climate Change is. The Climate Change enthusiasts would surely love to destroy Western Civilization abruptly and immediately but the slow decliners want a nice long period to surf the rubble on the way down. The end result is the gradual shift to “green” energy that we see now, giving both sides what they want. It’s a tried and true method for the last how ever many decades.

              Surely, I could be wrong but I think the CDC witch and Fauci, adamant Covid Demon worship enthusiasts for the last 2 years, now seem to be favoring towards economic-minded policy recommendations.. The massive inflation the Western world is experiencing now could have a lot to do with it. So yes, we’ll see.

              • notglowing says:

                That doesn’t seem possible. Climate change is about preventing a far away doomsday. Covid is the exact opposite scenario, about “temporary” measures for an immediate, already existing threat.
                It just doesn’t work with the idea of slowly moving towards it. What are they going to do, slowly increase sanitation in every industry? The harshest restrictions in travel, masks, etc, have already been introduced at some point.
                I can see them continuing the narrative long term in a reduced fashion as a routine to “prevent” covid from coming back, but I don’t see them slowly moving to some grand objective with it, when they’ve already done it quickly and gotten most of the way there, then pivoted to it being too much.

                • Pooch says:

                  Hard to predict where the holiness spiral goes but the grandiose objective appears to be ever more often injections and the total elimination of the unvaccinated and unboostered from public society and perhaps the elimination of them from the living world.

                  Arriving at the utopida likely means killing everyone on Earth. So better to get there slowly so they can profit first .

                • Arqiduka says:

                  If the Brezhnevians don’t get their way by winter in the northern hemisphere, the faith of the covidians will have won out. So it will be holly war and the Brezhnevians will do well to send their shills here not to disrupt but to learn how you fight a holly war. You don’t bring a gun.

                  The only way out by then will be ramping up an alternative hysteria, and the obvious candidates are dindu worship and climate (this is still the left). Personally I’d much prefer the latter if forced to choose, so have at it.

                • Pooch says:

                  The US 2022 midterms will have implications on the Covidian-Brezhnevian conflict. There seems to be expectation of Brezhnevian/Republican victory, but we’ll see.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Dindu worship is much preferable IMHO…

                  Climate worship will see further massive efforts to shut the lights off, dindu worship can be tuned out.

                • notglowing says:

                  >Climate worship will see further massive efforts to shut the lights off,
                  It might be worse at a global scale, but any problems will be felt by everyone, and perhaps less so by us because we are more prepared for it.
                  Covid and dindu worship are both very good at making personal demands of proving one’s faith. Being a target, ostracized, is a lot worse.
                  And Covid is worse than dindu, because it’s about convincing everyone else you are a concrete threat to their own life and health. And possibly responsible for their grandma dying.

                • Pooch says:

                  Covid worship also has the added benefit of being a new and exciting form of worship for the congregation with Dindu and Climate worship getting kind of stale.

                • Arqiduka says:

                  Geya worship will tunr off the lights and get rid of all personal transportation.

                  Dindu worship will have viscious bands roam the roads with impunity, doing murder and rape.

                  Branch covidianism will make us all into faggots with no immune system, waiting our turn to die.

                  I have no doubt whatsoever as to which is preferable.

      • p says:

        A pivot. They have to stop the insanity without losing face.

    • Encelad says:

      Their narrative twist might be oriented to the introduction of covid passes.
      >Deploy mandatory covid passes
      >Stop counting the non symptomatic positives
      >Recorded cases plummet
      >”See? The passes are the way! We need more of this!”

      • Fireball says:

        Something similar is been done with omicron and the vaccines.

      • HerbR says:

        Probably something like this, but not so sophisticated. Globohomo tends to think zero steps ahead, and is only concerned with its most immediate enemies.

        Report after report has been showing that mudblood cases have vastly eclipsed pureblood cases. Therefore, the reporting is bad. Stop reporting cases.

        “Table 43? Never heard of it. What are you, some kind of conspiracy theorist?”

      • notglowing says:

        This doesn’t make sense because we’ve already had these passes since August. They are already mandatory for everything, including going to work, including if you are self-employed.

    • simplyconnected says:

      Something’s definitely up. EU then WHO saying continued boosters can hurt the immune system and are not the solution. Just a month ago EU approved boosters every few months.
      Are they trying to boil the frog more slowly with yearly shots only?
      Are they scared after Veritas released documents yesterday?
      Are they scared that people will revolt and want a way out?

    • Upravda says:

      Those news from Spain have also made some minor headlines here in Croatia.

      Regarding omicron, in my country it is official: numbers are up, but hospitalizations and deaths are down – in absolute numbers. Maybe even sharply.

      Omicron wave from Croatian south abates there, currently splashing north.

      Furthermore, I guess that Milton Friedman might have been right saying that in every bureaucracy there are 10 percent of honest bureaucrats because yesterday, folks from WHO, then EMA, and then some doctors in my country have finally raised questions about “boosting”, especially boosting forever, saying that “repeated vaccinations in short intervals can not be sustainable in the long term” because of “potential risk of immune system overloading”.

      Just as we discussed on this blog earlier, especially after Varna provided us with Russian articles about old Soviet experiments.

      Yes, yes, I know, it might be normality bias on my side, but…
      it’s over, folks!

      What is especially interesting is that, despite exponential numbers, headlines in mainstream Croatian press are more about other themes: rising energy prices, missing of one Croat in Belgrade on New Year’s Eve, bad weather in Dalmatia, etc.

      • Karl says:

        Some honest bureaucrats and physicians raising questions does not mean it is over. It means that they are challenging the covid demon cult. Whether that challenge will be successful remains to be seen.

        • Upravda says:

          Have faith and be relentless arguing the truth, even to those firmly in grip of the covid demon. Let us not despair.

    • Aidan says:

      CDC-reported rona deaths up 40% this week. Clearly, they have started to simply and brazenly fabricate numbers to continue the crisis. Does not look like the relative sanity faction has the upper hand.

  16. The Ducking Man says:

    This is continuation of my stress below, but I think it deserves separate reply thread.

    So this lunch break I had ventablack-pill revelation that women are very quick to throw fellow women under the bus.

    So I remember on June 2021 I hired townsfolk woman (let’s name her “Aliana”) to help wife’s mother babysit our son. I paid Aliana cheap $50/month for 7 to 12 AM workday. She was recommended by wife, wife’s sister, and her friends.

    Our son was just 6 months old at that time so he was still fragile lifeform, so I said baby first house chore second. So she did often abandon house work when son was fuzzy or crying. Apparently wife, wife’s mother, wife’s sister, and her friends are taking issue with it because in their mind Aliana has to be perfectly capable managing both.

    I’ve seen Aliana’s work when I was at home feverish for entire week. I had zero complaint. But entire women in my circle pressuring for days and days to fire Aliana. So I had no choice to fire Aliana on September 2021.

    Immediately I was recommended another townsfolk let’s name her “Linda”. I paid her more at $100/month but I was promised working hour is 7-12 AM and 2-4 PM. We’ve known Linda for a long, wife and wife’s mother “seemed” like besties, I mean we exchanged food and present and whatnot.

    Everything was great in beginning, but starting November not so good. Linda is (A) always coming late, (B) sometimes not coming at all without notice.

    Linda is still interacting like besties with wife, but when Linda is not around I’m receiving the pressure from wife, wife’s mother, wife’s sister, wife’s friends to fire Linda.

    Linda is still working for me till today because literally there is no alternative.

    TL:DR women are not friend material, period. They’ll throw under the bus as soon as better alternative is available.

    • jim says:

      > I’ve seen Aliana’s work when I was at home feverish for entire week. I had zero complaint. But entire women in my circle pressuring for days and days to fire Aliana. So I had no choice to fire Aliana on September 2021.

      “no choice”?

      You are CEO of your house. Why are these impudent women pressuring you? My wife’s friends would never pressure me, least of all about how I conduct my household.

      One of my friends drinks too much. My wife’s friends pressured him not to take my moonshine, and pressured my wife to pressure me not to give it to him. He makes interesting concoctions combining the fruits of his garden with my moonshine. I lightly reprimanded my wife, and heard no more of it.

      If you are not master of your home, you will have no joy in it.

      • HerbR says:

        His wife runs his entire life, to the point where the only possibilities he can imagine are (a) blind obedience, (b) pointless outbursts or (c) suicide. What advice can one really give other than “stop being such a goddamn pussy”?

        I’ve known “men” like this. Married or single, they’re dangerous. They will drag down everyone around them, milking friends and pity-afflicted colleagues for sympathy and never following any advice. Eventually they will snap and take their aggression out on the ones trying to help. (Or on small animals – JFC, is he serious about that?)

        Prove me wrong, Cucking Man. Find your balls. Make your next post about how you’ve started taking control of your own life and fixed at least one of your innumerable problems, by yourself, without the intervention of a good samaritan.

        Or run off to join the circus. That’s what hopeless cases have always done throughout history, and there are so very many circuses one can join today.

        • jim says:

          When I give advice, it is effective. Maybe I have been lucky. Maybe I am just persuasive in person. Maybe my friends just happen to more receptive the red pill – they tend to be old, and thus were less simmered in gynocracy during their youth.

          Or maybe it is that advice is more effective when given from the frame of ancient moral imperatives – when advice is given from the frame of practical self interest people are reluctant to take advice that society deems wicked and the state criminalizes,

        • The Ducking Man says:

          I know man, I took me a while and lots of thinking to realize that I had problem.
          I had to start really late knowing women (I start around 22 when I move out now 27) because my parent strictly forbid dating women. I dodged few easy bullet here and there (like dating single mom and crazy chick), but married life is entirely different animal.

          On my defense I’m never dragging down anyone, I’m always known to good performer both during student days and at work.

          Yes, I threw one, two, or three people under the bus at work, but they 100% deserved it for not using their brain at work and making life really difficult.

      • The Ducking Man says:

        Deep down I know I made mistake for thinking I had “no choice”. I remember I hold out for 3 weeks before giving in.

        Part of the problem is I used to think that hiring babysitter is women’s business in the household, same like flower decor at home. Clearly this is mistaken thinking.

        On bright side slowly and surely I listen less and less to women, like I’m choosing and buy shit despite low “wife approval rating”. I also intend not hear women’s complaint that Linda is often absent.

        • jim says:

          > Part of the problem is I used to think that hiring babysitter is women’s business in the household

          It totally is a woman’s business, but all a woman’s business is subject to her husbands approval and supervision. It is wise to be a hands off manager, and just sometimes say “Good job honey”, or, considerably less frequently “You screwed up”. Some decisions she should run past you first. Hiring one baby sitter, and firing another, is one of those decisions. Sometimes, not often, you need to check on her to see if she is running the decisions past you that she should.

          My late wife, when I was looking to purchase a house, chose the locations we looked at, organized the trip to look at them. During that trip I became impatient, because we were siteseeing when we were near the house that I was particularly interested in. I reprimanded her, and she cancelled the siteseeing and organized us to see the house. I told her to negotiate the purchase. The negotiations went on for a long time. After a while, I told her to accept the sellers price, which she had beaten down quite a bit. She said she could beat him down a bit more, which she probably could have, but it was a good buy already and other people were looking. My current wife supervised the building of another house. She made most of the decisions on how it would be, but every now and then, not very often, I overruled one of those decisions and made the decision instead. For example she wanted a practical roof, and I decided on a picturesque roof that suited the locale, but apart from floor, the roof, and a couple of minor things, the design was all hers. She also supervised the work, but I was around keeping an eye on the work and on her supervision of the work, occasionally lending the workers a not very competent helping hand, and once in a while, not very often at all, I would tell her that something needed to be done differently. Everyone treated me as the real boss and her as the straw boss, even though I never gave them any orders, nor ever overruled her in front of them, though sometimes they knew that I had overruled some choice.

    • Varna says:

      Continuing on the topic of women, families, and futile expecting of reasonableness as the norm instead of as tiny bursts of sanity.

      Sometimes those close to us start trying to destroy us. This is the way the world works. This doesn’t necessarily mean they are evil or that they hate us, it’s more like a switch has been flipped, a program has been activated, and the purpose of this program is to destroy us and drive us into an early grave.

      We men have to be able to admit this, to accept it, and to handle it.

      When Andrew Anglin says “behind every great man there is a woman trying to destroy him” he’s not merely being a smart ass. He’s right. It’s just that in different situations it’s not just the wife – sometimes it’s the kids, or one parent, or both, or sibling, or colleagues, or friends. Life can be like this.

      Doesn’t mean we have to be paranoid and depressed—just aware. In fact, when aware, enjoyment of every moment can be deeper and more authentic.

      Sometimes married couples enter a toxic spiral which goes like this: wife sucks life out of husband, husband becomes weaker and performs worse, wife goes crazier and cranks up the slow killing of husband, husband becomes weaker still and performs worse still, wife goes crazier still and slowly kills husband even more. And so on. A year ago you could see a healthy and confident guy with a good looking content wife, today you suddenly see a living dead wreck and a vampire harpy glaring at him.

      These spirals can lock into place and start killing people very fast.

      If you still have some energy left – organize an “evening of truth” in which you lay out the parameters, lay down the law, and if she don’t like it – there’s the door.
      If you are completely drained – then at least a bloody weekend away, to get some breathing space. Of course it may seem like “I can’t afford to be away even for an evening”, but compared to what? If you feel that something bad is looming, which will make everything else not matter if it happens, then make the needed sacrifices and take the weekend off.

      “I’m burnt out, I’m taking a few days off, I’ll be keeping the phone switched off, hold the fort hon,” and out he goes.

      As Jim says–you always have a choice. The question is are you a) prepared to pay the price, and b) prepared to admit what the stakes are.

      P.S. If outnumbered by women, one really has to make a rule for self how to not let them step beyond certain boundaries. Wives, mothers, sisters, whatever, two-three times you show in a friendly but firm manner that this is a boundary pls step back, and they will lay off at least for a while. Later they’ll test it again, and you’ll defend it again.

      It’s OK. Once you show it’s for real they will accept it. Your role in life is not to make everyone love you by appeasing them. You and they both need for you to set boundaries.

      • jim says:

        > a program has been activated, and the purpose of this program is to destroy us and drive us into an early grave.

        Nah, that is not the purpose. The purpose is to detect weakness. If you are not weak, no big problem. Sometimes I get a tough shit test, but, passing it, no further problems for a long, and ever lengthening, time.

        > It’s OK. Once you show it’s for real they will accept it. Your role in life is not to make everyone love you by appeasing them.

        You are describing the situation as if it is symmetric, a partnership of equals who need space and walls between them. It is not.

        Women and dogs are never happy unless they have a master. Your role in life is to be master of your household. Neither men nor women can be happy unless they have this arrangement. Every happy family is alike. There is only one way to do this.

        • Varna says:

          OK, poor choice of words. The “function”, as in “end point” of the program is the early grave, the “purpose” is reaction to weakness. One leads to the other unless measures are taken.

          In my city in the center tons of crazy women who did not find a master and snapped utterly. Not in the “I feel unfulfilled” sense, but in the actual schizoid hobo random twat flashing or tourette syndrome sense. Saddest thing in the world.

          Speaking of which — a Rus article on nymphomania. Old school non-PC style. Hair raising.

          My favorite bit is where the text reaches menopausal nymphomania and super deadpan mentions “and that’s when they start banging their dogs or masturbating with their lady friends”.

          For lack of master terrible terrible things can take place.

          • I laughed says:

            and unmarried women (old maidens, divorced, widows), having lost their attractiveness, often cannot count on the satisfaction of their desires.

            Lmao. Brutal.

            • Varna says:

              Yeah, hence the “propensity for bestiality and tribadie amongst the spinsters”.

              Did not know the term tribadie before this article, tbh.

    • Fireball says:

      Lovely, i am going get some popcorn please keep us updated in the drama.

      • The Ducking Man says:

        If I think about it, it really feels watered down version spanish or indian drama. Only in this case the forced expression and conversion is much more advanced so it feels genuine.

        I’m telling you man, don’t get get involved too much with women.

        • jim says:

          > I’m telling you man, don’t get get involved too much with women.

          Women are wonderful, provided they are performing their proper role, and you are performing your proper role.

          It is great to have women around, but they need to shut up when you tell them to.

  17. Red says:

    I don’t think it is a pretend faith. It works miraculously in my real life interactions with other people. Pretty sure that most of the young earthers are pretenders. They take Genesis literally to evade taking it spiritually.

    Jim could you explain this to me? My brother is a young earther. It’s almost like holiness signaling from him since he refuses to debate the issue. What do you mean by “They take Genesis literally to evade taking it spiritually.”?

    • jim says:

      The spiritual meaning of Genesis is politically incorrect. They do not want to know that stuff. Young earthism is a way of taking the bible seriously without needing to actually take it seriously.

      It enables the young earther to be holy without the potential inconvenience and risk that comes in a society profoundly hostile to actual holiness.

      • FrankNorman says:

        Are you referring to the fact that the Fall happened because Adam did what his wife wanted rather than what God had commanded?

        • jim says:

          Among other things.

          Saint Paul, of who you may have heard, has a little list, and I am sure that little list mattered to him and every Christian throughout history than how much time between the creation and the sun, and how long between grass and Adam.

          And Christians who are not familiar with that little list probably are not Christians.

  18. DavyCrockett says:

    Apparently Novavax vaccines have started being rolled out and used in Indonesia in December, and is now going to be used in Europe and soon after they plan to try to enter the US and Canada. Jim do you still think that it’s a better vaccine than the ones we already have? Obviously its a bit early.

    • DavyCrockett says:

      I don’t know if this is true but Forbes says “Novavax’s Covid-19 vaccine, already available for use in 170 countries and most well-known for being a non-mRNA vaccine alternative, could be approved for use in the U.S. in February and in up to 10 other countries within 90 days, CEO Stanley Erck told CNBC Monday.”

    • p says:

      Omicron is the vaccine and will soon render all of this moot.

      It will be quite a vindication of gain of function research if Omicron turns out to have been engineered. Although I doubt we’ll ever know.

      • Guy says:

        I see Jake Tapper on TV completely aghast that the CDC would not distinguish between people in the hospital”with” COVID vs. “for” COVID. “After two years” he says “they need to straighten this out”. There are a lot of mainstream sources helping with limited hangouts that add up to “COVID was always nothing, and the vaccines are deadly”, even if they don’t frame it that way. Shitheads killed some grandmas that nobody would advocate for.

        If COVID was lab engineered, than it was a shitty bioweapon, they could just have easily as pretended that the new random respiratory virus that year was deadly (which they did). If Omicron was engineered as a vaccine, than it’s a vaccine for a nothing virus. So it doesn’t vindicate anything. What would vindicate gain of function research would be solving a problem.

        The lab leak theory bolsters the idea that COVID is to be feared. The problem was never COVID it was the bureaucrats that blew up the world over it and the politicians that are now going to sell them down the river.

        Mass formation psychosis is similar: we aren’t liars and thieves who knowingly conned people, everyone just went nuts and it was all some crazy sociology lesson. Fuck that.

    • Varna says:

      Novavax is a clotshot of the subunit variety.

      Instead of containing a whole artificial protein like the adenoviral vector slotshots (Sputnik, Astra, Janssen, Cansino) it contains bits of it. Like the Taiwanese Medigen, the Russian EpiVak, the Cuban Soberana, and the Iranian Razi.

      In theory it is the mildest clotshot (if measured as once taken, not an endless booster ride), but it is still a clotshot. They constantly try to present various types of clotshots as “not mRNA” implying that this is a trad version. It never is.

      The trad version is a dead/inactivated virus and only Sinovac and Sinopharm are that. India has Bharat but only for internal use. Russia has KoviVac, but only for internal use, and only by bigwigs with connections and cash. The pleb get the free closhots Sputnik and in the past EpiVak (which is no longer talked about since the autumn, for reasons we will probably find out later).

      Taiwan and Iran mix their subunit alternatives to Novavax with clotshots, Taiwan also with RNA vaccines, so info for the latter especially will be hopelessly garbled. Cuba only uses their Novavax alternative and the Chinese trad vax. Watch Cuba.

      China also has a subunit Novavax alternative, which is used in Indonesia and Uzbekistan. Indonesia uses all vaccines under the sun so I expect no useful info from there, unless every island uses a separate one. Uzbekistan only uses the subunit Anhui, the Sputnik clotshot, and the Astra clotshot.

      So, three countries which use the subunit, mixed with other stuff, but no mRNA serums:
      1) Cuba=subunit + trad vax
      2) Iran=subunit + trad vax + clotshots
      3) Uzbekistan=subunit + clotshots

      These three places are the closes we have today to a “cleanish” field test of the concept.

      • jim says:

        The best antiviral vaccine is always a live harmless virus closely related to the original. Omicron is the true vaccine for Covid, as cowpox was the true vaccine for smallpox.

        • Karl says:

          Most people don’t need protection from this virus. They need a document that enables them to enter a restaurant, a train, a gym, an airplane, etc.

      • Upravda says:

        Among classical, “dead virus” vaccine, there’s also Valneva’s vaccine, approved or soon to be approved in EU:

        Valneva is French-Austrian company. I’ve checked them and their American associates. They actually seem honest by multiple criteria.

        And, if that matters, it seems they don’t use aborted children cells.

        • Varna says:

          With any luck by the time they hit the market their only clients will be peeps who got beyond the third shot on the booster ride and can no longer survive without a friday jab and a daily ‘immuno-stimulant’ pill.

  19. The Ducking Man says:

    Sorry for asking Off-Topic, but I’ve been having trouble and I don’t know anywhere else to ask.

    As man I feel the extensive expectation in life which can be summarized “get a job and be a good father at home”. Even when I was single I always keep minimum expectation of decency (not drunk and not on drugs).

    My family gets sky high expectation on me to provide (which I mostly fulfilled), but my family don’t answer back the same. Wife that gets fatter and less willing to have sex over time, and toddler son that always find a way to danger.

    I snapped at least month, my value to lifeforms gets lower everyday. Like, I’ll torture animal just for fun, or I’ll throw someone under the bus at work because he gets on my nerve.

    If there is no distraction I sense 2 overwhelming drive, either (1) run away and starts new life in perpetual decline, or (2) suicide.

    I for this day still can’t reconcile why nature put expectation on me while not being loved back in return.

    • jim says:

      Step one. Believe a man should be King under his own roof.

      Step two. Believe this is commanded by God.

      Step three. Believing it, let your family know.

      Step four. Pass your wife’s shit tests. If things have gone really bad, it is likely that they can only be passed by physically restraining her and applying a damned good spanking.

      It may well be the case that your wife theoretically refuses to concede no matter how severe the spanking, but if you feel you need to stop, just assume you have won and she has conceded, and a little while later deal with the matter that necessitated the spanking as if she has conceded. You will likely find that this time around she is disinclined to revisit the issue that necessitated the spanking. If she threatens to call the cops and child protective services, laugh. She is not going to call child protective services, and in the unlikely event if she calls the cops, they will be reluctantly going through the motions.

      In the unlikely event that the cops arrive, treat them in a friendly and respectful but dignified fashion, alpha males having a little chat between themselves. If they threaten you with the law, they will do so in a polite and friendly fashion provided you have been polite and friendly to them. Should they do so, politely threaten them with God.

      Spankings are not going to cure your wife’s obesity problem. Being King under your own roof is a necessary first step. A necessary second step that will fix it is getting yourself in shape as if you are preparing to install a new wife, and visibly disapproving of your wife’s obesity. (Wife fishes for compliments, reply “You are fat”.) Follow the reactionary diet (periodic fasting and high animal fats, including lots of butter and fair bit of cheese), Weigh yourself at the same time every morning. Encourage your wife to do likewise. She will. Losing weight is tough, you need to lead both by Kingly command and by example. You need to exercise and lift iron, but she should not do manly exercises. Feminine exercises are fine, but not necessary for female weight loss.

      • The Ducking Man says:

        Thanks Jim, as much as I believe reactionary position on being a good husband actually means, the big problem is my wife, her family, large portion of my society don’t believe in this reactionary position.

        I’ve believed whole heartedly that I am king under my own roof and I have right to spank wife and son when needed to. So I did spank my son when for the fifth time he tried to go to steaming hot frying pan when I tried making breakfast this morning.

        This result in very real physical retaliation to me. The kicking and slap doesn’t hurt, for sure it kills the little sanity and trust I have left.

        Same thing when I spanked wife when she keep sleeping past 10AM and dumped childcare responsibility for the entire morning.

        Jim, I want to believe the path of being husband in God’s way served a purpose. So far what I see is massive disappointment ahead. Being a family is massive scam because it has all the sacrifice requirement and zero benefit.

        Deep down I’m questioning my sanity because I agree a lot with you, and massive portion of the bible.

        • Varna says:

          Sometimes a warrior or a priest need to go to the desert or the forest to get their shit together. A crap motel can also do the trick.

          Go away for two weeks, prepare everyone beforehand without too much details and just before you leave, and stay alone somewhere, even if it is a cheap motel. Don’t pick up the phone, if possible. They will try to reel you back in with drama if you do.

          Stay alone with yourself. First 3-4 days just wait for the mind to calm down. Then start reviewing the situation with a fresh gaze, and make possible plans.

          Maybe you’ll need to dump everything and start over afresh, and just not give a crap about what everybody else thinks. Maybe you can return and gradually fix things. Maybe it’s about strength, or conviction, or smarts, or even just certain habits. Maybe it’s about wrong choices. Good luck, man, this can be real hell. It kills men or drives them to bad things.

          Take a step back, find a way to make it possible, and first unwind, then review things. Everyone else can just do what they want to do during this time. This is your time. It is very valuable. The future depends on it.

          • The Ducking Man says:

            I’ll be very lucky if I can get away for 3 hours let alone 2 weeks.

            Even when I was away for that 3 hours I had a lot of “things to talk about”. It is very literally that outside of working hour I HAVE TO be present at either wife or son’s eye sight.

            • Arqiduka says:

              M8 that’s a very big jump from “I can’t get away for a weekend” to “I’m going to harm myself”. Be conscious of the road you may be on.

              Look, you have a kid hence have already won at life. Don’t mess up the tail end. Also, your kid sounds like a fighter, don’t begdrudge him that. Toddlership is high-stress but it ends.

              • The Ducking Man says:

                On my defense I’ve been suicidal since childhood, only recently the power to resist this tendency is waning.

                I mean I don’t have anything else to look up in life. If I begin my life anew I’ll stay far away from being “family man” and would rater enjoy the perpetual decline in drugs, alcohol, prostitute. I genuinely regret not enjoying life when I was single.

                Married life sucks, having descendant is over-rated, sex is suuuuper over-rated, career is depressing, and the number of trustworthy people are declining day by day.

                • Arqiduka says:

                  Nigga you need a hobby

                • Red says:

                  You’re feeling sorry for yourself.

                  No man enjoys family life when he’s not the king under his own roof and the high priest to God under that roof. You’re not performing the natural role you evolved to do, so you’re unhappy.

                  There’s no easy answers beyond that being weak and self pitying is degusting. Stop being a faggot. Work towards embracing your natural role as a man.

                • The Ducking Man says:

                  > Nigga you need a hobby

                  I can probably hook you up with acoustic room treatment, headphone, IEM, and all the sonic good stuffs because I am hardcore audiophile. Though in the end these are just mere distraction.

                  The abyss is staring at me as soon as music stops and quiet fills the room.

                  > There’s no easy answers beyond that being weak and self pitying is degusting

                  Thanks mate, this the push that I needed.

                  I should not have excuse to self-pity, but so far this reply thread has been useful sanity check.

                • Arqiduka says:

                  No, I mean a hobby enjoyed among men. Hard to find perhaps, but sounds like there’s too much woman time in your life, way past optimal.

                • jim says:

                  Sex becomes less exciting, but having my wife warm me in bed and serve me coffee in the morning becomes more comforting. It is good to be a King. I enjoy sitting in the garden watching my wife cultivate it.

                  If you are not King under your own roof, you are going to feel restless.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  >Married life sucks, having descendant is over-rated

                  Omega blackpilled.

                  Ps start making more descendants.

                • Aidan says:

                  Hobbies of consumption are trifling amusements. A man is only happy when he leaves his mark on the world

                • kawaii_kike says:

                  What are some productive hobbies men should have?

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  At a minimum, something he can do as a group with other men.

        • jim says:

          > my wife, her family, large portion of my society don’t believe in this reactionary position.

          If God is standing behind you, and you are standing with God, you can be mighty convincing. I speak from experience. You don’t need to convert anyone, you will have impact regardless of what they theoretically believe.

          I was astonished when the affirmation worked, and I was astonished when this worked. Whether demons are real or merely metaphorical, they fear the Lord.

          > Jim, I want to believe the path of being husband in God’s way served a purpose. So far what I see is massive disappointment ahead.

          You see it ahead. If you boldly embrace martyrdom, you are considerably less likely to be actually martyred. Don’t look for martyrdom, but in the unfortunate event that martyrdom finds you, embrace it. If you flee, it pursues, if you embrace, it mysteriously vanishes.

          Defying state and society has risks, but the costs of compliance are becoming intolerable. I have been defying state and society all my life, and so far my criminal record remains clean as a whistle.

          Also, lift iron and lose weight. You sound like you are suffering from low testosterone. Also eat more animal fat, preferably butter, sheep fat, and beef fat, rather than pig fat or chicken fat, though chicken fat is very nice. Pigs and chickens eat too much soy. Tasty though.

          • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

            I pointed out the affirmation because I noticed that there were people who should not have a problem affirming Jesus Christ that nevertheless did have such a problem. You yourself have pointed out that they behave like a vampire does to a cross or holy water when faced with the affirmation. They clearly have no problem lying, and if they did not believe in God and Jesus Christ, then they would cheerfully lie about it. They fear the truth and they fear the Way, the Truth, and the Life more than anything. That is one of the most reassuring things about faith. When it is reinforced and rewarded in such a way. No matter the substance of demons, they are real and the name of Jesus Christ, the Logos, holds a supernatural power over them.

          • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

            Jim is 100% on martyrdom. There are a few things that I have let people know that I will scorch the earth and raze everything around me, no matter the personal cost to me. That whatever it takes, they will end up worse off than me. Unsurprisingly, people do not seek to take me up on the offer. You play chicken by getting in the passenger seat with a cinderblock for the gas and blasting the hardest song you know at maximum volume, and you prevent someone from trying to martyr you by letting them know that the odds are that neither of you will survive your martyrdom.

          • The Ducking Man says:

            So let me get this straight on the martyrdom.

            So you’re telling to continue as is, like “do what you gotta believe, doesn’t matter people hating, just keep doing it”.

            So from my small example, I need to continue spanking son when it’ s needed despite wife apparent disdain if I do it. Am I getting it right?

            Also yes, I’ve been lifting iron. In fact I am on best shape of my life. Though I don’t know this will works because demographic of my area are so small, women here are either married in her 40s or 13 years old, literally nothing in between.

            • jim says:

              > So from my small example, I need to continue spanking son when it’ s needed despite wife apparent disdain if I do it.

              Her disdain is a shit test, which you failed. I was not there, but I suspect it is your wife that needs a spanking, not your son.

              Normal procedure is that womenfolk attempt to control the children, and men intervene, or just scarily apply the body language that they are about to intervene, if the womanfolk fail. If the womenfolk are not doing their job, need speaking to.

              Normal male application of discipline is that the kids are rioting, the women are screaming at them ineffectually, then I roll up and look stern. The riot suddenly ends. That is how it should work. Sometimes more physical means are required, but seldom. Your woman should have been trying to subdue your son before you found it necessary to intervene.

              Suppose your woman is not there, and your son is causing problems. Send him out. Your house. Any time you don’t want people around, they need to get out of your presence. Including your woman. Especially your women. That is one of the reasons why raising kids needs a backyard.

            • jim says:

              > So you’re telling to continue as is, like “do what you gotta believe, doesn’t matter people hating, just keep doing it.

              People will not hate if you have God standing behind you and you stand with God.

              This is a shit test women are always trying on you. “Society says X. Are you stronger than society?” The answer they are fishing for, though they do not consciously know it, is “Yes”. They know they are in a weak tribe, they are looking for a strong man in a strong tribe, and what tribe is stronger than the tribe of God?

              • The Ducking Man says:

                Aaaah, I see so it’s a shit test.

                Never knew shit test can be that extreme.

                • jim says:

                  I have had shit tests that have gone mighty far, and I know other people have had shit tests that go all the way to potentially lethal violence.

                  If you duck a shit test by the easy way, laughing at it and maintaining frame, she will find shit tests you cannot duck.

                • alf says:

                  A woman will literally blow up the world if she can use it as a shit-test.

                • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

                  If you think that anything is too extreme to possibly be a shit test, then that is the best sign that it is a shit test. That is the point of them. I have known women that I have had to threaten to beat with extreme violence because of the shit they were sending my way. No matter how cunty, insane, or vicious it is, a woman will do it to test you. As Alf said, if a woman got near a button that would blow up the planet, she would threaten to push it to see if you are the kind of man who is man enough to stop her.

            • Karl says:

              In my view it is extremely unusual that a toddler needs spanking. Your wife can talk and if she does not obey, quite likely that she needs a spanking, but can your toddler talk?

              If he cannot yet understand you, simply correct him again and again, like lifting him away from a dangerous item/place and a simple one word command. That should suffice.

              Toddlers are closer to dogs than to addults. Don’t treat a toddler like an adult or a child that can talk. If you spank someone, make extra sure the person understands why they are spanked. Don’t think your toddler understood.

              • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

                Sounds to me like the wife is using the kid as a test. If he passes, his kid is saved from danger. If he fails, his kid is–in the eyes of the wife–a bad genetic bet, and the loss is acceptable. Make your woman responsible for watching your child, and take her to task for failures. Also, let the little shit touch the stove. The burned hand teaches best. If he is going to be stubborn, you are going to have to teach him to be tough and strong early. He will have a lot of pain coming his way, and it it best to prepare him for it before it breaks him.

                • The Ducking Man says:

                  > Make your woman responsible for watching your child

                  Ok, now this crystal clear the kind of shit test that I’m dealing with.

                  > you are going to have to teach him to be tough and strong early

                  My little nigglet trips A LOT, but burns I still think too much. I’ve seen some nasty burn mark on toddler, not fun to see.

      • someDude says:

        Jim, How do you politely threaten the cops with God?

        • Kunning Drueger says:

          How would you go about teasing a dog that can kill you? Be in a position to kill the dog, or be in a place where the dog has no ability to get to you.

        • jim says:


          • someDude says:

            Exactly what words would one use? And why would the cops have any reason to fear a civilian who was not personally connected to those in power?

            Hmm, would you imply that you have friends above the level of the Cops’ superiors on the force without directly using the word God?

            • Aidan says:

              It’s really hard to put into words my dude. Imagine you are an eighteenth century aristocrat, armed and trained and dangerous, and face minor issues with another armed, trained, and dangerous nobleman. You do not openly threaten or bully, or act outraged, because the other party will be required to defend his status and honor, and lethal violence will ensue, but neither do you roll over and imply that you are entirely harmless, because the other party will take advantage of you.

              There is just a certain way that dangerous men, men who are willing to defend their honor with force, talk to each other, and politeness is a big part of it, but it is ancient and hard to describe.

              • Karl says:

                And even if you had all the words, a large part would still be missing. Stance, bearing, etc.

              • Red says:

                I’m not good with the police, but I’m great with dangerous animals and drug dealers. Assume a dangerous ready to fight stance but one utterly without fear. I wonder if it’s similar with the cops, but you add politeness?

                • jim says:

                  Not the ready to fight stance. They are accustomed to that and have a short way with it. But, spiritually, you are getting warm.

    • Pooch says:

      Confirms the Yarvin hypothesis. During the Tucker interview he states:

      Curtis: And so what you had was basically people going out, virologists going out, finding all the bat viruses they could, screwing around with them in labs, in countries that all–everyone involved in this research had an incentive to exaggerate the danger of the research. Because they had to exaggerate the importance of the research. The more dangerous your virus is, the more important it is. So basically, what you’ve done with virology by saying the virologists should run the show because decisions about what virology to study should be taken by virologists. Naturally, you’re going to get gain of function research. Because these virologists are, basically, in this like Darwinian cycle of exaggerating their own importance. And the moree dangerous these viruses are, the more important they are. So it’s inevitable they will wind up creating viruses.

      Tucker: So it’s inevitable they will actually wind up creating viruses–

      Curtis: They will actually wind up creating the virus that they are then literally hired to solve. This is the case of Dr. Fauci, right?

      • Travis says:

        So the arsonist firefighter analogy applies.

        This is some sort of weird mental complex of creative virtue signaling creation.

        These monsters should all be burned at the stake on live TV.

    • jim says:

      It is what we all heard, and I did not at first believe. Now I believe. Yarvin got it right.

      • The Cominator says:

        He still massively disgraced himself by falling for the hysteria.

        I know Yarvin isn’t a moron but i don’t understand how anyone who isn’t a moron didn’t know it was a fucking cathedral scam by late February 2020 when the South Korean data came out.

        • jim says:

          Well, Yarvin eventually got it right. Took a while.

          No disgrace in being wrong sometimes. What is disgraceful is stubbornly remaining wrong as additional evidence arrives.

        • p says:

          Because it isn’t a Cathedral scam?

          • Guy says:

            It was an obvious scam. I knew it was a scam when it was a low interest news story in the background of impeachment simply because of where it was positioned on every news page relative to the main story re: impeachment. They were clearly prepping it for the end of that news cycle. I told my terrified wife that nobody we knew would die, nobody we knew would even get sick more than a typical flu season, and that this was all retarded bullshit to oust Trump and I was right on all counts.

            To be fair, I think a lot of things are fake, so bound to be right sometimes, but this was more than just a curiosity, had I been wrong, and someone died she would not have forgiven me. I had conviction not because I was a conspiracy guy, but because this was the dumbest fake news I had ever seen.

            Not to shit on Yarvin, just “p”.

            • p says:

              It’s a coronavirus that goes straight to the lungs, skipping the upper respiratory tract. For the elderly, on par with the worst flu strains, for the young, a nothingburger. This has even happened before. See That ended when the virus mutated into one infecting the upper respiratory tract (, which is now called “common cold”.

              You can tell it’s not a Cathedral scam by the reaction of the laptop class to it – they were deathly afraid and nearly destroyed the world out of fear, then triply-vaccinated their children (which is absolutely idiotic).

              • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                It doesn’t just go ‘strait to the lungs’ though; nasal irrigation after to exposure and or during early stages of symptoms (particularly with a dilute solution of a mild virucidal, such as iodine or alcohol), is proven to significantly reduce or even eliminate morbidity.

                • p says:

                  You’re right, it apparently stays in the nose for a week or so. What I meant was that it (pre-Omicron) doesn’t cause runny nose, sore throat, tracheitis or bronchitis as respiratory viruses typically do, going for the pneumonia instead. (Making my use of “upper respiratory tract” wrong.) Flu strains that do that are also the most lethal.

                  But yeah, if it kills your smell receptors, it obviously cannot skip the nose.

          • The Cominator says:

            Get the fuck out.

          • ten says:

            The scam is not that the existence of the virus, but the pretense of its severity and the implied necessity to vest crisis powers to the cathedral.

            Before the south korean data, acting as if it was the black death 2 might have been reasonable, but noone did a fucking thing. After, the only reasonable thing would be to institute safety measures for risk groups and otherwise ignore it.

            It is hard to gauge the levels of lethargic incompetence versus the levels of conspiratorial lunacy that caused the specific double failure, but the conspiracy line keeps collecting W’s, so soon approaching fully 100% scam territory.

            • jim says:

              > The scam is not that the existence of the virus, but the pretense of its severity and the implied necessity to vest crisis powers to the cathedral.

              There is an emergency, so you need to grant me vast powers to deal with it.

              Oops, it seems that my response to this emergency was grotesquely incompetent, and frequently malicious, and killed huge numbers of people. Also I don’t seem to have any means of dealing with this emergency that have any useful effect. Lockdowns don’t seem to make a difference, the vaccines do save the lives of a few elderly fat people who might have survived a year or two longer if they had not gotten Covid on top of everything else that was killing them, but have no effect on the spread of the disease, and cause vastly more Long Covid syndromes than they prevent, so that we now have vastly more people dying of ailments resembling long Covid syndrome than I managed to kill with inappropriate and incompetent medical emergency treatment for Covid.

              Oops, it seems that this emergency is far less of an emergency that I made it out to be, and would not have killed any more people than a normal bad flu season except that I screwed up.

              Well, if any of this became known, that would undermine my vitally necessary emergency powers, so no one should mention any of this.

              Don’t anyone look at the excess deaths, or what people who are dying in unusual numbers have in common.

            • p says:

              They did mishandle the situation at every opportunity, and they did maliciously delay vaccines to deny Trump that, but I still think phobia not cynicism, overall.

              Their fear is visible all over Twitter and in all their articles.

              Ultimately it probably won’t matter; the measures, once instituted, will stay (see: TSA), and whether they were instituted out of fear or according to a plan will be irrelevant.


              “Coercing people into a medical procedure that they don’t want and, depending on their risk profile, don’t need, is evil. But that’s not the most important reason to oppose vaccine passports. The most important reason is that once you create the infrastructure for a social credit system, you will never get rid of it.

              Once Americans get accustomed to scanning a QR code every time they enter a building, there is no limit to the surveillance and nudges that can be built on top of it.”

              Incidentally, I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt over the passes as well (even though this won’t win me any friends here.) I think that the passes were their reopening plan. Open w/ passes required, vaccinate 115% of the population, now you have both everything effectively open, and can claim a glorious victory for team vaccine.

              The virus had other plans, though.

              • Skippy says:

                They had a reopening plan before the vaxxx. In 2020, required vaxxx rate to reopen was 0%.Maybe you can still find the planning documents.

                They dont want to ever reopen. They want you tagged with QR forever.

  20. Red says:

    I’m seeing increasing levels of shills Fed posting over on sites like The_Donald and with the DOJ formally announcing an anti domestic terrorist division, false flags are probably on the menu, sometime before the mid terms.

    Though from what I can gather they’re increasing having trouble finding useful morons to be patsies after J6 became commonly known as a FBI operation and the FBI itself continues to decline in competence.

    • Pooch says:

      We could also see a rise in fed groups like Patriot Front marching around. If they can’t find morons to be boogiemen they’ll just create them.

  21. simplyconnected says:

    This was a nice reactionary take on the term of day: “mass formation psychosis” (MFP).
    I’ll try to summarize. The claim is that MFP is simply a word liberals slap onto otherwise natural behavior that happens to be illiberal. Claim is that people have always obeyed authority, and that power has always been top-down rather than the liberal fantasy of power being bottom-top (democracy).
    Since this episode these past two years has made it so painfully obvious that most people are like the NPC meme, will simply follow the script handed to them by authority, liberals try to explain it away by calling it MFP, when it’s simply normal human behavior.

  22. Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

    Lot of household names lately meeting with some Perfectly Normal cases of Sudden Adult Death Syndrome. Well known names that you’d recognize. Such passings that have been going markedly quietly without remark – or where in cases too well known to ignore, curiously uninterested in any causes of death.

    When i told people that ‘getting the shot will kill you’, what i had in mind was something along the lines of ’20 to 30 years of sub-health until a straw breaks the camels back’. This rising tide of people actually literally dropping dead in a matter of months, is surprising even to me.

    • Pooch says:

      America’s Dad is a big one. I’m sure the press will come up with some perfect explanation of it that everyone will suddenly believe.

      • Red says:

        Oddly, they claimed he had COVID right before he died, but they’re not playing it up. He’d also had a booster about a week before he got COVID. Sounds like spike proteins finally did him in.

        The other day I had a handy man over to do some work at my place. I’ve had him over multiple times before, he’s s hard worker, intelligent, former army, runs his own company. He seemed like he was in a fog. I had to explain things multiple times, he did a poor job, and he just seemed slow and lethargic. Talking to him, he said he’d gotten boosted the week before. That’s the first time I’d seen someone up close dealing with brain fog.

        • jim says:

          > He’d also had a booster about a week before he got COVID.

          We have ample evidence that China flu on top of booster, or booster on top of China flu, is quite lethal, very high risk of death.

          China flu on top of booster is very high risk of death, and booster on top of china flu is very high risk of death. The virus adjusts its severity so that it is not very likely to be lethal, because if it kills off the carrier, it dies also. The booster shot is adjusted to be not very likely to be lethal. Put the two of them together, however, it goes over top.

          The one punch is not that dangerous. The two punch is not that dangerous. The one-two punch is very likely to kill you.

          We are also seeing evidence suggesting that each booster is less effective and more dangerous than the last, but as yet no one knows, because no one wants to know.

          It is obvious that they knew about the increase in the young people death rate before I did, because I noticed that something was funny about the statistics quite some time ago. I noticed the cover up before I could ascertain what was being covered up. What else do they know that I do not know?

        • jim says:

          > That’s the first time I’d seen someone up close dealing with brain fog.

          There is a lot of it going around. Causing traffic accidents. We know it does not always last, but we know it sometimes lasts a very long time. We don’t know how often it lasts, or how often it is long lasting or whether it is sometimes going to be permanent. It seems to be vastly more common than myocarditis, but myocarditis is hard to ignore, because it manifests as heart attack, and ambulances and emergency rooms are flooded with these “mild benign” heart attacks.

          If they can ignore a forty percent increase in the young people death rate, and what seems to be a vastly larger increase in young people showing up at emergency with a “mild benign” heart attack, they can ignore a ten thousand percent rise in smart people permanently turning into morons. You are unlikely to run into someone who has myocarditis as a result of the jab. You are quite likely to run into someone who has brain fog as a result of the jab.

          It is probably the biggest jab problem of them all, but we don’t have any good data because everyone is averting their eyes if they know what is good for them.

          • Need it for school says:

            I feel like the Corona media cycle and the experience of attending school under scamdemic restrictions is giving me brain fog. It might not always be the vax, it’s also likely to be simple depression due to reduced living standards.

      • The Cominator says:

        I honestly thought with Bob Saget it could have primarily a result of cocaine use (his comedy often joked about him using cocaine) and cokeheads hearts tend to explode often long before his age but there was none in his system (I guess he was a cokehead ironically) so yeah it was the clot shot.

  23. Pooch says:

    And since you have to bring a gun to a gunfight, and faith to holy war, if we have to kill them and manage to kill them, we will have to do so in the name of the Lord. Holy wars tend to turn very nasty, but it may well turn out that nothing less will allow us to live.

    There will be no holy war. Only way we take power via regime change is by winning the democracy game NSDAP-style. Military coup Ceasar-style is becoming exceedingly unlikely. There are no military aristocrats left (Patton was the last), although there are enough right-wing Amerikaners in the military that the military would stand aside if a dictator rose to power legally.

    • Pooch says:

      Otherwise we get fall of the Roman Empire.

    • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

      The transatlantic theocracy is exhausted, hollowed out, it’s ability to project force at an all time low, and getting lower.

      Granted, you don’t even need much more than a bare minimum, if you can manage it, if your targets themselves all feel like atomized individuals without coordination; but that means it is one of those situations that can turn on a dime; what can seem unthinkable one day, transforming overnight into an whole different world the next.

      • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

        The American Empire is making moves to threaten war with Russia and the Russian sphere seems to be responding to the possibility of war erupting. If a significant portion of the warfighting capability of the American empire gets wiped out, then it is all over but the shouting. That is assuming nukes are not deployed. If America gets nuked, then they are even worse off, and if they try to retaliate and the American nukes do not fire or initiate… well then, things are going to get real interesting.

        • Pooch says:

          May god grant Putin the strength and courage to deal with the agents of Satan swiftly and without hesitation.

        • jim says:

          It is possible that external events could give us a locale from which it would be possible to organize militarily. On the current course we are screwed, but I doubt the capability of the regime to hold the current course.

        • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

          >A couple years back, quite a few actually, they were a lot of big wigs wondering if chaff was still effective and viable in a ship’s defense role. So after months of arguing between engineers, studies and other blah-blah-blah they decided to run an exercise to actually prove it.

          >It’s kind of a big deal, because it’s one of the last Red Storm Rising-style, War-at-Sea, us vs. the Reds on blue water scenarios, with plenty of jamming, countermeasures and missiles. I get sent to a Sprucan as an extra hand, to help them with getting their Seasparrow up to green-go status. The system on that can was seriously fucked though and we only got it up a few hours before the shoot.

          Implying it’s normal for ships to be operating without actually having their equipment functional.

          If the synagogites blunder their war into a war with either Russia or China, Interesting Times would certainly ensue.

    • jim says:

      > There will be no holy war. Only way we take power via regime change is by winning the democracy game NSDAP-style.

      Well, things are looking profoundly unpromising, and I have difficulty seeing a way that we can survive, but expect the unexpected. In the final stages, the glass shatters differently each time.

      Building an alternative military leadership from scratch has never worked except from a secure outside base. Given the absence of legitimate military leaders, it is a big problem. The regime is extremely efficient at shutting down potential organized large scale opposition.

      Hoping for a miracle. Or a night of the long knives.

      • Fireball says:

        The reconquest of Iberia took 8 centuries.

        • jim says:

          I hope we deal with this problem a little quicker than that, but we are likely looking a longer haul than I had hoped.

      • The Ducking Man says:

        I’ve been reading Book of Revelation in different light recently.

        It is my personal believe that we just witnessed the first horse – the white horse. The mass psychosis of people giving up their freedom for corona (crown) which is really big burger nothing.

        The miracle (or massive disaster) may happen a lot sooner that we might think.

        P.S. I was never big revelation believer until this rona thing happened.

        • jim says:

          For a sinful people, miracles are apt to be unpleasant.

        • SJE says:

          “I was never big revelation believer until this rona thing happened.”

          Same. I used to regard Revelation as a somewhat embarrassing coda to the Bible, especially in view of pop evangelical culture which can be over-the-top. I’ve done a 180 on that attitude, and now believe that if we aren’t in the End Times, we sure are in an attempt at the same thing.

          • jim says:

            > if we aren’t in the End Times, we sure are in an attempt at the same thing.

            There is a substantial and powerful demon worshiping faction among the elite who are serious about implementing their take on the book of Revelation. They are particularly strong in Europe.

            • Pooch says:

              Our interpretation of Christianity may need a heavy dose of Revelationism.

              • The Cominator says:

                Its always leftist “Christians” and Papist who hate any talk of revealations because revealations says that in the end time there will be a global totalitarian state (which is what leftist and papists want) but that the global totalitarian state is surprise surprise not good.

                Now I just don’t understand reading revealations and deciding I want to be on the wrong side of it (I understand if you want to say its bullshit) like the Davos/Vatican/Pizzagate crowd…

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  It’s psychological hegelianism.

                  >I am a good person; and even if i’m not a good person, it’s good for me personally; and even if i’m not a good person and it’s not good for me personally, me being bad is necessary for synthesizing the greater good of the World Spirit.

                  Mix and match rationalizations as needed, in each context as needed, all safely fire-walled from each other by low inferential horizons.

                • jim says:

                  > Now I just don’t understand reading revelations and deciding I want to be on the wrong side of it (I understand if you want to say its bullshit) like the Davos/Vatican/Pizzagate crowd…

                  Our enemy has short time horizons and getting shorter. Book of Revelations, as they interpret it, says that they get to rule the world under a demonic mockery of Christ’s incarnation. What is not for them to like?

                  People without descendants, especially women without descendants, often want the world to die with them. I expect, but have no concrete evidence, that this primarily a priestess/witch cult, with explicitly religious activities primarily or exclusively the provenance of childless post menopausal women. The plan is not that they get a nice long Brezhnevian period, but that near the end of that period, the world dies in fire.

                  On that part of the plan, I do have a small smidgen of evidence, which is part of what leads me to expect that childless witches are central to explicitly religious activity in their religion.

                  They don’t want to die alone and be eaten by their cats. They want everyone else dying with them to keep them company in hell. It is a perversion and inversion of the warrior spirit. The warrior wants to take his enemies with him, the childless woman (and the effeminate and emasculated man) wants to take her friends and associates.

                  Much like the fictional cult of Cthulhu. The acolytes of Cthulhu did not want or expect to be eaten last. They wanted everyone eaten along with themselves.

                • Ghost says:

                  I’ve read some H.P. Lovecraft and recommend it. But that is fiction.

                  Humans will still live on no matter what they do. We survived the dark ages. When these tyrants get outed, they’ll run like roaches.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  >But that is fiction.

                  But what is fiction, my glowwie friend, but a creation of it’s human channeler?

                • Ghost says:

                  Lovecraft was not that popular in his time.

                  To create the kind of macabre fiction he wrote would require a vivid imagination or drug use. It has recently become popular. Old pictures of Lovecraft show he has crazy eyes like he’s seen the beyond.

                  Still fun to read. I like horror novels.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  I suppose that would make it rather strange how your rulers seem so dedicated to larping as things they read in fiction then, eh?

                • The Cominator says:

                  The satanic dictator destroys his helpers mystery babylon (the vatican and the families of the ancient snake cult) and its subordinates synagogue of satan (their jewish middlemen) almost immediately after the treaty of Israel and they get theown into the lake of fire…

                  What is to like… if you believe revealations sincerely its insane to want to be on the other side of it.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Also women cannot collectively rule anything not at the top level. Certainly not the world. Witches may have some significance to the cult but men have to rule it at the top level.

                  A woman can be queen of an otherwise patriarchal society (i think the reason female queens can be somewhat rational is their lofty position isolates them entirely from the female illogical consensus herd instincts) but women collectively cannot rule.

            • Cloudswrest says:

              If the Gotthard Base Tunnel celebration didn’t clue you in, nothing would.

        • Prince Charming says:

          It is obvious that these are scripted events, scripted narratives, and the scriptwriters steal from previous works. It also looks like that the people calling the shots, whoever they are, are cognisant of great prophecies, and go to some lengths to make them happen. Doesn’t mean Dean Koontz could see into the future.

          But the White Horse, seriously? Jesus rides the White Horse. Jesus is adorned by the coronas. How is that a metaphor that fits neatly onto our current predicament?

          • Kunning Drueger says:

            Shut up, jizz breath.

            • Prince Charming says:

              You will never be a real woman, Sheila.

              • jim says:

                Personal attacks and insults need to be informative, or entertaining, or creative, or well done. Unimaginative content free insults that I have seen before and do not seem terribly relevant to anything in particular will be censored.

                • Kunning Drueger says:

                  Point taken, but St. John had an excellent response to one of his many shill posts regarding his cock sandwich flavored breath, and I felt I was doing my part by reminding the sodomite idolizing Nüchristian that he doesn’t belong here in a concise manner. I will put more effort in next time.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  The main thing that got my hair up was making statements like ‘people arent thirsty for the Good News’ or ‘you cant impose status by force’ or ‘Anglin is embarrassed by his faith’ that are plainly contradictory with observed reality.

                  What is really being said is ‘*I* am embarrassed by my faith’; it is where a man is taking a process of working through his beliefs, his stumbling steps while groping about with eyes crusted shut for something solid to grab hold of, and depersonalizing it, ascribing the experience of his interiority to some people, process, or phenomena out there in the world instead; an all too common human frailty; most especially common in such men possessed of self-images as thoughtful men.

                  There is a conversation to be had there; a good and useful conversation, in general, but to a one in particular, in particular; but it can also only be had honestly.

                • jim says:

                  Obviously people are thirsty for the good news. But they are also thirsty for a state religion, and are therefore drinking up a state religion that is profoundly hostile to them and knowingly intends them harm because it hates them.

                  What go my hair up was Prince Charming’s position on modernity, where he gave us the post modernists self image of themselves, and their projection of their conduct and “reasoning” onto their enemies. Which is one hundred percent shill content, though obviously he is no shill.

                  Now that you draw my attention to it, when he said “Anglin is embarrassed by his faith”, what he actually meant was that all those terribly high status post modernists would noisily announce they looked down on him if he was to adopt Anglin’s faith.

                  But does not get anywhere adopting one’s enemy’s status signals, because by doing so you confirm their high status, and thus one’s own low status, not only in their eyes, but in one’s own eyes.

                  His critique of Jimianity is that people will not accept it, which is completely true. But the reason they will not accept it because low status. Of course it is low status. Status comes from power, though not automatically or easily. Priestly classes are very good at converting power into status, and at obstructing other people from converting power into status. Which is how they outmaneuvered Kings.

                  I started treating him like a shill, mechanically reproducing enemy noise. But he is not mechanically reproducing enemy noise – he is transmitting it intelligently and relevantly. It is no longer enemy noise, but enemy signal, and therefore needs to be carefully interpreted, rather than ignored.

                • Kunning Drueger says:

                  Prince Charmin Ultra Gay is fundamentally dishonest. That’s my opinion based on his comments here. I’m also of the opinion that his purpose here is to distract and confuse. Maybe the issue is on my end, and I just don’t like him. But something seems off. I am a man who is mightily struggling with the consequences of my actions, searching for lost faith and brotherhood, and easily convinced that I am much smarter than I actually am. I am certain these things are painfully obvious in my comments. What do his comments say?

                • jim says:

                  > Prince Charmin Ultra Gay is fundamentally dishonest. That’s my opinion based on his comments here.

                  Well, that was my opinion also. But when I was reminded of his past accomplishment, I changed my mind and concluded his beliefs are confused and self contradictory, because he has internalized enemy memes.

                  Are his comments harmful? Well, yes they are, because full of enemy memes, but because he really is one of us, we can hold a conversation about it, which we could not hold with a shill.

                  You perceive him as dishonest, and I, until reminded, perceived him as dishonest, because claiming to be a reactionary freedom fighter, while full of enemy memes. But now I conclude he actually is a reactionary freedom fighter full of enemy memes. Which need to be addressed.

                • Aidan says:

                  what he actually meant was that all those terribly high status post modernists would noisily announce they looked down on him if he was to adopt Anglin’s faith

                  Ah, I see now. The commenter in question probably gets his status cues from an online space where cynicism and ironic detachment are the norm, though the community is ostensibly right-wing. He probably posted something and got made fun of. This detached cynicism is mistaken for high status until you realize that:

                  a) people like that have no positive beliefs and would not dare forward one for fear of criticism

                  b) they are invariably laughable specimens of humanity, from edgy fifteen-year-olds to broken schizoids

                  c) those who only hold negative values, i.e. only believe in criticism, are never great men; they are the losers who get thrown into history’s trash bin

                • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

                  The reason that Gen X is actually the worst and most pathetic generation is this very thing. Edgy nihilism and believing in nothing unless it is believed ironically. Cynics are pussies and fags that scatter before the approach of real men, then gather back in their footsteps and bitch and whine like spurned women.

                  Prince Charming isn’t a cum-guzzling turbo-faggot, but he is getting his status cues from cum-guzzling turbo-faggots. So what if cowards who have never done a thing laugh at you?

                • Kunning Drueger says:

                  Is he some kind of NRx blogger or online personality? Of what accomplishments are you referring to?

                • jim says:

                  Prince Charming spotted the avatar privacy backdoor, and has just now found another flaw (not a backdoor), which I have not yet fixed.

                  He is valuable, and will be more valuable when he clears the enemy meme injection from his head.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I strongly disagree on gen x again, cynicism is far better than demon worship.

                • Red says:

                  > I strongly disagree on gen x again, cynicism is far better than demon worship.

                  The void that Cynicism created is being filled with Demon Worship.

                • jim says:

                  As I am fond of saying, the people want bread, and the elite, having no bread, feed them stones.

                  Everyone has a religion, though they do not necessarily know it, and everyone wants to have the state religion, no matter how much it hates them, and no matter how horrifying, evil, and self destructive its demands. Many people will sacrifice their first born to Moloch or to Drag Queen Story hour. They are volunteering for the jab, they volunteered for Moloch, and they are volunteering for Drag Queen Story hour.

                  Our enemies were successful in destroying Christianity from inside and outside. Replacing it, however …

                  Seeing the success of science, the enlightenment wanted to replace religion with pure rationality and pure reason. The infamous Church of Reason was anything but reason, and what we have now even less so.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  As Chesterton once pithily observed, a man who ‘believes in nothing’ can be led to believe anything.

                  An imposture of ‘outgrowing belief’ is perhaps a quintessential 20th-centuryism. Charming, i would surmise, likely inheres in social circles involved in informational tech, by work or hobby; and tech circles – if you may find the analogy acceptable – are one of the most ’20th century’ demographics yet extant in the year of our lord, 2022.

                  >”Someday we will realize what a loss it was when the vile, venal capitalists of the West arranged [the soviet union’s] downfall. After all, no amount of material wealth provided in the willy-nilly, dog-eat-dog, all-against-all ‘free market’ will ever be able to match the simple pleasures of a life dedicated to the betterment of the community, guided by the best & brightest from their commanding perch in the government.”

                  People in the atlantic empire were attracted to (the idea of) capital C Communism, because it contained within itself shades of a perennialist idea that was missing from the communist (little c) societies that they lived in.

                  Milquetoast recapitulations of 20th century intellectuals like ‘im not trying to tell people what to do, just laying out the ‘facts’ ‘, or ‘im not trying to tell people what to do, just analyzing processes by which it is done’, and so on, were essentially leftovers running on inertia from times when people actually cared about making civilization great (that is to say, a time when people in power cared about making civilization great). It had no basis to stand on, and was neither effective in actually satisfying people on their own side, nor in actually defeating enemies arrayed against them either.

                  They purposefully ran from implying that anything they say could be construed as ‘asserting values’ even, as a sort of yellow self-defense mechanism if you will, a fig leaf to cover themselves when voluntary auxiliary thought police, emboldened by the idea that people with power and status and other synonyms validated that which they do, would look to come after them; ‘im not saying your values are *wrong* or anything, just laying out the facts, you see?’

                  Of course even subconsciously, all sides understood that it was all a big round of dogwhistling, and, while declaiming that you would never do anything so declass as to make a value judgement (that is to say, anyone in the late 20th century rendering any value judgements that were contrary to the aims of bioleninism), you would count on your interlocutors reading between the lines and arriving at the obvious implications that follow.

                  The reaction of leftist academic toadies to this posture was, particularly in the structuralist schools, and those that descended from it, to point out that it was ultimately impossible to disentangle these supposed categories of ‘fact’ and ‘value’; that even your very modes of perception were inherently ‘value laden’ in some sense; that any possible utterances that can be made, ultimately, even if cryptically, assert the imposition of, or participate in, a certain paradigm, a certain set of values; that all values are implicit teleologies, that imply certain end states if followed consistently.

                  Ironically, the very idea of a ‘fact-value’ distinction was itself used in the first place by incipient leftians during the ‘enlightenment’ period to dissolve functionally holistic systems of tradition, to clear space in the discourse for their own occupation by subversively disguising their own assertions of value.

                  That sort of thing is basically a specific expression of what ‘liberalism’ really is in practice; a phantasm. The truth that ‘liberal’ forms of social organism in fact have never truly existed, except in brief evanescent moments of history, where they are used as a sort of transitory unlocking, to dissolve an incumbent power structure, before a new power structure takes it’s place (and makes sure to rapidly suppress any liberalisma running around to cement itself now that it’s taken the spot).

                  (Eg, a man who A. wants power, and B. is poor in virtue and hence can’t complete in accordance with the norm-al avenues of their society as such, will tend to C. assert that ‘noone’ should ‘have power’ [ie, liberalism], and that existing power structures should be torn down [so he can advance his place in the vacuum]).

                  Or to put it another way, presuming that you are separating yourself from ‘value judgements’ doesn’t mean you are actually ‘separating’ yourself from such as such, merely that you will be instead occupied by such value judgments that you don’t recognize as ‘value judgements’; that is to say, they become daemon-hosts.

                  An honest man could possibly arrive at conclusions that might make someone somewhere feel bad about themselves, so people who rely on acquiring untermenschen as loyal foot soldiers through promises of increased status try to gaslight people into believing that there is this thing called a ‘fact value distinction’, as a form of crimestop or thought terminating cliche, to prevent them from reaching (or at least publicly verbalizing) conclusions that are Right.

                  Of course anyone who studies political history in general and modernity in particular long enough may come to appreciate it’s hyperion capacity to continually produce subtle ironies; the act of the ‘new left’ itself in the mid 20th century to reforge ‘fact’ and ‘value’ back together, to solidify their power, itself in turn created incipient grounding for more perennialist modes of thought to make hay out of it.

                  The way they meant to use it was to imply that the idea of ‘fact’ itself was bunkum, since the supposed post-modernist carried within themselves modernist epistemology; the idea that truth was something that depended on the removal of all possible ‘bias’, and that if ‘is’ is inherently ‘tainted’ by ‘ought’, then (according to such a formula) how could you ever possibly have an ‘is’?

                  Once that genie is out of the bottle though, it ultimately goes the only way it really can, and people start explicitly asserting what they were always and already intuiting; that ‘ought’, being inherently connected to ‘is’, ‘value’ naturally followed from observation of ‘fact’. Or in other words, the eternal rediscovering of divine law.

                  Rhetoric by our 21st century gnostics, in comparison, is practically defined by it’s straightforwards lack of nuance in this respect. The mask is more or less completely dropped. The twitter bluecheck and tumblr harridan has a simple message, prevarications of yesteryear replaced with faithful certainty: your very continued existence ontologically entails harm to those who have no good towards you; therefore, die; and we have state, media, and kept corporations marching in lock step to accomplish this, which we openly align ourselves with as stormtroopers; And That’s A Good Thing(tm).

      • alf says:

        I notice I am turning into a prepper. Just not seeing a way out of this mess. Down’s the only way.

        How far down is the question. But if in the aftermath of the bronze age collapse it became impossible to acquire bronze, the collapse of the electronic age ought to be quite the setback.

        • Arqiduka says:

          Been noticing the same, my mind often involuntarily drifts to thoughts such as

          “where would I go if the division of labour were to break down tomorrow?”

          “who do i need close by such that I have enough guys for mutual defense?”

          “what is the least amount of garden I need to self-sustain, what are the best varieties of potato and legumes to plant, and what combination of chickens, fish and goats would i have to buy?”

          Ryan North’s “How to Invent Everything” is helpful and was the last paperback I ever got.

          Funny thing is, I am the most urbanite guy you can imagine, and would such ass in this scenario. And yet the mind wanders.

        • jim says:

          I have long done a little light prepping, mainly in expectation of the breakdown of order.

          Now it is time to do a little bit more, but the time is not yet to turn one’s life arse over tit as the serious preppers do.

          A lasting collapse of the electronic age – that would be very bad indeed.

          The Bronze age lost long distance order, and losing long distance order, could not make Bronze. But any government or form of organization that retains drones and computers is going to have a gigantic advantage over those that lose them. Iron working took a huge leap forward in the Bronze age collapse, even though everything else fell apart.

          • Karl says:

            Huh? I thought your idea of prepping was having bitcoin, several passports, and residences in more than one country.

            The idea to simple leave with the last flight to a place with working tech seems very reasonable.

            Prepping for staying put sounds like a different concept as it quickly becomes very difficult to flee when you need your prepping for surviving where you are.

            • jim says:

              I keep my options open.

            • Pooch says:

              The idea to simply leave with the last flight to a place with working tech seems very reasonable.

              Yes I am starting to realize this would be the preferred outcome on total institutional collapse, particularly with the ability of converting one’s assets to bitcoin.

              If the West collapses into anarchy and barbarism, it won’t necessarily mean the entire world will collapse into anarchy and barbarism. There will be places that will be able to maintain some semblance of order.

              Just as the Western Roman Empire fell into anarchy, the Eastern Roman Empire did not. I would be interested to know if/how many forward thinking men of means were able to relocate to the East before the West fell. Certainly seemed like the obvious move to make if you were a Roman and seeing the writing on the wall in the 3rd or 4th century.

              • Pooch says:

                It’s difficult to determine where to even flee to. Even countries on the periphery of the empire are showing enthusiastic worship of the Holy Awesome Covid Demon not even excluding Russia herself.

                • Travis says:

                  There is no place to flee.

                  Ideology will find every place.

                  It must be killed.

          • Fireball says:

            Our equivalent to ironwork is probably nuclear energy. It may not compensate well for plastics, fertilizers and dense vehicle fuel that we get from petroleum but we get a large quantity of cheap energy.

            • Oog en Hand says:

              Oil: unlike coal, it can be transported
              Oil: unlike electricity, it can be stored

              Therefore, it is economically viable to change ANY hydrocarbon into oil

              • Fireball says:

                One of us must be on drugs.

                • jim says:

                  Coal to liquid fuel is a working and extensively used technology.

                  We will not run out of oil for quite some time. Coal will take a great deal longer, though all the conveniently low tech accessible coal will be gone soon, as all the conveniently low tech accessible oil is already long gone.

                  And we can make liquid fuel by making hydrogen with nuclear power, converting it to syngas by running it over hot crushed limestone, and syngas to liquid fuel is another working and widely used technology.

                • Fireball says:

                  The problem will not be that oil or coal running out it will be the need to ship it.

                  Long supply lines are a problem. When the american navy goes the pirates will come in. Pipelines are static targets and not many nations have the capacity to project power to protect long pipelines.

                  I know that it is possible to make liquid fuel and it may be economical with nuclear power but nuclear power plants are pretty much all old, too old to still be working.

                  And you still have the problem with fertilizers. Again yes i know nuclear can compensate for all of this but this problems are far from trivial specially since you need smart and very competent people to run nuclear.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  The biggest value-adds of nuclear power are it’s mobile and modular local scale applications.

                  Collapse of the incumbent order can mean collapse of techne that requires large scale coordination; but it also means collapse of the enforcement that stops your whitopias from having their own relationships with Our Friend, The Atom.

        • Ghost says:

          Alf, Been stocking up myself too. One month of water and food.

          Also some lead based products, don’t want to go into detail or “NewGuy” will get triggered.

    • Aidan says:

      I see a dictator rising to power unlikely. Legality means nothing; even if a dictator rose to power NSDAP style legally, the armed forces would be ordered to remove him, and I find it quite likely that the USM would obey the Cathedral over the dictator. The powers that be have tried their damned best to ensure that the military does not take any action against them, are terrified of anything that even smells like Hitler, and have been adding more and more locks to that door since they killed Patton, even since the Bonus Army.

      • Pooch says:

        I see a dictator rising to power unlikely. Legality means nothing; even if a dictator rose to power NSDAP style legally, the armed forces would be ordered to remove him.

        During IV.VI the Army was ordered to deploy to the Capital immediately. They refused because of “bad optics”.

        I have a feeling if they were deployed to remove a dictator coming to power, legally as Hitler did, they would refuse those orders because of “bad optics”.

        • Kunning Drueger says:

          They did deploy. SOF units were rushed in and Natty Gay units stayed deployed for months. Also, guntuber community is lousy with “””former””” SOF notperators who shill the anti-nazi above all talking points. Mat Best, Dan Crenshaw, and others. We here underestimated the Cathedral’s influence in the operator class, me probably more than anyone. The only support for Restoration in the USM will come from white, male, mid-level, and vaxx expulsion is eliminating that threat. While the Cathedral intelligentsia may be getting dumber and greedier, the Cathedral machinations of the 60s, 70s, and 80s are working just fine. Warrior Poet seems to be figuring it out, but he was enlisted and a Ranger, not high caste warrior officer. Folks here better and smarter than me should really dig into this, because I think it’s a blindspot we have and it needs to be studied and corrected.

          • Pooch says:

            They did deploy. SOF units were rushed in and Natty Gay units stayed deployed for months.

            Not during the hours before Trump called off his supporters. As soon as the capital was breached, Congressional leaders called for National Guard troops to be deployed immediately. Army leadership said, “No. Bad optics.”

            “LTG Piatt stated that it would not be his best military advice to recommend to the Secretary of the Army that the D.C. National Guard be allowed to deploy to the Capitol at that time,” Matthews wrote, adding: “LTGs Piatt and Flynn stated that the optics of having uniformed military personnel deployed to the U.S. Capitol would not be good.”


            • Contaminated NEET says:

              Well, the optics are a whole lot better now. That might be part of the reason for the 12-month freakout about the harrowing and violent attempted coup: next time the military will know to hop to and let the press worry about the “optics.”

            • jim says:

              I have a feeling we are going to see the army avoiding bad optics at some critical future momement.

              Imagine if the Jan 6 eruption had not had shills and entryists at its center, and Trump had been the man I had hoped he would be, and had held the center of the field of battle.

              • Pooch says:

                It is what I am holding out hope for, however infinitesimally small the likelihood may be.

      • Pooch says:

        The powers that be have tried their damned best to ensure that the military does not take any action against them, are terrified of anything that even smells like Hitler, and have been adding more and more locks to that door since they killed Patton, even since the Bonus Army.

        Or one could interpret their terrified shrieking as being vulnerable to a Hitler-risk to power. Patton was not a hitler. Patton was a Caesar, a battle hardened military aristocrat with loyal men at his back who could have marched across the Rubicon/Potomac quite literally. They do not shriek over a Caesar and they do not shriek over a military coup because it’s no longer a threat to them.

        • Pooch says:


        • jim says:

          > They do not shriek over a Caesar and they do not shriek over a military coup because it’s no longer a threat to them.

          The military purge and war crimes trials sound to me like plenty of screaming, if only behind closed doors.

          And, as was revealed in the war crimes show trials, what they fear most of all is the Paladin. The Christian Warrior Priest.

        • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

          There is a certain degree of basedness under which the synagogue will make public shrieks over, but over which it often won’t.

          So figures like Jordan Peterson or Arthur Jensen could get public shrieks, because a purple pilled message can be credibly argued by the regressive as merely heretical deviations from the cause of regression; whereas figures like Francis Yockey or Steve Sailer are memory-holed as quietly as possible, as the regressive can sense, even if not in an explicitly conscious way, that there is no bridge for his ideograms to walk over.

      • Karl says:

        Aidan, I don’t understand why you think a dictator rising to power is unlikely. Democracy is dead. If we are not in a democracy, we are in a dictatorship (until monarchy is reestablished). What else is there or what do you call the present state? At present, we are in a dictatorship of numerous comitees.

        I think it is natural that the number of relevant comitees and the number of persons who have a say in the comitees will shrink. It might take some time, but at the end there can only be one chairman of one important comintee and somehow everybody will agree that the chairmans opinion is correct.

        As soon as the comintee members start arresting and killing each other the process to dictatorship by one dictator instead of dictatorship by comitees will accelerate.

        • Aidan says:

          First I’ll set our terms straight. A dictator comes to power legally in a democracy, and through various means wields power out of proportion to his supposed legal authority. A caesar takes power illegally through physical violence.

          We are in a theocracy, and any nascent dictator is going to be declared a heretic by a consensus of priests, who currently hold a monopoly on violence. A dictator needs to break the monopoly on violence in order to take power, by having armed men capable of substantial violence who are loyal only to him.

          I am not aware of any historical theocracies being captured from within, by dictator or caesar. Theocracy is a notably effective form of government for preventing a coup d’etat. But theocracies usually go crazy, and become weak militarily, and are destroyed from without by external foes.

          • Pooch says:

            I am not aware of any historical theocracies being captured from within, by dictator or caesar.

            Was 1930s Italy and Germany not this?

            • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

              The theocracies the brownshirts took over in the 30s are arguably the same theocracy we live in today; but less advanced, less predisposed against such vectors.

          • Karl says:

            Good terms. Using these terms, do you agree that France after the French Revolution was a theocracy? France was then ruled by various comitees. After a while the most important comitee was the Comitee of Public Safety. Robespierre was chairman of the Comitee of Public Safety.

            Robespierre could have any person executed and many people were killed during the reign of terror.

            Isn’t this an example of a historical theocracy being captured from within by a dictator? If not, why?

            • Red says:

              >Isn’t this an example of a historical theocracy being captured from within by a dictator? If not, why?

              The entire French revaluation was a endless holiness spiral stopped by a Caesar. Priests rule by committee and murder people by committee. Caesars rule through military power.

            • Aidan says:

              Robespierre became a dictator in a theocracy undergoing a holiness spiral, and was executed by his fellow priests.

              Robespierre took power through the committees, and it did not last very long. Napoleon took power through grapeshot.

              • Karl says:

                Quite so. I expect a dictator who rises to power like Robespierre and lasts about as long.

  24. Upravda says:

    A little bit on the bright side.

    Đoković is on the Australian Open, after all. You might ask yourself: “Who cares?”, but think more keenly. He could’ve faked his “vaccination”. Of all the people, he could do it easy way and simply bribe or buy his ausweis… anywhere. From any doctor, especially in Serbia. He could’ve gone to tournament quietly, head down, and simply accept narrative of the Branch Covidians.

    Well, he didn’t.

    Instead he decided to show them all the royal middle finger, to all of them and their damned covid cult. He stood by his belief, and he’s got his way. He screwed them royally.

    No, imperially. In front of the entire world.

    I’m glad that some of the famous Croatian footballers publicly expressed their support for him.

    Also, there are some official-ish reports from hospitals in Croatian south that, despite that little Greek alphabet letter going up, hospitalizations seem to be down, maybe even quite sharply. Maybe.

    Yes, yes, I know, all this Mindless Hysteria does not have much to do with actual disease, but if true, it will be increasingly difficult for covid cultist to uphold their horror stories further. Some more normies might even come to their senses.

    It should be true, because just as there are no effective vaccines against RNA viruses, all those viruses have a marked tendency to become more contagious – and more benign.

    Oh, and by the way and to my knowledge, Czar did not introduce covid ausweis after all, although some of his subordinates in this and that federal subject are quite… insubordinate.

    Good night everyone.

  25. Aryaman says:

    From Dose 1 through the March 13, 2021 data cutoff date, there were a total of 38 deaths, 21 in the COMIRNATY group and 17 in the placebo group. None of the deaths were considered related to vaccination.

    This was released last October. The 6 month follow-up published under peer review in the New England Journal of Medicine last June said the deaths in the placebo and vaccinated groups respectively were 14 and 15. So they can’t even get their counting straight.

    Anyway by their own data, all cause mortality is about 23 percent higher in the vaccinated group. I assume that is consistent with a 40 percent increase in death among healthy young people, given that there were a few COVID deaths in the unvaccinated group that were not there in the vaccinated group and those few were likely morbid and old.

  26. notglowing says:

    Seems like Omicron is spreading extremely quickly in schools in the US:
    Might be a good thing if it both immunizes people, and makes them less scared of covid after a mild illness. However here “numbers” are being used to justify new restrictions every day.
    Anecdotally, over here as opposed to the US, a teacher I know confirmed to me that every class has at least 1 in 10 to 1 in 6 students away for being covid positive. Right now, they won’t quarantine the entire class for it, because school has literally *just* resumed, so the positives were *not* even in contact with the rest of the class at any point.

    I wonder what the ramifications of this will be. Right now it’s leading to insanity everywhere, as you can see from that reddit post.
    I’m not convinced covid hysteria can last forever. I’ve seen the left move from one thing to spiral around to another fairly suddenly, even when the previous thing seemed like the most important thing in the world.

    • Fireball says:

      I know people that have catch covid twice in no case has been worst than the normal flu and they are completely scared of it.

      • notglowing says:

        Funny enough someone caught it twice, it was never very serious, and he isn’t vaccinated, and he said he regrets not getting the vaccine the second time because he was feeling very ill (but not anything to go to the hospital over)

        • Karl says:

          Interesting. I know people who have tried getting reinfected (to get another recovery certificate) without success and no-one who succesfully got reinfected.

          • jim says:

            The reinfection rate appears to be zero if you get China flu before getting the vaccine. One strain of China flu gives lasting immunity to all of them.

            If you get the vaccine first, then get infected, you are likely to get infected another time. Looks like immune system dysfunction, damage to the immune system.

            • Fireball says:

              Interesting you say that. From all the people i know that got it more than once i don’t think one was vaccinated.

              I am of course discounting the asymptomatic cases.

              • Mike in Boston says:

                discounting the asymptomatic cases

                This matches my experience. One guy I know never felt sick a single day in the spring of 2020, but tested positive for the coronavirus in late spring and was confirmed to have antibodies; he donated convalescent plasma a bunch of times. Never vaxxed. A couple of weeks ago, in December of ’21, he woke up feeling headachy with a scratchy throat and assumed it was just too much drinking the night before, but took a home test and was again positive. A day and a half later he was completely fine.

        • Red says:

          The “COVID” tests frequently reported positive for the flu. Your friend probably had the flu.

          It’s possible to get the extra strains of COVID, they’re far enough apart that getting Alpha, then Beta, then Delta, then Omicron is possible and has happened in places like South Africa. Covid viruses are generally pretty immune resistant and quick to evolve, but once you’ve had a few strains, you tend to no longer get sick from them because there immune system has seen the virus enough to catch the next variant. You’ll get slightly ill from a new variant, but most likely it will be so mild you’ll never notice.

          The quick evolution is one of the big reasons the vaccines failed, the other reason is because the vaccines were injected so no T-cells and antibodies were generated in the mucus system. You have a ton of any normal common cold antibodies and T-cells hanging in your mucus looking for new cold variants and nailing them quickly but nothing for COVID19 if you didn’t catch it naturally.

    • Red says:

      The COVDAINs are having a collective melt down over it. They feel unclean for having gotten the virus that spreading like wildfire. At the same time it’s invalidating their religion. Their sacrifices and holiness did nothing to stop the wrath of the great and might COVID Demon.

  27. Fireball says:

    Not deaths but i may be seeing health problems related to the jab. Really hard to tell since people are not talking about this a refuse to talk about it.

    Independently of how bad this may or not may be people sure are running to take the booster.

  28. Mister Grumpus says:

    Just one thing. A diagnosis for scabies is one way to get a prescription for Ivermectin paste. For external use only, but surely some of it gets into your system anyway. Plausibly deniable Ivermectin laundering.

    • Karl says:

      Scabies is highly visible. Better learn the symptoms of invisible parasites like worms. That way you’ll also get ivermectin for ingestion

      • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

        You can just order it online from Indian pharmaceuticals.

        • pyrrhus says:

          Yep, just have to get it past customs and the Postal thieves…May be best to use another carrier…

        • someDude says:

          Pesudo, I was about to ironically start worshipping the Covid demon, just out of sheer frustration with true believers/normies and just to give vent to my sarcastic bent of mind. The thing with true believers is they have no sense of humor and so won’t get the sarcasm.

          That being said, I remember Suones injunction that those who worship demons ironically will end up worshipping them un-ironically. Your gentle rebuke regarding my public vaxx stance (in some cases), no matter of how sarcastic, reminded me of the danger I was flirting with. Thanks for the wake up call, Mate!

    • Red says:

      Buy some horse paste or the injectable liquid of it(don’t inject it, drink it). I’ve tested the paste out, mix it in some apple sauce, follow the weight directions. Ivermectin is very safe and well tolerated when dosed properly.

  29. Arqiduka says:

    Gentlemen, I don’t know what has gotten into some today, but caution is being thrown to the wind. I don’t mean in general, I mean today specificaly. Lets all chill eh?

    • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

      High energy levels can lead to willingness to impose one’s will over the course of their lives and the world in general.

      And you certainly wouldn’t want that, would you?

    • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

      Would you care to explain?

      • Arqiduka says:

        A comment made shortly before mine tripped my very inexperienced malice detector.
        Look, just show common sense on certain topics.

        • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

          Malice? Yes, I have malice and hate in my heart for them. I am not rushing out to start a one-man war against all of progressivism. I am saying that when that war starts, we need to prosecute it more ruthlessly than Sherman’s March to the Sea. Cortez had to deal with a demon-worshipping death cult, and his solution was to kill them all. The Romans had to deal with a demon-worshipping death cult, and they killed them all. When God commanded the Israelites in their wars against demon-worshipping death cults, he told them to kill them all. A thousand years from now, the shattered, burned out husks of Harvard and Yale should be a pilgrimage for Orthodox Christian priests so that we maintain the memory of what they did.

          Common sense from thousands of years of history and my own instinct is to kill them all, with neither restraint nor mercy staying my hands, never flinching from the task until it is finished. The Doom Slayer knows how to handle people like this. Rip and tear, until it is done.

          • Arqiduka says:

            I didn’t mean you, m8. Whatever, have at it, what can I say more. Try to be more circumspect with newcomers such as me if at all possible.

            • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

              Then I recommend you say what you mean. If you have a problem with someone, say it right out in the open to their face. If you are new, then there is some leeway, but the way we talk to each other is a feature of this blog. Make the argument so we can decide who is in the right.

              • Arqiduka says:

                Fair enough,


                I found this comment of Ghost’s very suspicious a soon as I read it the RSS feed. As i said, my receptors are inexperienced but it just feels off.

                • jim says:

                  He is definitely not Soros, but he does seem to be FBI.

                  Hey Ghost. What did Mueller do in the lead up and aftermath of 911, and what did he do to frame Trump?

                • someDude says:

                  @ ArquDuka (ArchDuke, I presume?)

                  Your instincts are right. In a previous post

                  1. He asks Jim as to what games he had designed

                  2. Tells me that fraud always gets found out in the end

                  3. Tells me when my vaxx doctor gets caught, not IF. When! And that too in India where Cops can be bribed out of giving you a speeding ticket for US$3.

                  In all probability, a Law enforcement Shill. I wait on the Mueller question, the trump framing question, but without holding my breath.

                • Arqiduka says:


                  Correct presumption. My alias honours the brave man who saved my nation from certain ruin and paid for this with his life. Everyone knows who the Archduke was.

                • Ghost says:

                  So someIndianDude and the new guy are trying to make cred by calling me out. You’re gonna get caught Indian and then you’re gonna squeal. Much worse has been said here new guy.

                  To Jim, I don’t know Mueller on 911 provide link plz. On Trump Mueller ran the Russian hacker investigation. Which was a lie and distraction.

                • Ghost says:

                  A search shows Mueller ran cover ups on 911 and also used patsies. Mueller ran the FBI so he had to be in on it. But, I’d rather know your version.

                • Aidan says:

                  Ghost, you have indeed been acting fucking sus. Every other comment is about committing violence, and you asked Jim to dox himself on the last post.

                • Ghost says:

                  Yeah, well I explained that enough already.

                  If I passed the shill test and this goes through, can you delete my double posting down there Jim?

                  You’re right about a lot of things but the thing your most right about is whites are wolf to white.

                  You wanna be a wolf, there’s gonna be talk of violence.

                • jim says:

                  Well, you passed the Soros test, and you mostly passed the FBI shill test.

                  But I would like one more thing. The role of the FBI and Mueller in covering for the 9/11 hijackers.

                  The trouble is that you recently asked a question that an FBI CI would like to know the answer to, and you keep pushing violence like an FBI CI.

                  That you keep passing these tests with flying colors makes me doubt my tests.

                  I am still looking for words that you are strangely unable to speak, and not finding them. Have the FBI decided to give their agents a longer leash?

                  I am looking for your muzzle.

                • Arqiduka says:

                  That Jim’s (or any others’) shill tests work at all I find astounding. If you go the lengths to pay a guy to write stuff on boards, why on earth would you muzzle him? “E pur’ si muove”, well yes, but I think the commentariat here places too much reliance on Jim’s ability to filter shills and are thus far to carefree.

                  This is the reason I was going on in circles instead of just saying “yo Ghost, this is sus”: it doesn’t matter if Ghost or Arqiduka are engaging in braggadocio or are malicious actors: act as if the latter applies, and show due care. Make Jim’s work easier, not harder.

                • jim says:

                  > That shill tests work at all I find astounding.

                  Me too.

                  The trick is that entryism is, by definition, an ideologically cohesive group inserting its agents into an enemy group to destroy its cohesion and take over.

                  For which you need agents to have ideological cohesion around an ideology superficially dressed to resemble the enemy ideology you seek to destroy.

                  How do you maintain ideological cohesion in face of exposure to the enemy? ​Well, if you are a bureaucrat, you do it by tightly controlling allowed speech.

                  An important tool of entryists is argument from fake consensus. Everyone supposedly already agrees that the fake belief system is true. Which is hard for a midwit to pull off. When a ham fisted bureaucrat is managing a bunch of not very bright dot Indians he must absolutely prohibit anything that acknowledges that anyone doubts the fake ideology, which is actually a real ideology dressed in the clothes of its enemy. So the enemy agents are robotically rigid, as a result of being tightly supervised from above.

                  Thus CR and Rex could not acknowledge that the creation of wealth by humans was a thing, or even acknowledge or respond to other people saying it was a thing.

                  Now obviously there are differing strands of Christianity, but the other end of each strand really does go back to the bronze age, and if you lose that thread, the religion swiftly mutates into some form of postchristianity. Tityrus treats this connection as a mere decoration that no one takes seriously, and none of his responses mentioned, or in any way acknowledged, that I was taking it seriously.

                  Now an actual human acting on his own initiative might well not take it seriously. An actual human might well not expect anyone to take it seriously. But an actual human would notice that I was taking it seriously.

                  Tityrus acted human for a while. But when he started delivering payload, he turned into a robot. CR’s responses to the Musk lift to orbit question were to change the subject to “Musk is a bad man”. Tityrus just kept on plowing. His response was “Santayana is not a leftist”. Maybe Santayana really believes this stuff sincerely on his own initiative, for all I know. Maybe Santayana sincerely thinks everyone else believes this stuff too. But the robotic character of Tityrus’s response indicates that he is not peddling this stuff on his own initiative.

                  If someone is following a script rather than acting on his own initiative, the difference becomes obvious when you go off script and get an on script response. The man in charge cannot allow initiative, because initiative is not easy to control. A fake consensus has to be absolutely monolithic and the easiest way to keep it monolithic, particularly if your crew is full of dot Indians, is by the rigid application of mechanical and mindless rules about what may and may not be said.

                • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

                  I am not exactly a picture of restraint when it comes to talking about violence myself. He seems to have done well on the shill test. Has Starman hit him with the Woman Question yet? That is still our best test for smoking out shills. Also, have we considered a I.VI shill test? Regime media erupts into spastic fits of rage whenever anyone points out that there are an awful lot of fed-looking types involved with that debacle. It was an American Reichstag Fire, so it might be worth using as a shill test.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I think CR was just sort of a legit independent commie lunatic…

                  His main focus was that poor proles were being swindled by evil restaurant owners… yes maybe commies believe that but even for regular commies don’t focus on that.

                • Ghost says:


                • Aidan says:

                  Wulfgar, it is not merely talking about violence; violence is often necessary in private life, likely to become more necessary, and war is always on topic, being an eternal part of the human experience.

                  Posting things like “they’re coming for you soon, keep a finger on your trigger” resembles very closely the bait used by federal agents to smoke out the paranoid and mentally unstable, so that they can be incited into making threats or even groomed into false flags.

                • jim says:

                  > Posting things like “they’re coming for you soon, keep a finger on your trigger” resembles very closely the bait used by federal agents to smoke out the paranoid and mentally unstable, so that they can be incited into making threats or even groomed into false flags.

                  Quite so. Maybe the reason Ghost does not sound much like a shill is that he is here to create a false flag event connected to this blog, rather than to subvert ideological cohesion with hostile enemy memes.

                  If he is not here to meme us, he is going to get a longer leash on what words he can say.

                • Ghost says:

                  “Maybe the reason Ghost does not sound much like a shill is that he is here to create a false flag event connected to this blog, rather than to subvert ideological cohesion with hostile enemy memes.” –Jim

                  Or maybe Ghost just wants to hang out. If I do chimp out, I wont mention your blog.

                  It might be curtains for me anyway. Feel a second wave of possible Rona coming on, it’s in my lungs now. This could be my last post.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  >It might be curtains for me anyway. Feel a second wave of possible Rona coming on, it’s in my lungs now. This could be my last post.

                  lol see you tomorrow fag

                • yewotm8 says:

                  >It might be curtains for me anyway.

                  No way a shill has this good of a sense of humour.

              • Ghost says:

                Females are wildcats that like to go on the prowl after dark. This primordial drive starts at puberty. They are drawn to masculine men and want nothing more than be bent over and jackhammered. Men are builders of society and seek family and stable relationships. Women (like dot Indians), if given too much freedom, will destroy society and should be subjugated.

                Furthermore; there should be no AoC. Consent is opaque to a woman. Women seek to score alpha male dick from a disturbingly young age, and are apt to succeed when they grow boobs. The solution is young marriage for women, shotgun marriage, arranged marriage and in some cases marriage-by-abduction.

                No Dotheads here, but you’re letting two Dots post this blog.

                • Ghost says:

                  To “NewGuy”,

                  Sorry you’re in Australia. I’ve kept tabs on what’s going on. But, you’re not going to get out of it using polite words okay.

                  BTW I like watching catboy, he’s a goofy fuck but it’s still makes me laugh so all you Aussies aren’t afraid.

                • Arqiduka says:

                  Yes, but we have a plan. We are going to very aggressively and without prejudice rank the UAP first preference, and leave Libs for dead last among the right so that the ballot counters waste a good week or so counting. Craig will also do the maglev thing and I shall die of a week-long boner cause of it.

                  In entirely unrelated news, you sound like a reasonably smart guy
                  Are you quite sure the carreer path you may be on to kow is the best money-wise? You cannot possibly be getting a dopamine boost from discussing coal gasification and obscure religious dogmas here, obviously all nerd here and no enemies of the people to be found. So is the money good enough? Can you afford a family? These are the relevant questions, or would be to me.

                • Ghost says:

                  “Newguy”, I’m retired. Meaning I do not work. I live on a pension. It’s just me typing my thoughts alone.

          • The Cominator says:

            Sherman wasn’t that bad he did what he had to do but he wasn’t dealing with demon worshippers.

            • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

              Sherman was fighting a holy war. We are going to be balls deep in a holy war soon. Take lessons from successful holy wars, so we win.

          • Sam Cru says:

            Christianity will never give you the holy war you seek. Have you met the Church’s pacifist priests?

            • jim says:

              It is an adaption to defeat.

              Christians have a long history of fighting and winning wars. During the reconquista and the crusades, Kings found orders of armed and armored monks were giving them a hard ride. That is seven centuries of armed and deadly Christianity.

              Christianity was pacific as the Roman Empire in the west collapsed. Then came the attempted Islamic conquest of Europe. Charles the Hammer figured that Bishops should be morally improving Saracens by bopping them on the head with big hammers, and for eight centuries, we had armed and armored priestly warriors, priests and monks bopping Saracens.

              Military technology was advancing in ways that made equipping troops more expensive, as it is now. Charles the Hammer needed well armed and trained men, and weaponry was expensive and privately owned. So, he figures, the elite, the people who could afford expensive weapons, should fight. Including those fat Bishops. They did. With impressive enthusiasm and courage.

              To this day, Christians when they go to Church are required to say “Peace on Earth to all men of goodwill”, which is a command in the New Testament.

              Which command implies that Christians are allowed to use other means on men of bad will.

              For seven centuries, they used those means very impressively. The Church was momentarily confused by this change of doctrine from the distinctly suicidal Christianity of the late Roman Western Empire, but soon came on board enthusiastically.

              The pioneers were Christian, the Conquistador’s were Christian, and their Christianity gave them strength.

              You are required to walk the extra mile to seek peace, but you are not always going to get it. See my account of the pioneers in How to genocide inferior kinds in a properly Christian manner.

              • Sam Cru says:

                I have suspected that Christian violence in the past was residual Paganism. I don’t think you can get around Christ’s pacifism and his commandment to love your enemies these days. It seems to me that the Christian institutions have all been thoroughly defeated by progressive materialism, and their submission to the Covid lies has totally delegitimized their truth value.

                • jim says:

                  > I have suspected that Christian violence in the past was residual Paganism.

                  Seven centuries of residual paganism? That is a stretch.

                  Plus, from the beginning, and to this day, Christians attending Church find themselves required to say “Peace on Earth to all men of goodwill”, not “Peace on Earth”.

                  Men of badwill may be dealt with in another manner.

                  That is not all that residual.

                  > I don’t think you can get around Christ’s pacifism and his commandment to love your enemies these days.

                  “these days”

                  You have been marinated in twentieth century fake Christianity – the Christianity that holiness spirals the parable of the Good Samaritan and will not touch the parable of the wicked vinedressers. The pioneers and the conquistadors were the real thing. Were they residual paganism?

                • Sam Cru says:

                  I will be more blunt. Jesus Christ is a lie. There was no resurrection and a celibate pacifist cannot be God – cannot be the Truth. Celibacy must lead to death (gene death) and pacifism (coupled with the fear of death which every man has – even Christ was afraid to die in the Garden of Gethsemane) must lead to enslavement. God created us to live and to procreate, not to die childless. God created us to be free, not to be slaves. There is no Christianity without Christ and Christ must be discarded as a lie. Christianity defeated Paganism and then went on to lose a tremendous amount of territory to the Muslims. A result of the cowardly Christian retreat into otherworldliness. What is left of Christendom has been totally defeated by and is now under the yoke of progressive materialism with no hope of liberating itself which is not surprising considering that a celibate pacifist god can only lead you to such an outcome on a long enough timeline.

                  I am not for Pagan revivalism – the Pagan gods are dead. I am also not for Christian revivalism – Christ is dead. I am for Gnonism. The best approach to Christianity is to take the knowledge and people from Christianity that are salvageable and the Lie can keep the rest. Christianity is evil because it requires explanations to justify fighting to survive. We must build a religion in which fighting to survive is self evident.

                  Ultimately, the Truth value of a religion and the existence of its God are determined by the shedding of blood. If you are unwilling to risk your blood – your life – for your God – for Truth – then He isn’t real. Christ doesn’t produce martyrs anymore, so Christ is dead. Good riddance.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  ‘The christ’ that exists in your head is dead because it never existed outside of it.

                  The Christ of those europoids that conquered the world, on the other hand, is exactly the ground from which the ‘gnonism’ you claim fealty too here sprang from. They understood themselves as participating in the eternal order of creation, gaining power thereby, which was demonstrably correct.

                • Sam Cru says:

                  The Christ I described is the Christ of the Bible. Christ is a celibate pacifist in the Bible, and his celibacy and pacifism are reflected by the Church leaders and monastics. The only Christ that ever existed was a celibate and a pacifist.

                  Those europoids confessed Christ in word but not in deed. This is the paradox of successful Christianity. If you say that Christ is the Son of God but don’t act like him – you have children and are violent – you may succeed. But, if you say that Christ is the Son of God and act like him – you are a celibate and a pacifist – you will be destroyed.

                  I advocate Truth. If you aren’t going to act like Christ – celibacy and pacifism – then stop worshipping him.

                • jim says:


                  We are commanded to turn the other cheek and walk the extra mile, but you only have two cheeks, and it is only two miles, not unlimited miles.

                  The pacific command is “peace on earth to all men of good will“, not peace on earth to all men.

                  And by and large, for the most part, armed and armored Christians fighting wars, the european Christian tradition that the alt right intends to revive, did observe these commands. Repeatedly this put them at a disadvantage, but they were victorious anyway.

                  And, similarly Jesus on adultery.

                  In the game theoretic language of the Dark Enlightenment, we are commanded to give one tit for two tats, to take the extra step toward cooperate/cooperate. We are not commanded to reward cooperate/defect.

                • Sam Cru says:

                  I’ve been to church and nobody said, “Peace on earth to all men of good will.” And, those armed and armored Christian soldiers generally lost to relentless Muslim violence and then were crushed almost overnight by communism in Russia. Since this horrific defeat by the communists, the Christians have made the cowardly fool Tsar Nicolas II into a Saint even though he as a Tsar couldn’t even defend his children let alone his empire that God had given to him.

                • jim says:

                  > I’ve been to church and nobody said, “Peace on earth to all men of good will.”

                  Holiness spiraling and adaption to progressive post Christianity. I have to say it.

                  And, those armed and armored Christian soldiers generally lost to relentless Muslim violence

                  Reconquista. European empire in the former Islamic empire. Much of the world that was previously Muslim is now Christian due to holy Christian paladins. The war now going in the Philippines goes all the way back to the Reconquista and the Muslims there think that Charles the Hammer and the expulsion of the Mooriscos from El Andalus was yesterday. In an extract from Bin Laden’s manifesto, he is still demanding that the crusades be reversed, starting with what is now Spain and France.

                  Muslims in the Philippines think they are still fighting the crusades. Similarly, Croatia and Albania.

                  They think that soldiers of the faith were mighty effective. On the eastern arm of Dar al Islam, Muslims generally advanced, and are today holding on to what they gained, but on the western arm of Dar al Islam, they are still a long way back and are bitterly aware of it.

                • Arqiduka says:

                  Don’t know about Bosnia, but can assure you that no one in Albania is fighting the crusades in their mind. Most Albanians don’t care at all about their nominal religion, and only a minority of Muslims practice, of which a minority takes the faith seriously in the sense of considering that a primary identity factor. Where you find what seems like religious fervour among Albanians you scratch the surface and find an ethnic conflict with someone else, with religion being the fig leaf.

              • i says:

                “The pioneers were Christian, the Conquistador’s were Christian, and their Christianity gave them strength.

                You are required to walk the extra mile to seek peace, but you are not always going to get it. See my account of the pioneers in How to genocide inferior kinds in a properly Christian manner.”

                Actually most of the work is already done once they arrived with their accidental load of bio-weapons residing in their bodies.

                Then by Divine Providence those Bioweapons laid waste to the demon worship cult of the Aztecs and the rest of the Amerindian Civilizations.

                Turning them into ruins.

                Cortez played his part. But the Death Angel did most of that work.

                This paved the way for Colonization of the America’s.

                • Red says:

                  > Actually most of the work is already done once they arrived with their accidental load of bio-weapons residing in their bodies.

                  Leftist bullshit. Go read the original accounts of the conquest of Mexico.

    • pyrrhus says:

      Things are happening…The Kazak coup appears to be collapsing in the face of Russian and Chinese military intervention…I expect the Sukarno Method to be used on those “rebels” who don’t make it to a friendly border in time…

      • Varna says:

        Moscow intervened in Syria in the last possible moment, when the govt controlled like five square feet, and it took some effort to turn that around.

        This time there was no waiting. Lessons have been learned.

        China also seems to be coordinating with Russia a 100% on this issue, in spite of some expectations that this could be a ploy to use Kazakhstan as a way to turn Beijing and Moscow on each other.

        • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

          > China also seems to be coordinating with Russia a 100% on this issue, in spite of some expectations that this could be a ploy to use Kazakhstan as a way to turn Beijing and Moscow on each other.

          The former likely precisely because of the latter.

  30. yewotm8 says:

    The big graph with the “vaccinated” cases massively exceeding the “unvaccinated” cases per capita for the last few weeks is relevant here. Either the “vaccine” is making the disease worse, or the injected are more likely to exaggerate symptoms and go get a test to become officially recorded as a case. I’ve been feeling kinda sick this weekend but no way in hell am I going to go get a test and pad case numbers and give them any more excuse to continue lockdowns.

    • Varna says:

      Zinc, C, D, fluids, lots of rest, man.
      Also, soon they are apparently supposed to start laying off the PCR tests. This could be a last hurrah, at least with this particular scam.

    • jim says:

      I hear, but have not myself checked the data, that international comparisons indicate that mass “vaccination’ worsens the problem. This is consistent with the high propensity of the “vaccinated” to catch and spread the disease.

      There was never any evidence that the “vaccination” reduced the propensity to catch and spread the disease. There was substantial evidence that it reduced the likelihood of dying of the disease. It was always plausible that it increased to propensity to catch and spread the disease, and there is mounting evidence supporting that conjecture.

  31. restitutor_orbis says:

    I have been closely following Karl Denninger’s reporting on this so I knew the clot shot was turning out to be quite deadly.

    What has surprised me – but shouldn’t have, because it’s just a confirmation of Jimism – is the attitude I see among people I know in priestly circles. It really is voluntary, gleeful, willing child sacrifice.

    Yesterday on FB I read a thread made by a bunch of my old Cathedral law school graduates, who are now parents. They were all boasting about boosting their 8 to 12 year old children. And not just with text. They literally posted pictures of their kids sick on the sofa or bed, looking unhappy and sick, with comments like “Steve, 12, just got his third jab! This one has really knocked him down.” “My daughter Anna really felt this one too but I’m so glad she’s safe now!”

    If they will do that to their own children, they sure won’t hesitate to do worse to me and mine. Jim’s right, prepare for holy war.

    • The Cominator says:

      Everyone always was bitching that my views on these people was way too harsh, it clearly wasn’t harsh enough.

      However what I thought to do might not be necessary… they are doing it to themselves and their own children. It appears they are doing it to themselves.

      • Ghost says:

        I hear you TC, these vaxx maniacs need to put up against the wall or taken on a one way helicopter ride.

          • Ghost says:

            I rephrase it just for you:

            These completely safe and effective vaccine advocates should be given a stern talking to about individual rights then taken on a joyride by helicopter over the ocean to enjoy the view. In the mean time we should all keep a stiff upper lip and worry about big brother reading our blogposts while he is literally trying to kill us.

            Is that better you English faggot?

        • someDude says:

          The only way I get caught, Ghost, is that I piss off someone in power. That is the only reason why anyone in any place gets caught. No one gets caught merely for breaking the law. The laws are so numerous, we are all in violation of several of them simultaneously, enough to put any one of us away for several years. The laws are selectively applied on political enemies and personal enemies of individuals in power.

          Like every good India, I Just make sure I am in neither group which requires me merely not to be publicly vocal on the vaxxing issue. All my friends, family and colleagues think I am vaxxed and in public I’m a huge proponent of vaxxing.

          You’re going towards HellFire, Ghost, and then you are going to scream!

          • Ghost says:

            You’re the one living a lie SomeIndianDude. Lying to your friends, coworkers, family.

            I’m Baptized Christian and telling you the fraud will not work.

            You’re encouraging fraud and saying I’m going to hell for opposing you.

            • someDude says:

              You’re going to hell for being on the side of Evil regardless of what you call yourself, Baptized or otherwise

          • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

            >All my friends, family and colleagues think I am vaxxed

            Taqiyya is permissible.

            >in public I’m a huge proponent of vaxxing

            But infidelity isn’t.

            • someDude says:

              When pressed about it Psuedo, when pressed about it! I should elaborate.

              I am a huge proponent of vaxxing when I am in the company of those who are huge proponents of vaxxing! Does that sound better? The problem is that the vaxx proponents will not shut up about their holiness and keep looking zealously for converts from the opposing camp as well as fence sitters. Being a huge proponent of vaxxing in their presence makes them go away and bother someone else. It’s a bloody headache dealing with that lot, what with the state religion being on their side

              • someDude says:

                But point accepted. Not okay to support Demon worship when not under compulsion. However, I can rest easy knowing I’ve never encouraged anyone not a vaxx fanatic to get vaxxed. I’ve discouraged it to friends who are skeptics, but those I can count on one hand. I discouraged it to my parents but they wouldn’t listen. The mass in India are vaccine believers especially in my circle of people with email/Zoom class jobs and they are impervious to arguments or good sense. I’m not going to waste time arguing with them or opposing them.

                All in all, a poor choice of words with insufficient elaboration. My Bad. Chalk it down to my enthusiasm at posting here.

              • Sam Cru says:


          • The Cominator says:

            Agreed with Wulfgar pretending to be jabbed is permissible because of the horrid situation. Its better to be an open pureblood but I wouldn’t ask someone to sacrifice everything for that.

            Its NOT OKAY to actively support demon worship in any way, especially when you aren’t under direct compulsion. Typical fucking Indian.

            • The Cominator says:

              I meant agreed with Pseudo…

            • someDude says:

              Relax Com, read my elaboration to Pseudo. You’re too fast to fly off the handle. You won’t survive too long in a warrior society that way. You’ll pick too many fights and get beheaded in short order. There is a reason that armed societies are polite societies. You’re too quick to call names and you are too ill mannered.

              • The Cominator says:

                “I am a huge proponent of vaxxing when I am in the company of those who are huge proponents of vaxxing! Does that sound better?”

                So what about social media, you didn’t say anything in support there.

                Also its still not okay just remain silent and if they ask the only lie you should say is ah sure you know I got vaxxed. Going beyond that isn’t permissible. It is unforgivable demon worship to actively join in the holiness spiral.

                • someDude says:

                  I got rid of all my social media accounts. This is the only place I post and spend some time reading. I post here because I find Jim’s philosophy very refreshing and very life giving. I know most of you are not fans of Indians, but thats okay. The amount I get to learn from Jim is enormous and makes it all worth it.

                  The point is I have a lot of work that needs to be done during the day, too many responsibilities to fulfil. I just don’t have the time or energy to argue with these folk as it drains me. And now that I actually got on the database, I just don’t want my contact people getting in trouble if rando fanatics suspect that things are not 100% halal. I don’t even want to think about snitches. What bothered me about this entire Covid thing is that close friends who I thought I knew, who I thought had a libertarian bent of mind, who I thought shared my distrust of government went nuts on the vaxxing.

                  I don’t want randos to know that I am a vaccine skeptic just like I don’t want randos to know I own crypto. My family knows I am a skeptic though they think I still got vaxxed. But they are hardly likely to report me even if they suspect.

                  No one’s joining the holiness spiral here. Each is practicing self defense and self preservation as he understands it.

                • someDude says:

                  Like Jim, I used to be a libertarian when younger. I’ve wasted too much of my youth arguing with people and its just such a waste of time. I don’t think I converted even one person but earned lots of hostility.

                  Not one person explained the problem with libertarianism the way moldbug did. Their main objection to libertarianism was, I want to be taken care of and I want people to be forced to do so.

                  Now with much more at stake, no arguments with covid fanatics about the futility of vaccines. And no more arguments with Gold bugs or power worshippers about Crypto. Especially given the morbid existential fear with which India’s central bank sees crypto. They will literally kill to maintain their monopoly on issuing money.

                  If I see a potential tribesman, I will recognize him and I can share what I know. Otherwise it is a waste of time and energy. I write off 90% of Indians the way Jim writes off 66% of whites.

            • Sam Cru says:

              “Its better to be an open pureblood but I wouldn’t ask someone to sacrifice everything for that.”

              I would and I do this. If you’re not willing to sacrifice everything for the Truth then you are just a slave to the Lie. All of this is happening because nearly every man is a pathetic coward unwilling to sacrifice even the pillow cushion his fat butt is sitting in.

              • The Cominator says:

                I sympathize with the sentiment and I’m more like you then most here… but I can understand faking compliance rather than losing everything.

                What is unforgivable and what I advocate the most ruthless policy here of anyone towards… is actively serving the lie.

      • Varna says:

        As Anglin said many times, once a society accepts as a virtue doping up their kids for their own good, turning their kids gay was the next obvious step, castrating their kids — the obvious step after that, and sacrificing them — the obvious culmination.

        It’s a ride that once you get on it, only goes into one direction.

      • pyrrhus says:

        It’s difficult to be too harsh when describing demonic actions, and the humans performing them….

    • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

      That is what I am afraid of. If that is what they are like, then we are going to have to be a lot more brutal and more thorough than I had hoped.

      • The Cominator says:

        Wulf I told you and everyone else here that this is what they were like… though the I boosted my kid shocks even me.

        But it actually means we DONT have to be as brutal because they are suiciding themselves.

        • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

          The “I boosted my kid” does not shock me. It just means that they took a step down a path where there is no turning back. There is a difference between being a priest in an insane leftist purity spiral, and being a priest in a human sacrifice death cult. Once human sacrifice starts, the whole thing has to go. You have to do what Cortez did to the Aztecs and Rome did to the Carthaginians. Once a death cult forms, there is no mercy. It is holy war in eternity until the entire priesthood is dead. That is why my attitude has changed. The game just changed pretty radically, and I am not one to allow sentiment to blind myself to necessity.

    • Mister Grumpus says:

      Jim nailed this in his take on pre-Exodus (brown socialist) Egypt.

      As naturally perceived by normal envious people, if a sub-culture in the population (the unvaxxed today, or Hebrews in ancient Egypt) isn’t suffering the ills of decline, then they must be the ones causing it.

      If these guys’ kids get fucked up by the vaxx, then boy will they be mad, and not at himself most likely.

      Cathedral needs to stop all Covid testing so that they can blame all the excess death on the unvaxxed. Take this back to dark ages witchcraft territory. The science has changed again.

    • Tityrus says:

      Is it? Those parents think the clot shot is safe. They think that even though so many people have side effects because they are NPCs and that is crimethink.

      So your Facebook boomer friends are not voluntarily, gleefully, willingly sacrificing, rather they are being sacrificed.

      • The Cominator says:

        Your shitlib old friends and relatives are evil people and they need to go. This kind of weak sentimental attitude is why we can’t win. Its cuckservatism by other means.

        • Tityrus says:

          What restitutor_orbis is implying is just not tenable. These people are not doing human sacrifice: they got the shot themselves, they think the shot is helping them, they are too far in the bubble to be able to see any conflicting view and too dumb and normie to figure out something is wrong by themselves. They are victims. They are hurting their children, but they do not want to hurt their children, they only do it because they’re being deceived.

          Also, I don’t have any shitlib friends or relatives. Like, none, except for shallow acquaintances. This is despite not being an Amerikaner. If the Cominator Solution were carried out it would not affect my social circle at all. I still think it’s wrong.

          • Pooch says:

            This is a good point. The elites are doing human sacrifice willingly. They know people are dying from the shot as Jim points out in his post. Your typical midwit urbanite shitlib in metroplex USA cannot even fathom for a second that the shots might be harmful. They are in complete and utter awe of The Science. That’s not willful human sacrifice. That’s just drinking the koolaid that the cult leader hands out.

      • Guy says:

        Jim suggested earlier that the cult of Moloch thought they were helping their children when they were passed through the fire. I can’t find much that gives insight into the mind of a child sacrificing cult member, but it sounds right. A parent who loses a child in war is of course sad, but also often proud, especially when society heaps accolades on them, similarly here. Any part of their mind that acknowledges their child died of side effects from the vaccine will say that it was bound to happen to some people and their child died doing their part to save humanity from COVID. That will be buried deep under the narratives of “long COVID” and “antivaxxer super spreaders” in their consciousness, but it’s there.

        Just look at the way they share stories of their sick kids post vaccine. It’s mass munchausen’s by proxy

        • Tityrus says:

          A parent who loses a child in war will be proud if they think the war is just or at least necessary, but they will feel differently if they see it as an unnecessary or unjust war, or if they are dissidents or pacifists etc. Same here. A parent who loses a child to vax side effects, will only feel a certain pride if they think Covid is scary and dangerous. Delusion is still the major factor.

        • SJE says:

          “Jim suggested earlier that the cult of Moloch thought they were helping their children when they were passed through the fire.”

          I hadn’t seen that before, but my is that interesting. I have been thinking recently about the biblical accounts of Moloch sacrifice, and how they seem fanciful, otherworldly, unreal by our standards. Lately, I was already at the point of finding them much more believable than I ever have, and that’s the clincher, right there.

  32. Prince Charming says:

    [*allowing this pile of shill stuff through because it is new and specifically targeted at us, rather than a standard script repetitiously pasted into every forum everywhere*]

    There is a palpable demand for Jimianity, but Jimianity is not ready. The holy war has gotten hot, and we have a faith that is half a millennium past its sale-by date. No-one who takes Christ seriously, believes; no-one who believes takes Christ seriously.

    [*Shill spin on Christianity. We do not believe those “Jesus Jesus Jesus I love Jesus” Christians. Shills pretend that those guys are the real Christianity. They are not.

    Maybe nobody takes Christ seriously any more, but it is is obviously not the case that “no one who takes Christ serious believes in Jimianity” Rather, those who reject Old Type Christianity, also reject Christ, while loudly proclaiming to accept Jesus – meaning Jesus the Jewish community organizer of the Socinians, or are outright demon worshipers accepting the Serpent Christ celebrated by the Vatican.

    I have noticed that those who say “Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, salvation, salvation” all the time to subvert the right by pushing prog “””Christianity””” are unable to make the affirmation. Therefore not Christians.

    Jesus Christ is Lord, born in Bethlehem, died at Jerusalem, and is, is from before the beginning of the world. Fully God and fully man. God is three and God is one.

    If you are not a Trinitarian you do not take Christ seriously, however loudly and often you say “I love Jesus Jesus salvation salvation”

    The claim to take Christ seriously is most plausible, or least implausible, coming from Jimians and Old Type Christians because only we can speak the words of the creeds that proclaim the doctrine of the trinity. Those who claim to take Christ seriously yet reject the startlingly reactionary content of Old Type Christianity, are shills and entryists, as revealed by their inability to state the positions of Christian councils in the old words.

    Christians have spilled rivers of blood over the Trinity, and were right to do so, and may well have to do it again soon. I pray we can avoid this happening again, for it was utterly horrific.

    If anyone takes Christ seriously, which today is open to considerable doubt, it is the Jimians, who have no need to announce their seriousness as loudly and frequently as possible, since it is absolutely obvious we are serious about Old Type Christianity*]

    Jim is bootstrapping old Christianity (+ beatification of Darwin) from pure Darwinism. Why is Darwinism not enough as a popular faith? Why is filling the stars with our progeny not enough?

    [*Good question, and one that has been asked not only shills but by loyalists.

    And the answer is: In one on one interactions, you need the biggest alpha of them all standing behind you, upholding your tribe and your tribal cohesion. Been there, done that

    Darwinism by itself is not enough, because it fails to distinguish between making a commitment to cooperate/cooperate in order to achieve cooperate/cooperate, and making a commitment to cooperate/cooperate in order to accomplish cooperate/defect.

    Christianity is an effective social technology for accomplishing cooperate/cooperate. Darwinism by itself is not.

    Old Type Scientific method was a social technology of cooperation in pursuit of truth, and worked because of a state Church that endorsed that form of cooperation, and a sovereign that socially enforced that form of cooperation by making it high status, and competing ways of supposedly finding truth low status*]

    There is an unarticulated conflict between The Cominator’s horror of NPCs succeptibility to modern propaganda, and Jim categorically refusing that social technology has advanced since the Bronze Age Collapse.

    [*This a shill spin on the Jimian position. Old Type Scientific method is a major advance in social technology. Double entry book keeping resulting in the enterprise being capable of acting as a real person, being a group of real people acting as one person, is a major advance in social technology. The enterprise as a publicly traded joint stock enterprise is a major advance in social technology. I propose a return to seventeenth century social technology, not thirteenth century before Christ social technology, and have repeatedly said that the highest and best social technology was that which gave us science, industrialization, and world empire.

    On the other hand, early Bronze age technology on family and marriage was pretty good, and for us to survive, let alone fill the stars, we have to return to at least seventeenth century Christian social technology on marriage and family, and preferably tenth century Christian social technology on family and marriage. Women do not like contractual marriage, and their pussys just do not comprehend it. The sacrament has to be “with this ring I thee wed”, not “I do”. Mohammed was right about women, and so was King Solomon.

    All the Christian rules on sex, marriage, and family need to be understood and interpreted in the context of the final commandment, and as elaborations of particular cases of the final commandment.

    Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour’s wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour’s house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour’s.*]
    I say that you underestimate propaganda because you do not understand propaganda, you dismiss and trivialize it, because you are bad at it.
    [*I am very good at it. I trivialize propaganda directed at the masses, and propaganda directed at the official elite. Get your idea to the best, the true aristocracy, the masses do not matter, and in the long run, which is getting shorter by the day, the best will beat the official elite, which is self destructing, the only question being will they exterminate the best first, as they swiftly did in Khmer Rouge Cambodia, and rather more slowly did in many other times and places.*]

    Bernays has brought propaganda to a new level, game being one of the applications of the new science.

    [*Shill meme. Our enemies are supposedly terribly smart.

    No they are not.

    Facebook, Twitter, and company, are applying Bernays. They are fools, and so is Bernays. It is powerful because backed by power, not by clever science. Lies self destruct eventually, and are self destructing now. It is not that they are clever propagandists, it is that they have a thousand megaphones turned up to maximum. Their propaganda is stupid, and getting stupider, because they are stupid and getting stupider, and the stupider it gets, the louder and more omnipresent it gets to compensate. It is barely adequate to dupe the masses, and the masses will not suffice.*]

    You are telling me that a religion must limit its lies to [wink & nudge] the unfalsifiable, but that is not something one can sell to post-moderns, they will immediately see through you,

    [*This is a standard shill metameme, that your dead worn out memes are terribly powerful and terribly popular. Claiming that postmodernism still lives is as absurd as telling me that socialism is hugely popular with the oppressed proletariat, that everyone agrees on the obvious truth of cultural Marxism, and that that everyone saw Trade Tower Building Seven suddenly fall straight down onto its foundations like a demolition for no apparent reason.

    Post modernism is dead in the water, a disintegrating stinking corpse falling apart, and our enemy is flailing around for a substitute, as the Roman empire flailed around for a substitute when old type paganism died. Post Modernism, Socialism, and Old Type Marxism are long dead, and Cultural Marxism is on life support in intensive care, though still shouted through a thousand loudspeakers. Our enemy’s substitutes are worship of metaphorical and literal demons, which could never compete with real Christianity. We are not up against Postmodernism any more, have not been for a very long time. We are up against Serpent Christ and the Mighty and Awesome Covid Demon.*]

    and besides, more importantly, the current social engineering technology level is defined by the ability of telling obvious lies constantly and still maintaining the desired contrary belief in the subject. “It means that it’s working.”, “Kids get heart attacks, too.”

    You cannot be squeamish about the big lie,

    [*the big lie never worked, and Hitler never thought it worked, except as a desperate short term measure. Social Justice Warriors always project. They are projecting their incapacity at propaganda onto their enemies. Our enemies, embarrassed by the moronic incompetence of their propaganda, attribute their incompetence to the defeated left factions that their more competent predecessors defeated.

    Hitler, however, correctly attributed the big lie to his left enemies within Germany whom he defeated. His propaganda was superior, for it did not use that foolish tactic of desperation. He was not projecting, but you are. The big lie is not clever scientific propaganda, it is Bernays level ignorance and incompetence. It failed before, I expect it to fail again.*]

    if you want to base your religion on one. You have to be brazen about it, or I cannot sell it.

    [*”Hail fellow reactionary.”

    You are no reactionary. These are shill memes. Allowing them through because they are higher quality shill memes that have been specifically customized and created for us. This is the genuine conversation with shills I have been looking for and not getting*]

    And do not pretend you can maintain the wink & nudge: as Jim has pointed out many times, history shows that the next generation never gets the joke. If we pretend to be “culturally christian” or whatever sufficiently enough for it to work as a good social tech, our children will be true believers, and they will look at our writing and say that we obviously took christianity literally, same as Jim says that premodern writers obviously didn’t.

    [*Our children will take Christianity as Saint Augustine did. These days, the only biblical literalists are obvious shills. That has not always been the case in the history of Christianity, but it has been the case a great deal of the time throughout the entire history of Christianity. The Jews of the time of Jesus took the law literally in order to evade the spirit and intent of the law, modern “””Christian””” literalists take the bible literally for much the same purpose, and the same tactic has been regularly and repetitiously applied throughout all of history by shills and entryists as for example, the regular iconoclast eruptions.*]

    Then again, as Plato so eloquently points out in his reductio ad absurdum in The Republic, you cannot liberate a people based on a big lie, a big lie needs a constant gardener.

    [*Nah, the longer he gardens that big lie, the more barren his garden becomes. And right now your garden is getting mighty barren.
    That is how the National Socialist left faction defeated the International Socialist left faction in Germany.

    And that is how the Dark Enlightenment defeats you.*]

    The purebloods are ripe and ready. They are hungry for a new evangelium. They are in the market for a religion, but they are discerning customers, the now-waning age of free Internet has made them so. I sense that if we do not fill the void now, they will come on board with a syncretic New Age secular corona religion, perhaps in the vein of the Georgia Guidestones. Perhaps, this has been the plan all along.

    [*The Georgia Guidestones were a run at an openly post Christian substitute for Christianity, substituting the Club of Rome and “””the International Community”””. You guys have been running those memes for forty years. How is that working out for you?*]

    • Tityrus says:

      As for religion, it would perhaps be relevant to jot down how I’m thinking of it right now. Religion’s primary function does not lie in dispensing isolated pieces of good advice: it has to offer a conception of the moral ideal. The perceptions that this or that thing is good are, so to speak, its raw data: but, if the religion is healthy and imaginative, it will turn these isolated perceptions into a unified conception of the good in general, of “what is good” in the very widest sense. Instead of the goods being random and conflicting, under religious guidance they are ordered and harmonious, because they emanate from a single, central good. Religions are thoughts that compel us to take life seriously.

      I might as well quote a long passage that expresses this thought well, from Santayana (whom I’ve been reading a lot lately and who is amazingly insightful on the topic of religion).

      Phenomena had for Plato existence without reality, that is, without intelligibility or value. They were a mere appearance. We need not be surprised, then, that he refused altogether to construct a theology by the poetic interpretation of phenomena and preferred to construct one allegorically out of his moral conceptions, the good and the ideal. Aristotle, too, while adhering incidentally, as we have seen, to a purified astronomical theology, capped this with a purified moral theology of his own. The Platonic picture-gallery of ideas, with the abstract principle of excellence that unified them, gave place in his philosophy to an Ideal realized in the concrete and existing as an individual. We may venture to say that among the thinkers of all nations Aristotle was the first to reach the conception of what may fitly be called God. Neither the national deity of the Hebrews, as then conceived, nor the natural deities of the Gentiles, nor the half-physical, half-logical abstractions of the earlier Greek philosophers really corresponded to the notion of a being spiritual, personal, and perfect, immutable without being abstract, and omnipotent without effort and without degradation. Aristotle first constructed this ideal, not out of his fancy, but by building on the solid ground of human nature and following to their point of union the lines which moral aspiration and effort actually follow. Nay, the ideal he pointed to was to be the goal not of human life only but of natural life in all its forms. The analytic study of Nature (a study which at the same time must be imaginative and sympathetic) could guide us to the conception of her inner needs and tendencies and of what their proper fulfilment would be. We could then see that this fulfilment would lie in intelligence and thought. Growth is for the sake of the fruition of life, and the fruition of life consists in the pursuit and attainment of objects. The moral virtues belong to the pursuit, the intellectual to the attainment. Knowledge is the end of all endeavour, the justification and fulfilment of all growth. Intelligence is the clarification of love.

      A being, then, whose life should be a life of pure and complete knowledge, would embody the goal toward which all Nature strives. When we ponder duly the short phrases in which Aristotle propounds his conception of God we find that he has called up before us the noblest possible object of human thought, the presentiment of that thought’s perfect fulfilment. There is no alloy of naturalism in this conception, and at the same time no suspicion of irrelevancy. This God is not a mere title of honour for the psycho-physical universe, confusedly conceived and lumped together; he is an ultra-mundane ideal, to be an inviolate standard and goal for all moving reality. Yet he is not irrelevant to the facts and forces of the world, not the dream of an abstracted poet. He is an idea which reality everywhere evokes in evoking its own deepest craving and need. Nothing is so pertinent and momentous in life as the object we are trying to attain by thought or action, since that object is the source of our inspiration and the standard of our success. Thus Aristotle’s God is not superfluous, not invented. This theology is a true idealism, I mean an idealism itself purely ideal, which establishes the authority of human demands, ethical, and logical, without impugning the existence or efficacy of that material universe which it endows with a meaning and a standard.

      Yet this rational conception, the natural out-growth of the Socratic philosophy, establishes a dualism between the actual and the ideal against which the human mind easily rebels. Aristotle himself was hardly faithful to it. He tried to prove the existence of his God, and existence is something quite irrelevant to an ideal. This confusion is very excusable, especially in an age when the strictly mechanical view of Nature still seemed hopelessly inadequate. Aristotle consequently tried to understand the natural world by viewing it systematically from the point of view of moral science, as Plato had done less coherently in his myths; and hence came what we must regard as the great error of Aristotle’s philosophy, the belief in the efficacy of final causes and in the preëxistence of entelechies. But, apart from this unhappy question of existence, which is, as we have said, irrelevant to an ideal, Aristotle’s conception of God remains, perhaps, the most philosophical that has yet been constructed. Without any concessions to sentiment or superstition, it presents us with a sublime vision of the essentially human, of a nature as free from an unworthy anthropomorphism as from an inhuman abstractness. It is made both human and superhuman by the same principle of idealization. It is the final cause of Nature and man, the realization of their imminent upward effort, the essence that would contain all their values and escape all their imperfections.

      • jim says:

        > I might as well quote a long passage that expresses this thought well, from Santayana (whom I’ve been reading a lot lately and who is amazingly insightful on the topic of religion).

        Santayana is an enemy, and he is full of bullshit, and if you keep dumping his enemy payload on this blog, I am going to put you back on moderation to stop the waste of space on huge enemy payloads of rubbish that are not worth fisking.

        Your lengthy dump of enemy payload is just too tedious and stupid for me to fisk.

        Please go to the trouble of customizing enemy payload for our memes and our struggle. This enemy payload is designed as an attack on Protestantism and latin mass Roman Catholicism, and is just not worth our time to address.

        The dump is tediously lengthy pile of well known and uncontroversial truths, that carry at their center a small payload of poisoned lies into the minds of their targets. Except that we are the wrong target.

        • Tityrus says:

          Sorry, I did not realize you still think this. I thought you would have realized you made a silly mistake in our discussion a few weeks ago, being intellectually honest and not stubborn to a fault, but I guess I was wrong.

          As I said, I’ve been reading Santayana a lot recently and I simply see no sign of him being an enemy. Literally no enemy payload anywhere. I cannot prove a negative, but neither do you have any evidence for your assertion that there are poisoned lies lurking in his works. You said there are poisoned lies there, and I made a point of looking, and they are not there. Maybe this kind of writing is not for you— I understand you’re not quite a contemplative type and perhaps the tempo goes a little too slow for you to catch the gist. Does not mean it is “full of bullshit”.

          “Attack on Latin mass Roman Catholicism”, as well as being ludicrous biographically, is also anachronistic, Santayana’s dates being somewhat earlier than the Vatican II anti-Latin Mass movement. And now you are probably going to postulate a secret anti-Latin Mass movement for which the Spanish-American expatriate philosopher George Santayana was the chosen propagandist, which propaganda was intended to seep into the Roman Catholic Church through the medium of subtle hints buries in dreamy, poetical, but perceptive philosophical essays written in English by an atheist philosopher of the American pragmatist tradition. All this on the basis of, again, zero evidence.

          It is true, Santayana was not a Protestant, or a Catholic, and being a good philosopher he did not think those religions exempt from critical analysis (not criticism) from any angle. Well, the same could be said of you. The same could be said of Spinoza, and Hume, and the theologians, and a hundred other pillars of the intellectual culture of the West.

          With all respect, I cannot conceive why or how you have stubbornly held on to this ridiculous view that the works of George Santayana are leftist poison. Did the quote I posted a few weeks ago hit a nerve? If so, I did not mean it, of course. If you read the chapter it comes from you can see it means no malice.

          And I dare say you would have found much to admire in the passage I quoted, if I had forgotten to mention the name of the author.

          • jim says:

            > As I said, I’ve been reading Santayana a lot recently and I simply see no sign of him being an enemy. Literally no enemy payload anywhere.

            Number One enemy payload: Many unrelated rootless Christianities, rather than one single thread of faith rooted back to before Bronze Age civilization went decadent. As I said, from the eleventh to the sixteenth century, he would have been killed for that.

            The value of that payload to the enemies of Christianity, the Dark Enlightenment, and the alt right, is that they can dump all that Trinitarian stuff that has been a powerful bulwark against them for two millennia. They can have a brand new Christianity that is just as Christian as that frightening and alien old Christianity that is full of words and phrases that they are strangely unable to speak.

            Today, I see this thread of enemy payload weaponized against us with all the post Christians proclaiming “Jesus, Jesus, Salvation, Salvation, I take Christianity more seriously than you do, I take the bible more seriously than you do, I accept Jesus more seriously than you do”. But they cannot say the words of trinity, so they do not take Christ as seriously as I do, though I am frequently and all too accurately accused of not taking him very seriously at all.

            The point and purpose of this operation, all too successful, is post Christian entryism against Christianity, to replace it with something rooted in twenty first century progressivism, rather than rooted in the Bronze Age before it went decadent, as in the early nineteenth century the post Christian, non trinitarian Socinians took over the official state Church of England from Christians. That operation worked, and ever since then they have been deploying it against every Christian group, with considerable success. Back then it was Socinians, now it is still partly Socinians, but primarily outright demon worshipers. The Socinians can say “Jesus is Lord”, without catching on fire, because they have in mind Jesus the Jewish community organizer, but they cannot says “Jesus Christ”. The outright demon worshipers can say “Jesus Christ”, though they don’t like to, because they have in mind the serpent Christ, an incarnation of Satan prophesied in the book of revelations as the demon worshipers interpret it, but they cannot say the Trinitarian words any more than the Socinians can. They cannot speak of that Christ.

            Number Two payload: Christianity is really about what our enemies wish it was about, rather than what it is about. They can have a brand new Christianity that ditches all those dangerous thoughts that have now been deemed unthinkable crime thought.

            And there are no end of additional enemy payloads, all of them being deployed against Christians of all denominations right now, but I am not going to waste time fisking this pile of enemy cow manure.

            Putting you back on moderation for argument from false consensus: “I thought you would have realized you made a silly mistake in our discussion a few weeks ago, being intellectually honest and not stubborn to a fault, but I guess I was wrong.”

            If you had presented a counter argument to the facts and evidence that I marshaled against your enemy payload, you might have been forgiven for supposing that, but instead you just pursue the shill tactic of ignoring opposing evidence and arguments, and in due course sailing right ahead as if they had never been made and everyone totally accepted your version of reality.

            You cannot assume you have changed people’s minds, unless you engage what they have said disputing your position. To do so is argument from false consensus.

            Assuming an interlocutor’s position that is directly contrary to his firmly stated and vigorously argued position, without even attempting to engage his arguments, is the shill tactic of argument of argument from false consensus.

            I made arguments that Santayana is an enemy propagandist of the left sent to smash Christianity in order to destroy cohesion on the left. You cannot just sail cheerfully ahead as if no one thinks that he is an enemy propagandist of the left sent to destroy Right Christian cohesion. You have to make a counter argument, or else act as if your interlocutor has made the unchallenged and undisputed claim, which being unchallenged and undisputed must be taken as true, at least for the purpose of discussion, that Santayana is an enemy propagandist of the left sent to smash Christianity.

            You can discuss things in the frame that your interlocutors claims are unchallenged, and therefore can be taken as true. Or if you just challenge some of his claims, that sort of implies you are challenging all of his claims, but they are too many to deal with each one, and you can postpone disputing some of them until it becomes relevant. But if you leave it completely unchallenged, it is argument by false consensus to then sail right ahead as if we had had the debate and you completely won.

            You can just say it is not so, and leave it there. But having left it there, you cannot resume operations on the presupposition that he now agrees with you.

            I get angry when people use manipulative tactics, and just calmly assuming that I agree with something that I have disputed at length and spent far too much time marshaling evidence and arguments against, evidence and arguments that you have never made any counter argument against, nor marshaled any counter evidence against, is a grossly and insultingly manipulative tactic.

            • Tityrus says:

              Santayana actually argues for number one. But number one can only be used as an enemy payload if combined with number two. The arguments of all entryists goes like this: [*deleted*]

              • jim says:

                That is not the entryist payload. It is nothing remotely like the entryists payload against Christianity.

                That is an enemy distortion of fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth century Protestantism, and framing Protestantism as having that position, which distorts the Protestant position in subtle but important ways is itself entryist payload. It is sort of the truth about Protestant roots, but the truth told in a way that presupposes and implies a lie so blatant, so full of hatred, that it could never fly if said in plain words up front. But this vicious and dishonest attack on one branch of Christianity is a complete digression, which is why I deleted it rather than answering it. So, getting back to entryism:

                The current entryist position was recently expressed in a little exchange between Pope Francis and an Old type Roman Catholic.

                The Roman Catholic taxed Pope Francis with the fact that the Vatican was full of a bunch of priests who have sex together in a great big pile, to which Pope Francis replied consenting adults, Climate Change.

                Climate Change?

                Pope Francis was explaining that new improved Christianity is no longer rooted in that horrible stuff where early iron age shepherds would stone to death a man who lay with a male as with a woman, but in late twentieth century progress.

                And the entryist argument that you and Santayana are making is the foundation of Pope Francis’s new and improved Roman Catholicism, of his right to introduce a new and improved Roman Catholicism without roots in the past.

                And you are using the troofer tactic. When someone rebuts one of your lies, you, instead of responding to his rebuttal, distract him with a brand new lie, or twenty brand new lies, and will in due course move back to assuming that everyone agrees with the lie that you successfully distracted your interlocutor from.

                I am not so easily manipulated. Don’t pull these tactics on me.

                I am not allowing your argument through because it is not an argument, but a distraction, yet another chunk of Santayana’s enemy payload to distract me from the enemy payload in dispute.

                You are pulling the same trick as a troofer. I say that Building seven fell down for the obvious and expected reason, and did not fall down on its foundations, to which the troofer responds, by presenting supposedly as evidence that building seven suddenly and inexplicably fell down on its foundation, an “argument” that presupposes that there was no commercial airliner sized and shaped entrance hole in the Pentagon. We are not going to discuss the protestant reformation, we are going to discuss twenty first century entryism.

                • Tityrus says:

                  [*Deleted in its entirety for presupposing that which is disputed.*]

                • jim says:

                  Same old same old.

                  Get some new material. I don’t respond to old tactics repeated.

                  I have rebutted all this utterly absurd nonsense repeatedly, and you just sail right on assuming that everyone agrees with all of it. This is just my conversations with the troofers all over again.

                • Tityrus says:

                  This is astonishing. I suppose I know now what kind of posts show up as [*Deleted*].

                  I did not presuppose what was disputed. I was making arguments for it. These arguments were completely legitimate. If you don’t think so, please make counter-arguments, because I am arguing in complete good faith.

                  [*deleted for not arguing in good faith*]

                • jim says:

                  You are not arguing in good faith. You are using manipulative methods to evade the argument and these manipulative methods have become repetitious.

                  Were I to respond to your words, my response would be to say much the same as I have already said repeatedly. This is a waste of space. We are retreading the same ground over and over and over.

                  “varieties of Christianity”. These are not varieties of Christianity, and I have explained why far too many times and am not going to explain yet again.

                  But, since you protest your innocence. I will allow one post through it its entirety, and fisk it, not as a rational argument, but as the attempt to manipulate that I expect that it will be.

                  You say I am deleting unfairly. Therefore I will allow your stuff through one more time so that people can see if I delete unfairly.

                  I am unlikely to respond to your arguments. Rather I will expain why they are manipulations and distractions that I expect that they will be.

                  Put your best foot forward this time. Your previous effort “the entryist argument is always” utterly outraged me, seeing as I had repeatedly stated the actual entryist arguments. I am still mighty pissed by those words. What you asserted the entryist argument to be was the Christian argument, and indeed the argument that I have made over and over against your recycling of this worn out repetitious material.

                • The Cominator says:

                  RE are there not variations of christianity though, I consider Catholicism to be uniformly demon worship but I don’t consider Orthodoxy or Evangelical Protestantism (though both are weak and have McJesus) demon worship but they are very different.

                • jim says:

                  There are indeed variants of Christianity. The problem lies in categorizing them in ways that presuppose their various claims to continuity with the single thread running from the bronze age to the present is irrelevant nonsense, and simply failing to address those claims as if nobody thought it mattered or took it seriously.

                  When I argue with Roman Catholics, they claim a continuity of Popes starting with Saint Peter. Orthodoxy claims continuity with the not at all papal organization of the early Church, which claim is true. Early Protestantism claimed continuity with doctrines and practices that had been corrupted, which claim is also true, or was originally also true, though various tendencies within Protestantism, notably the Puritans, holiness spiraled on that claim, which holiness spiraling eventually became pulling radically new doctrine and practices out of their asses.

                  Thus the Puritan attack on marriage started out with the perfectly true claim that it was actually a pagan Roman sacrament that the Christians swiped. But though they swiped it, Paul endorses wholesale swiping of existing healthy prosocial customs, and for near two millenia, the Communion of the Saints endorsed this cheerful pillage.

                  Similarly, the Puritan war on Christmas that continues to this day. It is not true that Christmas was just Christians swiping Saturnalia, but it surely is true that it came in well after the early Church, and about the time that Christians found themselves the official priesthood and in charge of such celebrations. It is not true that they just swiped Saturnalia but it is true that on rather thin grounds they came up with a religious observance that served the same social needs and gave it a date to occupy a rather similar place in the Calendar. Fact is, that the early Church conjured up a rather good Christian background for a festival that matters and that we should continue to observe, and it has been around for long enough that anyone who rejects it is rejecting Christianity as traditionally understood, just as anyone who rejects the sacrament of marriage is rejecting Christianity as traditionally understood.

                  It is one thing to reject such innovations as indulgences and papal supremacy over Kings. It is another thing to reject such very ancient, excellent, essential, and healthy innovations as Christmas and marriage, and not very long after rejecting Christmas and marriage, the ever more heretical successors to the Puritans were rejecting the divinity of Christ.

                  We can dispute such stuff, and such disputes are appropriate. What is not appropriate is presupposing that these debates are irrelevant, fake, and no one takes them seriously. And what is even less appropriate is to go right on presupposing that they are irrelevant, fake and no one takes seriously when I am arguing that they matter a great deal.

                • Tityrus says:

                  What can I do? We are talking about an author. I have read him, you refuse to read him. [*I don’t have to eat all of an egg to know that it is rotten. This stuff is readily recognizable as part of the entryist attack on Christianity*]Your main argument that he is a leftist, is that his contention that Christianity’s soul, and not just its body, has gone through drastic alterations over history is a leftist lie only a leftist would tell.[*This is almost the opposite of my argument. You are being unresponsive. You are evading the arguments that I actually do make by raising irrelevancies, trivia, and distractions*] I say it’s only a leftist meme when combined with assumptions not present in Santayana. [*That is not the important thing you said. You attributed the Christian assumptions and arguments to the shills, and your shill argument to the Christians, and that is what outraged me. When you said Santayana’s argument is only leftist when combined with assumptions he forcefully rejects, you are saying that it is only leftist if Christianity is not the hateful parody that Santayana depicts it as, and since everyone, including Christians, including me, knows and accepts that hateful lie is true, therefore Santayana’s argument is not leftist. And indeed it is completely true that if everyone, including me, already accepted the pile of angry hateful hostile lies that you and Santayana take for granted, then Santayana’s position would not be leftist. A perfectly valid, powerful and convincing argument, assuming I agree with what I have repeatedly and passionately disagreed with repetitiously and at great length*] You say that those assumptions are obviously in Santayana. How can you know what assumptions are present in Santayana if you haven’t read him? [*because you and Santayana endless and repetitious slide those assumptions in as fake consensus. No matter what you are ostensibly talking about, no matter what argument you ostensibly make, no matter what you pretend to be talking about, the argument presupposes the hateful enemy lies that I keep repetitious denouncing. I have denounced them too many times already at far too much length, and am not going to do it yet again*] You have already blundered in this way. You implied he believed in progress, while anybody who knows anything about him knows that he most emphatically did not believe in (political) progress. [*Did I imply that? I certainly did not actually say it. That is an honest or malicious misreading of what I wrote (not because I doubt that he believes in progress, no matter what you or he may say) but because irrelevant to the arguments that I have been repeatedly making over and over and over again at excessive length, and irrelevant to the arguments that you and he have been furtively sliding in as uncontroversial shared universally accepted assumptions. You might well have plausibly suspected that I think he believes in progress. I do think he does, but that is not a claim I made, nor a claim I care about, nor a claim I would bother defending. Quite possibly he does not believe in progress, for nothing in his arguments depends on or presupposes progress, but what he does care about is destroying Christianity in the service of our enemies*] And, because you did not read, you seem to think the claim has to do with institutional continuity, as if anybody takes Roman Catholic continuity from Peter seriously. [*And there you go again. Rivers of blood have been spilled on that issue by people who accept it, or violently reject it. So yes, it is a claim that Catholics take seriously, and other people find important to repudiate. In both cases, lethally.*] No, he’s talking about [*Bullshit. Lies. You are lying. He is lying. That is not what he and you and you are actually talking about. What he is purportedly talking about is irrelevant magicians patter, a mere irrelevant distraction. They payload is not what he is ostensibly talking about. The payload is what you just said “As if anyone takes Roman Catholic continuity from Peter seriously”. The real substance of the actual argument that you and he are actually making is not what you are purportedly talking about, but that neither protestants, nor Orthodox, nor Roman Catholics think that it matters. We all think it matters a great deal.*] is not what the religion in its “spiritual” side, the part that is rationally operative, which influences the mental environment in which we live. There is a soul behind the doctrine and the institutions. He says in Interpretations of Poetry and Religion, “poetry is called religion when it intervenes in life, and religion, when it merely supervenes upon life, is seen to be nothing but poetry.” If I recall, you have said something similar, that the Bible is not literal truth but religious poetry. He brings home the point, in his discussion of Catholicism, chapter VII, with, “any one who enters a Catholic church with an intelligent interpreter will at once perceive the immense distance which separates that official and impersonal ritual from the daily prayers and practices of Catholic people”. He would know, of course. [*That claim, whether true or false, whether relevant or irrelevant, is just the magician waving his right hand around to distract attention from what the magicians left hand is up to. I don’t care. You don’t care. Santayana cares less than anyone. That is not the payload, that is just to distract the reader from the actual payload, so that the reader’s mind is distracted from what Santayana is sneaking in as supposedly shared and universally accepted assumptions, so that the reader will not notice the argument from false consensus*]

                  You misunderstand, [*I understand what you just repeated yet again, and which I have passionately and at length rejected many times, without any response from you.*] and these misunderstandings are so deep and subtle as to make any attempt to straighten them with dialectic doomed at the outset. You just refuse to compare your understanding to what is ultimately the only authority, which you appealed to at the beginning: the text. You say he’s evil, when asked why you refer to the text, but you will not look at the text, it’s an impasse. [*you are telling me to pay attention to irrelevant distractions, You keep taking for granted that I accept the presuppositions made in those irrelevant and unimportant distractions. I keep rejecting those presuppositions, and you go right on and keep on talking about stuff that I have already told you far too many times is irrelevant, unimportant, and uninteresting, and every time you talk about that irrelevant and unimportant stuff, you sneak in the extremely important presupposition that I agree with what I have passionately and at great length rejected.*] How about don’t play telephone and go straight to the source. [*It is all the same. A never ending pile of trivial uniportant irrelevancy, with every paragraph repetitiously presupposing the same poisoned payload. as shared uncontroversial consensus that everyone accepts. It is just the same trick repeated ten thousand times, with ten thousand different decorations. And in every post on the topic, you just attempt to slide this old stale trick past me yet again, and I am getting very tired of it*] If I tell you you aren’t quite getting what Santayana said right, then certainly you cannot just blithely discount it. I’ve read him, you haven’t, so I would be more likely to know. So how do you know what he said? Read him.

                  [*I have read enough of him to know it is one big lie with ten thousand different decorations. I keep repetitiously rebutting this one big lie and I keep ignoring the decorations, and you keep ignoring my rebuttal and keep presupposing that I agree, that everyone agrees, that everyone has always agreed, with this one big lie.*]

                  It’s Book 3, Chapters VI and VII of Life of Reason.

                  [*It all the same, one trick, false consensus, ten thousand times over. Flip him open at random, throw a dart blindfolded, which you seem to have been doing, and I will make the same rebuttal, yet again, and you will ignore that rebuttal yet again*]

                  [*The payload in every paragraph of you and Santayana is that Catholics do not know or care about Roman Catholic continuity from Peter, that Orthodox do not know or care about continuity of their Church organization with that of James and Paul, that protestants do not know or care about continuity of their doctrines and practices with those of Jesus and Paul, and that none of them know or care about continuity with the practices, doctrines, and faith of some Bronze Age shepherds. Which payload I have already rejected far too many times, without response from you.*]

                • Tityrus says:

                  Santayana is not calling on anyone to [*Unresponsive. That is not the argument that I have repeatedly, passionately, and at length rejected. I attributed that argument to the Puritans and their ideological and cultural Christian descendants. Their postchristian descendants have abandoned that argument long ago.*]

                • Tityrus says:

                  [*Social Justice Warriors always project.*]

                • Aidan says:

                  Just to give the dude the benefit of the doubt, it’s my experience that a lot of young men today do not know how to parse arguments to find the salient points being made, and do not know how to argue back, do not know how to either question the assumptions that lead to the point or argue the point itself.

                  The same deficiency that allows him to be enraptured by Santayana’s mumbo jumbo is exactly what keeps him from being responsive in the comments section.

                  “Shill” arguments are like the way a woman argues, false consensus, arguing as if you already agree with her assumptions, and bringing up irrelevancies to distract from the point. Men raised by single women learn to argue this way, men raised on reddit and other feminized corners of the internet learn to argue this way.

                  It is still good to turn away men who argue in a womanly fashion because it shits up the discourse, but I have hope that he can shape up.

                • jim says:

                  I am tired of repeating myself, and getting no relevant response from Tytyrus. This non debate has taken up far too much space in the comments.

                  Summarizing the total lack of debate: Santayana and Tityrus keep dumping payload in the comments that presupposes numerous shill and entryist attacks on Christianity, particularly and most commonly that existent Christianity has no continuity with the past, that a bunch of bronze age shepherds, a bunch of early Iron age refugees fleeing the collapse of Bronze Age civilizatiion, and a bunch of early Roman empire religious trouble makers are irrelevant and unimportant, irrelevant and unimportant to existing Christians and existing Christianity. I, outraged, call out the presupposition, make it explicit, and denounce, dispute, and present explicit evidence against those taken for granted, and seldom explicitly stated presuppositions, which are, like troofer claims, assumed, rather than stated outright.

                  Because if they are stated outright, someone is going to say “Hey, wait a minute, that is absurd”

                  Tityrus then tells me that I said something completely different and entirely unrelated, and never acknowledges the presuppositions that I keep calling out.

                  No, he says, quite correctly pointing out he and Santayana are talking about something completely different. And he is talking about something completely different, but no matter what he is purportedly talking about, what he is saying assumes and takes for granted what I vehemently and repetitiously dispute. At great length. At far too much length. And with no relevant response.

          • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

            >Sorry, I did not realize you still think this. I thought you would have realized you made a silly mistake in our discussion a few weeks ago

            ” The more I argued with them, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid. If all this didn’t help, they pretended not to understand, or, if challenged, they changed the subject in a hurry, quoted platitudes which, if you accepted them, they immediately related to entirely different matters, and then, if again attacked, gave ground and pretended not to know exactly what you were talking about.

            Whenever you tried to attack one of these apostles, your hand closed on a jelly-like slime which divided up and poured through your fingers, but in the next moment collected again. But if you really struck one of these fellows so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, he couldn’t help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. He had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn’t remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day.

            Sometimes I stood there thunderstruck.

            I didn’t know what to be more amazed at: the agility of their tongues or their virtuosity at lying.

            Gradually, I began to hate them. “

            • Tityrus says:

              Look, jim’s absolutely contention is [*not the contention that I just made yet again, and you failed to respond to yet again*]

              • jim says:

                The payload of every post that I have deleted is the taken for granted presupposition that everyone, including me, agrees with what I keep passionately disagreeing with, that no one is saying, that no one has ever said, what I keep saying over and over again.

                The payload is not in what you and Santayana explicitly say, it is in what you presuppose that your interlocutor, and every Christian in all of history, supposedly already agree with, have always agreed with and never denied or disputed.

                I keep debating the payload, and I keep calling upon you to debate the payload, and you keep ignoring the payload, and ignoring my rejection of the payload, because everyone, including me, supposedly already agrees with the payload.

                Debate the payload.

                Stop telling me that I made some completely different argument, and that I incorrectly attributed to you and Santayana some completely different position.

                It is the troofer tactic. They never actually say that Building Seven fell straight down onto its foundations for no apparent reason, that there was no airliner sized and shaped hole in the Pentagon. Because if they actually said so in so many words, everyone would say “Hey, wait a minute” They just assume that everyone already knows and agrees with these contentions.

                And you, and Santayana, just assume that all the existing strands of Christianity have no continuity with the past, that all of them know this, and none of them care about it, that no one knows or cares what some bunch of late bronze age shepherds said and did, that no one knows or cares about what some bunch of early iron age refugees from Egypt said and did, that no one knows or cares about what some bunch of early Roman Empire religious agitators said and did.

                They care. I care.

                You have endlessly attributed to me, almost at random, diverse arguments that are irrelevant to what you and Santayana keep pushing. Because everyone in all of history has supposedly agreed with what you keep pushing, and therefore what you keep pushing is not leftism, not part of the leftist attack on Christianity, not cover for entryist attacks inside Christianity, but shared assumptions that everyone, including me, takes for granted as true.

                • Aidan says:

                  There is an interesting point buried in the payload that I think it is worth having a discussion over, but Tityrus cannot articulate it and Santayana uses it as background noise to legitimize his reinterpretation of Christianity. Better men than Santayana, and ones more on our side, also have made this criticism, so I will post the essence of it in order to spark real debate, even though I disagree with the point.

                  Despite every variety of Christian attempting to establish legitimacy by linking their beliefs, church structure, and practices to Christ and the Apostles, the way in which different peoples in different places and times inwardly and spiritually understand Christianity is a product of their own racial and spiritual traits. During the Dark Ages, European man adopted the forms and doctrines of Christianity, but underneath, it was spiritually the same as the Germanic honor culture with its hero and nature worship.
                  Therefore, imposing a doctrine that is truly a restoration of Old-type Christianity is impossible, because it is in contrast with the soul of men living today. It was a difference in the soul of the European that precipitated Protestantism and Calvinism; if we are to upheave Christianity, it could only be as an assertion of the Amerikaner’s nature and instincts as they exist today. Because we are morally and spiritually weak, Christianity cannot be anything but a religion of cucks. We need a hardcore right-wing religion that springs from the most warlike and right-wing among us

                  In short disagreement with this, I personally know an old-type Christian. His large family, and the way he runs his household and understands his duties toward God, would fit right in in the 1st century, in the 10th century, and in the 18th century. Obviously there is continuity in how a good Christian lives his life and practices his religion.

                  And everyone who makes this argument tends to follow it up with “here is my faggy leftist set of values that I say aligns better with being a white man”.

                  Or they say that people’s spirituality is racially deterministic, and we cannot replace a religion, but this is obviously false, because we were made to worship niggers and the corona demon.

                • Yul Bornhold says:

                  Santayana’s critique leads to a pretty good argument in favor of Orthodoxy or some other claim of apostolic succession (though I don’t think anyone has better claim than Orthodox.)

                  The Church is the Church because it’s founded and led by Christ. Sure, there’ll be racial differences in various tribes or nations but the British Empire is the British Empire whether you’ve Malay coolies toiling under the tropic sun or Inuits skinning seals on the north Arctic coast. You still have colonial governors ruling in the name of good queen Victoria, backed up by a few armed Birmingham lads. By analogy, the Church has shared hierarchy and tradition. Local peculiarities don’t amount to much.

                  The problem with protestant old time Christian who runs his family in way that would fit into 10th or 1st century (Duck Dynasty?) is lack of legitimacy. Easy for his sons to be swayed to the Cathedral or some other subversive entity. Whereas, if you can credibly argue “this has always been the Church and the Church can be only this,” you’re fighting from a much stronger position.

                • jim says:

                  Yes, but trouble is entryists and apostates. What do you do when the Pope goes heretical?

                  The protestant response to papal heresy was and is, as you say weak, because they abandoned apostolic succession. But they did not go orthodox, because back then the Orthodox Church was in the pocket of their enemies also.

                  Today, under the protection of Putin’s nukes, Orthodoxy can (weakly) challenge progressivism on women. Today, Russian Orthodox are the only substantial Christian faction that can still uphold Christianity. Protestantism has been rolled back to a handful of patriarchs in the woods, or, like the patriarch of Duck Dynasty, in the swamps. Orthodoxy hides behind Putin’s nukes, Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty hides in the swamps.

                  Meanwhile the Vatican worships Satan, and is dominated by the Lavender Mafia, a bunch of priests who coordinate naked in bed in a great big pile.

                • Tityrus says:

                  [*irrelevant distractions deleted*]

                  > “And you, and Santayana, just assume that all the existing strands of Christianity have no continuity with the past”.

                  Neither I nor Santayana argued this.

                  [*Exactly true. You never argued it, and you repeatedly refuse to argue it, even though I keep demanding that you argue it. You just assume it, take it for granted, and assume that it is entirely uncontroversial and everyone already agrees with it.*]

                  I can’t make an argument, because we are arguing about what Santayana said

                  [*No we are not arguing about what Santayana said. We have never argued about what Santayana explicitly said. I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in arguing about what Santayana explicitly said. What he explicitly says is true, trite, boring, and not terribly relevant to the topics of this blog. And to the extent that what he explicitly says is relevant to this blog, such as the racial character of the strands of Christianity, and role of Greek culture and philosophy in Christianity and second temple Judaism I have said it all myself several times, and I think I have said it a great deal better than he did.

                  I am arguing about what he, and you, assume and take for granted as the universal and accepted consensus. I am arguing about what you, and he, presuppose and take for granted that Christians believe and care about*]

                  and you literally REFUSE to read what he said and listen to my explanations.

                  [*Your explanations are not explanations, but distractions, because you refuse to discuss the presuppositions that you and Santayana implicitly take for granted, despite me repeatedly calling them out and making them explicit.

                  I keep responding, at great, and excessive, length, and you just sail right on presupposing and assuming that I agree with, that everyone in the entire world agrees with, that all Christians everywhere throughout all of history agree with, what I have just explicitly denounced and disagreed with.

                  What he, and you, explicitly say is true, boring, and a waste of space. What I am debating is what you presuppose.

                  What I am arguing about is what you, and he, will never say explicitly, because if you actually said it in so many words, everyone would laugh and point and say you are being stupid*]

                • Yul Bornhold says:

                  As a state backed religion, Christianity does a fine job at reinforcing reactionary social ideals. As out of power religion, it seems to “kernelize” which is to say that a lot of adherents ditch the faith for whatever is actually backed by power while the faithful few stick around. Soviet Russia is a good example. The Soviet cringe atheists knocked Orthodoxy out of power and converted the masses to their new faith but they couldn’t eradicate Orthodoxy entirely. They certainly tried.

                  I wonder whether Orthodoxy *grew* after the initial blow which sheared off so much of the flock. Christianity undeniably grew in the Roman Empire but it wasn’t much of a social influence (I think) until Constantine made it the state religion.

                  Anyway, this “kernelizing” tendency makes Christianity unhelpful for large scale social influence unless it has state backing. State backing can pretty effectively handle entryists and apostates. It was the western Roman church (not under the state) that got up to mischief and the church of Harvard (invisible to the state) which brought about the catastrophe.

                  They were novel once but we now know the methods and operations of such entryism. Once in power, will be easy to suppress them.

                • jim says:

                  You know my strategy. Wait for Caesar, and when Caesar arrives, tell him he has a hostile, evil, and decadent state religion, and needs a friendly and virtuous state religion, or his state religion is likely to devour him.

                  The Taliban were successful in overthrowing the Afghan government on the basis of their shared religion, but they had an outside base. We don’t. Every such operation needs a safe space within which to organize, as for example the Tutsi emigres organizing to recover Rwanda from the genocidaires sponsored by the “International Community. Without a base, your religious cohesion is not going to be very effective for military purposes. Christianity without a state lives only as a mustard seed.

                  Xi’s state religion may well devour Xi soon, if he continues on his current course.

                  He recently had his people post that China is democracy that works. And indeed its claim to be democratic is in some ways better than America’s claim, which is looking shabbier and shabbier. But still, obviously not democratic, and proclaiming the lie is dangerous, for some of those tasked with proclaiming it may well suddenly discover that if they are in power, and Xi no longer in power, that would make China a whole lot more plausibly democratic. It is a lie that the United States Government is trying to weaponize against China from outside, and a whole lot of people in the party could weaponize against Xi from the inside. Far safer to go with Mandate of Heaven, which he obviously does have, rather than Democracy, which he equally obviously does not have.

    • Starman says:

      @Prince Charming

      ”The purebloods are ripe and ready. They are hungry for a new evangelium. They are in the market for a religion, but they are discerning customers, the now-waning age of free Internet has made them so. I sense that if we do not fill the void now, they will come on board with a syncretic New Age secular corona religion, perhaps in the vein of the Georgia Guidestones. Perhaps, this has been the plan all along.”

      Only people with email jobs take the Covid hoax seriously.

      • Prince Charming says:

        The purebloods have come on board wholesale with the depopulation agenda. I don’t think The Cominator has a desk job.

        Do you have some sort of a spreadsheet where you keep who passed what shill test and when?

    • alf says:

      I see you are copying my old comments. Great stuff! Truly, not all shills are idiots.

    • FrankNorman says:

      I’m seeing some walls-of-text from people who seem to live in a post-Christian, secularist bubble, with minimal ability to understand the mindset of anyone other than themselves.

      And their own beliefs hardly count as such, since they are mostly just conformity – shouting the same slogans as rest of their clique, and trying to be the one to shout those slogans the loudest.

      They will claim over and over that “no one” takes Biblical Christianity seriously – because they themselves don’t. The only world they know is their echo chamber.

      When they are forced to see what’s outside of there, even for a moment… they respond with confusion, fear and rage.

      • Oog en Hand says:

        Millions of Americans take Christianity very seriously. However, they are Young Earth Creationists and would readily accept Flat Earth if presented as the best way to piss off atheists.

        • jim says:


          Not what I see. The vast majority of Christians have never been biblical literalists. They were not literalists fifteen centuries ago either – look at the ancient debates on the date of Easter.

    • Prince Charming says:

      It is a propaganda problem. Propaganda is not persuading a few elite cynics, it is persuading the masses. You are so bad at propaganda, and I mean everybody who comments here, that you do not even know what propaganda is, you have no concept. I am good at propaganda, I am good at selling, and I am having a practical problem of selling Jimianity.

      But I get it now, you want Jimianity to be imposed from above, you want a caesar to grab the reins of power with steel, and realising that steel is not enough, finding Jimianity. You want to sidestep the problem of selling a religion to the people by making it mandatory for them to buy. This will not work. A religion based on steel will be dissolved en-passant by the acid of jewish critique. In this case, the critique has been piling up for the past five centuries, so a religion based on steel is a non-starter. When you write:

      Our children will take Christianity as Saint Augustine did.

      … that is laughably anachronistic. Our children, if given access to Internet, will get their augustinian arguments from ignorance demolished in one sitting by the likes of (((Benjamin Shapiro))). Best shot at cultural isolation is the Great Firewall. It does a piss-poor job of keeping cultural memes out, and your firewall is not going to be better.

      I see this as a practical problem. Currently there is a great demand from the purebloods for a religion. Anglin wrote recently that he is not willing to move a finger to restore a regime that would keep the 19th amendment, that would keep feminism, that would not make women property again. But notice that Anglin is embarrassed by his christianity. He lifts memes from here almost verbatim, while being almost apologetic for christianity when talking to normies. The greatest propagandist the purebloods have cannot sell his religion. As the metaphor goes, your end-customers are thirsty men in a desert. Why is it so difficult to sell your liquid, is it because they do not think it potable?

      I think waiting for a warrior to impose a religion by steel is a pipe dream. Warriors are obsolete, and in any case too propagandised by the priests (and under too close a supervision) to be able to do anything. The counterrevolution will be organised by priestly means. We need a saleable religion much sooner than we can even think of a holy war. And that religion cannot be based on [wink & nudge] a big lie, it must be based on truths.

      • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

        >You want to sidestep the problem of selling a religion to the people by making it mandatory for them to buy. This will not work

        But it does work. Noone wanted to buy niggerworship, for example, but then everyone too prominent about their not wanting niggerworship got beaten with the power of steel, then everyone got real quiet about their not wanting niggerworship.

        The normcore are inconsequential, and top rulership resistant to giving up the causes that speak to their character (or conceits, as the case may be); the most consequential audience is the ‘middle management’ of the world; the colonels, district heads, department chiefs, and team leaders at work in every substantial organization; people not so much ‘the lower masses’, and not so much ‘the upper elites’ either, but the points of contact where elite interfaces with mass, where rubber meets the road.

      • f6187 says:

        But notice that Anglin is embarrassed by his christianity. He lifts memes from here almost verbatim, while being almost apologetic for christianity when talking to normies. The greatest propagandist the purebloods have cannot sell his religion.

        I haven’t seen any indication that he is embarrassed by his Christian faith. From what I’ve seen, he consistently regards it as the central guiding force in his life, and recommends that others do the same. Maybe I’m not reading between the lines, but I am reading the lines.

      • jim says:

        > It is a propaganda problem. Propaganda is not persuading a few elite cynics, it is persuading the masses.

        The masses have never mattered. They don’t matter now. When they are required to worship Christ instead of niggers, they will feel considerable relief.

        Look how easily nigger worship, tranny worship, and Corona Doom demon worship was imposed.

        People want to have a state religion. They hunger for bread, and our elite has only stones, so feeds them stones, and the people eagerly swallow the stones. The bread is going to go down far more smoothly, and will be swallowed with far more enthusiasm.

        > Warriors are obsolete


        • Prince Charming says:

          You are conceding more than I claimed, though, and I would hope it is not as bad as this.

          Nigger worship, tranny worship, and especially worship of Coronachan the awesome and mighty demon were imposed at bayonet point, need to be maintained by wall-to-wall propaganda, and still have abysmal ratings, people dare to blaspheme openly, it’s a disaster. Compare to the tranquil religious homogenity of Christendom before the modern era, or even thirty years ago. We have hundreds of thousands people gainfully employed full time as Internet shills. (I should know, some of the best ones are my colleagues!)

          Communism had better uptake than this.

          Surely Jimianity can get by on less repression than communism did?

          The vaccine is a total disaster. Maybe 80% of men did not take it, gaslighting by official stats notwithstanding. We are being pushed real hard, and we need a religion now to unite us, so we can push back. No-one expected this impasse to occur. They cannot do a repression because that would reveal that they don’t have nearly the numbers they say they have, we cannot do anything, because no-one will stand up just to roll things back to family courts and trannies. We need a positive all-encompassing vision of what things ought to be like, and why, i.e., a religion. We need it now. Caesar will come later. That’s what I see, at least.

          • jim says:

            > Surely Jimianity can get by on less repression than communism did?

            Obviously it can. Empirically, our most recent example of an effective and sane state religion over Anglo people was Church of England sixteen sixty to around eighteen hundred. A very light hand was sufficient.

            People want a state religion. They want to belong to a tribe, and they want that tribe backed by state power. That is what a state religion gives them.

            A faith is a synthetic tribe. People want to belong to a tribe, and want to belong to a tribe backed by state power.

            The idea that state religions are necessarily cruelly repressive comes from those that overthrew that state religion in favor of their own, and immediately proceeded with cruel repression which has been escalating ever since. Social Justice Warriors always project.

            • Prince Charming says:

              No I agree with that, I agree with all of that. But my contention was that you cannot base a faith on [wink & nudge] unfalsifiable big lies. You need to base it on truths, because people after modernity do not feel the burden of proof is on them to falsify your big lie, but rather want you to prove it, which you cannot.

              You cannot compare it with nigger worship etc., because obviously falsifiable and falsified and no-one believes except for The Cominator’s excellent Twitter screenshot.

              • Prince Charming says:

                This is purely empirical. Today’s people do not want to buy a religion like that except when forced to.

                • jim says:


                  Not what I see. People will voluntarily and eagerly buy into the state religion whatever it may be, even if it is flagrantly absurd and requires them to sacrifice their first born to Moloch or trannies.

                • Prince Charming says:

                  But I am not talking about state religion. I am talking about the religion that would allow the purebloods to coordinate a nonviolent counterrevolution now.

                • jim says:

                  For that, we do not need to convert the masses. We need to convert a tiny handful of people who matter.

                  And it is not time for nonviolent counter revolution now, and it is unlikely that it ever will be.

                  It will, in due course, be time for violent revolution.

                • Prince Charming says:

                  Well, it is an opportunity. If all the pureblooded badge niggers stood up and said “no”, this thing could be over by teatime. But I understand that is not your plan, I did not understand that before.

                  But, even with the big names on board, all politics is retail. If you cannot sell retail, and I am telling you I cannot sell this, Anglin cannot sell this, you cannot sell this even to yourself or Alf, then you don’t have a product.

                • jim says:

                  > But, even with the big names on board, all politics is retail.

                  Retail politics only exists to maintain the appearance of democracy, an appearance that has become as transparent as the appearance of monarchy when the queen goes in a stagecoach to open parliament.

                  When no one turned up for the Occupy Wall Street rallies until professors frog marched their students there, and government unions frog marched government employees there, that prefigured retail politics going away.

                  When no one turned up to the Biden rallies except those paid to be there such as newsmen and staffers, that was retail politics going away.

                  It is unlikely to ever return. The Biden rallies were its funeral.

                • Prince Charming says:


                • jim says:

                  Winning elections is now a matter of whether your scrutineers and vote counters can exclude the other man’s scrutineers and vote counters. Which is state power, not retail politics, nor even a matter of having sufficiently enthusiastic vote counters and scrutineers. Having enthusiastic scrutineers is just the vote harder fallacy. What you actually need is enthusiastic helicopter pilots.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  >I am talking about the religion that would allow the purebloods to coordinate a nonviolent counterrevolution now.

                  So what you are talking about is polygon gayops to neuter potential opposition with safely impotent purplepill.

                  Purely empirically, your assertions are full of santorum.

              • jim says:

                > people after modernity do not feel the burden of proof is on them to falsify your big lie, but rather want you to prove it, which you cannot.

                Such demands for proof have always been applied in a highly selective manner. Modernity and post modernism is not people demanding careful verification, but having minds so open that their brains are falling out. We are seeing not skepticism and careful examination of the evidence, but credulity that would have made a nineteenth century gentleman burst out laughing

                Post Modernism is the complete opposite of skepticism. They are only skeptical of that which is low status, or truths that they find inconvenient. Everything else they swallow with no problems.

                Postmodern skepticism is only applied to obvious and undeniable truth, or beliefs that are deemed low status. If someone dressed in the stolen skin of a high status institution that he has murdered and skinned, sells them a pile of cow manure and tells them it is chocolate, they will swallow with great enthusiasm. Look at the stuff on Wikipedia.

                • Prince Charming says:

                  Yes, indeed. But I cannot help but notice you are motte-and-baileying. Niggers, Wikipedia — why are all the examples so utterly bad?

                • jim says:

                  I am not motte-and-baileying

                  If Wikipedia is the motte, what is the bailey? The science of the jab? The science of the space shuttle? Peer reviewed academic papers? Climate Change?

                  When you accuse someone of employing the Motte and Bailey fallacy, you have to explain what is his defensible but not very valuable Motte, and what is his indefensible Bailey that he wants to control through his Motte.

                  What is the Bailey? People have been getting more naive and credulous about social, religious and political matters ever since 1750, more credulous about the soft sciences since 1900 and more credulous about the hard sciences since 1950. Post Modernity is the third childhood of human reason, an embrace of the demon haunted dark.

              • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I see no big lies here; save yours perhaps.

        • p says:

          >Look how easily nigger worship, tranny worship, and Corona Doom demon worship was imposed.

          They weren’t easily imposed though, were they? Negro/gay/trans worship went through the normal indoctrination cycle, starting from the universities, then migrating into the schools. Corona”worship” (which I see as a phobia but let’s go with it for the sake of argument) didn’t take hold with the majority of the population because it didn’t go through education.

          It looks like these are easily imposed but that’s just the indoctrinated generation replacing the non-indoctrinated one.

          • Pooch says:

            didn’t take hold with the majority of the population because it didn’t go through education.

            It came from Harvard. Whenever you see “experts say” in an article, they mean academia.

            • p says:

              I don’t mean the source, I mean the mechanism; there wasn’t any time for the slow indoctrination of the young via education, so it’s an example of how effective imposition is when done directly through the megaphone.

          • jim says:

            Trannyism came mighty quickly. Corona doom had instant total penetration – suddenly the whole world fell into line because the “experts” told them.

            This is reminiscent of what happened during Cortez’s conquest of Mexico. The Aztecs had been taking large numbers of people from other tribes for human sacrifice, and eating the sacrifices (they had failed to domesticate any meat animals) Tribes making war received a command from their priests to cut out the revolt, and for the most part, they did.

            Now it is obvious that much “expert” advice has been a really bad idea, and vaccine technology has fallen off the edge of a cliff after several decades of sliding downhill (these days it is medicine men shaking magic rattles) and yet we have innumerable regimes, with various degrees of independence ranging from merely nominal to serious nuclear weapons, unable to blow off the “experts”. Instead, we see them accepting “expert” advice, and having accepted it, massively lying about the outcomes and concealing them.

            • p says:

              >Trannyism came mighty quickly.

              Things are admittedly speeding up, but even trannyism didn’t come instantly. The trannies I remember, when they were just a curiosity, are “Deirdre” McCloskey (transitioned 1995), “Danielle” Bunten “Berry” (transitioned 1992), “Lana” Wachowski (transitioned 200x). So it was probably in larval phase academia in 199x and is now in final phase kindergarten, 30 years later.

              >Corona doom had instant total penetration

              There’s open resistance to corona worhsip, e.g. in Florida. But there’s no open resistance to these earlier worships, once they complete their cycle through the system.

              • Aidan says:

                Trannyism was in its larval stage in Harvard in the 80’s, but it was kept very far away from the general public, and later imposed via the megaphone with shocking speed.

                Trannies were sacrosanct throughout academia around 2010, and they seized control of the megaphone to blast their signal all at once- or the people in control of the megaphone were afraid of being eaten by those to their left.

                It’s a good example of how ideas evolve in the holiness spiral, and the central command that suddenly imposes the new evolved religion.