Nationalism, whiteness, and kin

B.S. Haldane observed “I would lay down my life for two brothers, four nephews, or eight cousins.”

In otherwords, kin altruism does not go far, being pretty much limited to the nuclear family and the extended family.

It can be stretched to somewhat larger groups by deliberate inbreeding, by the practice of father’s brother’s daughter marriage, but then you get moderate IQ depression due to inbreeding, and the achievable group size is not all that much larger.

Nazis tend to believe that whites would not make war on each other except for the evil mind control rays emitted by Jews.  Thus world wars One and Two were supposedly Jewish plots.

History demonstrates otherwise.  Whites are markedly better at war than other races, because we have been practicing on each other so hard for so long.

The program of Nazism is Socialism for white people only.

To hell with that. Lets be really racist and have capitalism for superior people like ourselves and socialism for inferiors, for people we don’t like and wish to see crushed.

So where does nationalism come from?

New International Outlook tells us

then nationalism becomes not dissimilar to other forms of modern identity politics which afflict the world at present. The Gay community, The Feminist community* or any other such constructs are purely a result of the media fragmenting and power considerations (democratic needs, desperate scramble for state justification)  just as much as the nationalism of the 19th and 20th century was the result of mass media identity formation and power considerations (mass conscription, democratic needs etc).

This seems to argue for empire – but empires as we have seen undermine trust and cohesion.  In the end the founding ethnicity of the empire winds up being oppressed by the empire, as Turks were oppressed by the Ottoman Empire, and Americans are now oppressed by the American empire.

New International Outlook continues to argue that Nationalism is inherently leftist:

Nationalism is leftism, it arose as a question of equality based on ethnic similarities and has merely been overtaken by an even more inclusive version of nationalism which holds that all of humanity is one nation.

The validity of Nationalism comes, not from altruism as Nazis tend to argue, but from trust, from the assurance of reciprocity, from the confidence that bad behavior within the group will be prevented.

Nationalism works, is real, if near is actually more trustworthy than far – because word of bad behavior will get back to those close to the person behaving badly, and this word will have bad consequences.

Observe how tourist girls go wild and fuck around indiscriminately, having sex with all sorts of people, old men and blacks that they would never have sex with at home, because they figure that sex overseas does not add to their count.

If, however, this word getting back to near has no consequences, nationalism is unreal. A nation does not really exist, is unreal a mere construct of propaganda, unless bad conduct has bad consequences, at least for members of the elite.

Collective action is hard, the central insight of the neoreaction being that extremely bad solutions are better than pretend solutions. Diversity undermines asabiyyah, making collective action even harder.

The Nazi error is to imagine that collective action is easy – hence their error of socialism, and that asabiyyah comes naturally. It does not.

Nationalism is necessarily ethno nationalism, since diversity destroys trust. Nationalism only works to the extent that near is more trustworthy than far, and that near is indeed trustworthy.

Thus nationalism requires a social order that encourages and rewards virtue – where being a bad guy has consequences, and by consequences I don’t mean chicks giving you their number for booty calls.

Jewish cohesiveness rested on strict patriarchy. A Jew would give his daughters to someone talented and virtuous, which compelled all Jews to behave virtuously to other Jews (but not necessarily to non Jews)

Thus, Jews dominated the diamond trade because if one diamond merchant cheated another, he or his sons would not have wives.

As Jewish patriarchy evaporates, as progressivism successfully assimilates Judaism, Jewish cohesiveness evaporates a generation or two later. The Orthodox will slowly follow the path their reform brethren have already taken. Today, they are no longer all that patriarchal. Soon they will no longer have social cohesion and resistance to decadence and fraud.

On the one hand Nationalism is solidly in the left, and yet there is something very left wing about the fact that empires tend to wind up being run for the conquered at the expense of the founding ethnicity, as hordes of foreigners migrate to the capital.

It is obviously easier for the ruled to admire and respect the rulers, and the rulers to look after the ruled, if ruled and rulers are the same ethnicity and religion.

It is obviously easier to build functional institutions, to have reciprocity and trust, between people of the same ethnicity and religion.

Collective decision making is an unsolved problem, and the reactionary insight is that it is better to have horribly bad solutions to this problem, than fake solutions.  It is a much harder problem when you have diverse ethnicities involved, because of the lack of trust and reciprocity.

So if we wind up saying that collective decisions need to be made on the ethnicity scale, because larger scales are even harder, that is remarkably similar to ethnonationalism.

Chan/Pol interprets Jewish degeneracy as ethnonationalism, as a plot by Jews to destroy the white race.

Against this analysis: The most cohesive Jews, the believers, and the most cohesive of all, the orthodox believers, are not degenerate, and generally don’t show up pushing degeneracy or launching lawsuits against Christmas.

The observations that the pol hypothesis explains are also explainable as Jews as jumping on the prog bandwagon.

If someone is pushing degeneracy, or trying to destroy the white race, he is probably a Jew.  If, however, someone is torturing archaeology and history to supposedly prove that Moses, King David, and King Solomon never existed, also a Jew – and often the same Jew.

The Jew that denies the existence of King Solomon is attacking the Jewish identity.

If Jews were trying to take over the world they wouldn’t be sabotaging themselves as well.

The fact that they are drinking their own koolaide means that they are just as pwned as your average white progressive

I see orthodox Jews torturing their holy texts to get the conclusion that Orthodox Jews should be accepting of gays – and I see progressive Jews torturing the historical and archaeological evidence to get the conclusion that King Solomon’s temple never existed.

Judaism is lagging in its assimilation to progressivism, so progressivism is upping the pressure, and clever Talmudic scholars are cleverly finding increasing amounts of progressivism in the Talmud.

The only religion I see showing real signs of life is Jihadi Islam. Every other religion is just piously going through the motions while slowly being digested by progressivism.   Putin is trying to stitch up an authentically Russian Orthodoxy, but has not got far. China is furtively sneaking away from Maoism and Socialism with Chinese Characteristics towards Confucianism and the Mandate of Heaven, but they are still mighty furtive.  Meanwhile lots of Chinese go to western universities, where they get brainwashed with progressivism, and since these are the wealthiest Chinese, progressivism is high status for Chinese.

A lot of reactionaries are converting to Roman Catholicism, as the religion with the most credible historical claim to universal religious authority.

If you get married in a Roman Catholic Church, they will shoot the husband in the back by undermining in his authority and promoting divorce in accordance with progressive doctrine and contrary to New Testament and official Roman Catholic doctrine

Further, universal religious authority is a logical implication of of a universal god, one god for all peoples, but I observe the British empire, which the world’s greates empire, the scientific revolution, and the technological revolution happened under an ethnic national church.

Universalism is harmful, because universalism undermines social cohesion and asabiyyah, so universal churches are harmful, so universal gods are harmful.  And in that sense, the Jews really are to blame – the problem being not undue Jewish influence in banking and Hollywood but that Christianity is a Jewish heresy, and progressivism is a Christian heresy.

National Christian Churches can work, as for example Anglicanism from 1660 to 1820, but they have an innate tendency to turn universal.  Perhaps if we made sure that warriors were on top of priests, and made priesthoods into semi hereditary family businesses as in Shinto or Icelandic paganism, the tendency to universalism could be adequately restrained.

Universalism leads to universal empire.  Multiple universal empires lead to war.  A single universal empire tends to sacrifice its central nation, its founding ethnicity, for the good of the empire, which is what so pissed off the Turks about the Ottoman empire, that they ended the Caliphate.

Like white anglo saxon protestants today, the Turks were oppressed by their subject nations, rather than oppressing them.  And that is the problem with worshipping a universal creator God.  Not necessarily an insoluble problem, but it is a problem nonetheless. Obviously you need one church per nation – which would suggest one god, or set of Gods, per nation. The Japanese have the sun god and a bunch of vaguely defined lesser deities, and they do fine. It is not apparent that Japanese believe in the Sun God, but they believe in believing. The Japanese are hopelessly decadent now (watch any anime) but they were not decadent before MacArthur.

85 Responses to “Nationalism, whiteness, and kin”

  1. […] has some final remarks on Nationalism, Whiteness, and Kin. Also, he applauds Putin’s deft passing of Cathedral fitness tests. And late-breaking science […]

  2. […] nationalism. Related: Jim on universalism and nationalism. Related: Some Evola: The two faces of […]

  3. Alan J. Perrick says:

    “Perhaps if we made sure that warriors were on top of priests,…”

    Or pursue Ethno-Nationalist (warrior) solutions more, for example making the Medal of Honor and its attendand perks last for three generations instead of only one generation. The intention would be to build more hereditary power into the military, which gets the nobility, the Ethno-Nationalist faction, back in power. With a history of canon law already on record, the Theonomist faction, or priesthood, would be urged to catch-up to the changing enviroment and opportunities.

  4. Alan J. Perrick says:

    No. Progressivism is not only Cthulhu’s Theonomy, but his Ethno-Nationalism and his Techno-Commercialism.

    Focusing on Theonomy, so as to call The Cathedral a product or heresy of the previous Theonomy, is missing at least 2/3s of the problem.


  5. Reader says:

    Just left a message but it wen to your spam filter

  6. peppermint says:

    wow, who the Hell decided that it would be arguing about religion time in And the arguments are more retarded that usual. Does Christianity need the Old Testament? Is the Genesis story ex nihilo / is it compatible with ex nihilo? How magnanimous are the Jew scriptures towards other nations?

    Does it matter?

    • coyote says:

      our species created mythos and logos; few relate to logos. “does it matter”? how did nation states and empires come to be? wars and stories and heroes and gods and on and on and on… elsewhere in the news, the only christian nation left on the planet is ready to defend itself to the death against the sabbatean overlords…. “does it matter”…. hmmm

  7. Alrenous says:

    Universalism arises from hobbit morality.

    The hobbit’s unsophisticated mind doesn’t have the spare capacity to distinguish ‘my local norms’ from ‘norms’ simpliciter. It’s perfectly natural for them to think of outgroups either as demonic enemies or as imperfect ingroups, and only those.

    If peace or something remove ‘devils’ from the options, then it becomes particularly natural to think their god is just a misunderstood version of your god. Presumably there are some forces that can keep things stable, but they’re highly contingent, thus we frequently see the slide into quantum degeneracy.

  8. Dave says:

    Fathers will happily have sex with daughters, and brothers with sisters, if they do not become acquainted until both have passed puberty. Unrelated children raised together feel no sexual attraction. Darwinian selection does not work well in such corner cases because it doesn’t have to.

    In low-trust tribal societies, people are raised in close proximity to their cousins and feel strong solidarity with them. If this precludes sexual attraction, tough shit, you’re marrying Uncle Ahmed’s daughter anyway.

    In post-industrial nuclear-family societies, first cousins are not much closer than total strangers.

    • Just sayin' says:

      If Uncle Ahmed’s daughter is strictly segregated from you, you won’t get the Westermarck effect, so you’ll be happy to marry her.

      Look, humans aren’t psychic, we don’t know what percent of our genes are shared by various people, so we have to use a bunch of proxy effects, which are imperfect.

      Humans instinctively know to discriminate against the outgroup from birth, which is most effective if the outgroup looks different, but they don’t know the genetic math about how closely related their cousins are.

      Genetically similar people have advantages in developing friendships and romantic relationships, but it doesn’t happen immediately or automatically.

  9. VXXC says:

    Wow there’s a lot of cognitive disso …a lot of disparate ideas coming together in a sort of hazy way.

    Is it too much to ask that Nationalism not be automatically considered Nazism? Even if you’re White? Or is White and male, Christian automatic Godwin override.

    What if we break this down: It’s OK to be White.

    It’s OK for males to be Men.

    It’s OK to be Christian.

    It’s OK to defend your own as an extension of self-defense.

    And most importantly we don’t need to automatically define ourselves against the Other. Or against All Other.

    And now that they’ve got a place, the Other of Others doesn’t either…and frankly seems to have moved on at least in their own place.

    The other Others of Other are stuck in the past and we’re finally noticing how Other_aren’t_our_kin they are, and blaming them for our utter collapse of manhood. Which they are not to blame for, although they did take advantage instantly to a degree only exceeded by their pouncing on the Russians in 1917 and committing genocide after genocide until Stalin crushed them in 1937.

    They can’t do that here, so they haven’t. Also the brave ones are of course in Other-land.

    Which is the only quarrel, really they’re just leading the predator pack.

    We’re the ones that chose to be Sheep, of course the Wolves attacked.

    That some wolves are more competent than others is hardly their fault.

    Why do we need to keep talking about this? WE ARE OUR PROBLEM.

    Not them, any of them.
    I must say this theory: “Girls Gone Wild means Nationalism is a complete failure” is fascinating Jim.

    Porn is spilling wider and wider into our society means Nationalism doesn’t work, if it did our girls would only make pilgrimages to Holy Shrines. It’s NATIONALISM that’s to blame. Because Nationalism can only mean NAZI_!!

    Actually anything to do with Porn shouldn’t be invoked in any post where you seek to exculpate however awkwardly the Other. Really. That Other will own Porn for 1000 years if Humanity continues.

    A race of pornographers, really just their inherent need to degrade people expressing itself in Art.

    The Arabs are the same way they just select more for violence and less for intelligence. Inbreeding bad too. The Arabs cut heads off, the Other puts porn and trash TV everywhere it can. Not sure which is worse.

    But it’s us. We’re pussies and that’s our problem.

    Again it’s us, not them. Any of them. That doesn’t mean we have to keep taking Shit from anyone. Including Other. No one. Or ourselves.

    We need to start kicking ass and taking heads, burning and sacking. It’s ancient and it works. Respect must have an underlying foundation of Fear.

  10. Stephen W says:

    Jesus, Christianity, and the Bible are three entirely different things and never the trio shall meet.

    Often Christianity is associated with family values but Jesus seems to disagree.

    “10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
    10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
    10:36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.
    10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.”
    And plenty more

    Jesus also seems to not like Goyim:
    “Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 10:5,6)

    15:21Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession.”
    23Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”
    24He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”
    25The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.
    26He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs.”

    And the Old Testament is like Mein Kampf for Jews except more explicit. The idea that non Hebrews would use the Bible as the foundation document for their religion seems rather ridiculous. Considering this we should not be surprised if in a few centuries time most Semites take part in a religion called Hitleranity.

    The kind afterlife that appeals to me most is not any of those kitch and uneventful Heavens or Paradises, but what Julias Caesar informs me my ancestors believed. Kin based reincarnation:
    “They wish to inculcate this as one of their leading tenets, that souls do not become extinct, but pass after death from one body to another, and they think that men by this tenet are in a great degree excited to valor, the fear of death being disregarded.”

    The Norse also had a nice place which is kind of like video game endlessly fighting and respawning.

    • B says:

      > The idea that non Hebrews would use the Bible as the foundation document for their religion seems rather ridiculous.

      Genesis 22:18-“in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.”

      Exodus 32:11-12:-” And Moses besought the LORD his God, and said: ‘LORD, why doth Thy wrath wax hot against Thy people, that Thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? 12 Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, saying: For evil did He bring them forth, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from Thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against Thy people.'”
      Psalm 86:9-“All nations whom thou hast made shall come and worship before thee, O Lord; and shall glorify thy name.”

      Isaiah 56:7-“Even them will I bring to My holy mountain, and make them joyful in My house of prayer; their burnt-offerings and their sacrifices shall be acceptable upon Mine altar; for My house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples.”

      Malachi 1:11-“For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same My name is great among the nations; and in every place offerings are presented unto My name, even pure oblations; for My name is great among the nations, saith the LORD of hosts. “

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        Deuteronomy 4:6 Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.

        I guess goyim are just condemned to watch helplessly while the wise and understanding Jews have all the good stuff, because only Jews are allowed to be wise and understanding. No goyim allowed.

        Oh wait, what? I don’t see where the Bible restricts wisdom and understanding to any one group of people. Ergo, the wisdom found in Torah is for all nations. Included in that wisdom are strong rules leading to national, tribal, clan, family, and individual segregation/qadosh/holiness.

        • B says:

          “If they tell you there is wisdom amongst the other nations, believe them. If they tell you there is Torah among the nations, don’t believe them.” (Midrash Rabbah, Lamentations 17)

          There is wisdom and then there is wisdom.

          • Mycroft Jones says:

            What are you saying, that Torah is a type of wisdom recognizable by, but not intended for the use of, other nations?

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        In Isaiah, the end goal of “every man under his own vine and fig tree”, is the ultimate expression of the Separatist/Qadosh/Holy plan of creation. It represents the ultimate scattering of mankind across the face of the earth, which kicked off with the Tower of Babel story in Genesis 10. If mankind scattered naturally, there would have been no need to “confuse the tongues”, which included religious myth-systems as well as languages. Tolkien was right when he said that every language requires a mythology to go with it.

        So far, Torah is the only religion that explains the origin of the religions in a way that doesn’t judge or condemn all “non-believers” to death. Myth systems, like languages, are tools for branching humans into distinct groups, similar to how cells divide, plants send for new shoots, and bees send forth new colony/swarms.

        I am distinguishing Torah from modern day Orthodox Judaism, which isn’t too far removed from Islam or the Watchtower version of Christianity.

  11. spandrell says:

    I most certainly wouldn’t give my life for 8 cousins. I’ve hardly met any of them for years. Family love depends on spending time together, not genetics which you can hardly perceive. That’s why army units are cohesive; the brain identifies kin by proximity and shared experiences, not genetic distance.

    And all of that is subject to wider societal pressure. You might hate your brother and want to get rid of them, but that looks so bad your reputation would plummet. Fortunately there’s a priest round the corner to come up with a good reason for you to rationalize your restraint.

    • Red says:

      >I most certainly wouldn’t give my life for 8 cousins. I’ve hardly met any of them for years. Family love depends on spending time together, not genetics which you can hardly perceive. That’s why army units are cohesive; the brain identifies kin by proximity and shared experiences, not genetic distance.

      I wish that was so. My extended family has experience with interracial adoption. Needless to say the adopted child no longer views my family as kin and in fact let her adopted mother become homeless while she lives in a million dollar home.

      Jim has it backwards here, it’s not that inbreed people are more willing to die for their cousins, it’s that they’re more likely to kill for and support their cousins. Shooting someone in the back who harmed your extended family doesn’t necessary imply a willing to die for ones relatives. The willingness to die is generally only for directly family members and can be reproduced by the western military model. Even then it’s largely based on local standards.

      The mongols used to flee rather than fight invaders attacking their families. Famous Indian fighters generally ran for help rather than stay and die with their families. Dieing for ones kin isn’t an advantage for the reproduction your genes. Avenging, supporting, and helping your kin is.

  12. bob sykes says:

    In Deutronomy 32:8-9, the High God, El Elyon, assigns the Jews to Yahweh. Unfortunately the text does not indicate whom he assigned to us, the Indo-Europeans, but the Bible is addressed to rich Jewish men, so that is to be expected.

    By the way, Elohim (plural) did not create out of nothingness. Like a good Eurasian gods, they organized the pre-existing chaos. Witzel (The Origins of the World’s Mythologies, Oxford, 2012) has a very interesting discussion of our myths.

    • B says:

      Nonsense. The Torah is addressed to the entire Jewish nation, not rich men.

      And creation ex nihilo is one of the foundational principles of Judaism. Maimonides goes on about this at length, and says that someone who doesn’t accept this isn’t really following Judaism.

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        Creation ex nihilo is not Torah. Creation via “qadosh”, separation, segregation, making distinctions, is how the Elohim of Torah did things. And most world mythologies share this trait.

        Matriarchal England ruled the world for two centuries; matriarchal Israel may do the same. As with England before it, Israeli men will keep fleeing the motherland (heh) to find feminine women they can actually get along with and make families with.

        • B says:

          Maimonides is very insistent that creation ex nihilo is Torah.

          Once G-d created something, then he separated it. We can see this in Genesis.

          I fail to notice matriarchy in Israel. Comparing Israeli and American women, the former are more feminine, and birth rates reflect this.

          • Mycroft Jones says:

            Rambam? Wasn’t he the one that disagreed with Rashi, feeling that Sod, Drash, and Remez didn’t need to agree with Pashat? Since Sod Drash and Remez interpretations of Torah can be conjured up Ex Nihilo, it makes sense he would say the universe was created Ex Nihilo too.

            I suspect Rashi would be in agreement with me on the kadosh being applied to chaos.

            I find Israeli men much more masculine than Diaspora men. Israeli men and women in general much better looking than Diaspora. I can’t speak further without visiting Israel in person.

          • peppermint says:

            » Israeli men and women in general much better looking than Diaspora

            be careful, what you say sounds like heresy. people could get away with saying that a decade ago, but they’re much more uptight about it now

        • Blue Meanie says:

          Quadosh means ‘holy’ not ‘separation’. not sure where you got that from.

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        For more philosophical foundation on this process of creation by making distinctions/separations/segregations, see “The Laws of Form”, by George Spencer-Brown.

    • jim says:

      One can make a good case from pre history, genetics, and legend, that Odin is a deified ancestor of the Aryans – that the Aryans arose from the mingling of two non Aryan races through exchange of hostages, the Aesir and the Vanir, with different genes for fair skin – that Snorri’s Heimskringla is tolerably accurate and historical.

      • B says:

        Uh, great. Good luck getting people to sacrifice their personal advantage for “Odin.”

        • Mycroft Jones says:

          You’d be amazed at the stupid things people sacrifice their lives for.

        • jim says:

          I don’t want people to sacrifice their personal advantage.

          I want a system were people can safely pursue their long term advantage, and it is to their long term advantage to refrain from negative sum behaviors.

          • B says:

            Again, pig-philosophy. If you create such a system, it will lose to one which can convince people to sacrifice their personal advantage in the service of a greater cause.

            • jim says:

              The British empire was conquered by merchant adventurers, people who half merchant, half pirate, and half slaver (which adds up to one and a half because they were larger than life size). It was lost by people who dedicated themselves to the greater cause of spreading civilization and bearing the white man’s burden.

          • Hidden Author says:

            But even their pursuit of self advantage required them to take great risks, risks they took upon themselves before of a certain concept of manhood. Their bravery did not just happen!

      • Blue Meanie says:

        here’s an interesting tidbit for you.

        Rabbinical lore says that(at least some of modern) Germany comes from Gomer. Ashkenaz was a descendant of Gomer, hence ‘Ashkenazi Jew’. Josephus traces the biblical names to tribes of Roman times which can be related to modern nations.

  13. […] can really mess you up (closely related). Celebrating intersectionality. The case for moralizing gods. Hurlock has […]

  14. […] can really mess you up (closely related). Celebrating intersectionality. The case for moralizing gods. Hurlock has […]

  15. B says:

    This is a very autistic view of human nature.

    Aside from shame, which prevents people from acting badly when it may cause them social problems and doesn’t prevent them from acting badly when the possibility of social problems is removed, there is also guilt, which keeps people from acting badly even when there is no possibility of social punishment, or even when there is social incentive for acting badly.

    Haldane is full of shit. The typical Arab will not die for his cousins, no matter how many of them there are. He might even sell them out. On the other hand, Sepharadi, Ashkenazi, Yemeni and Ethiopian Jews give their lives for each other in every war, with no concern about genetic proximity. Furthermore, an entire generation of Frenchmen gave their lives for their nation, a very abstract and genetically unmappable concept, during WW1. Most of the Soviet infantry was composed of Central Asians by 1944. Etc. People are, as Stove points out, not cod or pine trees, which are largely motivated by genetics.,%20Errors%20of%20Heredity,%20and%20Other%20Fables%20of%20Evolution.pdf

    But even cod and pine trees don’t sacrifice themselves for their brothers or cousins. Let alone for cospecifics who are tenuously related to them.

    Jews didn’t dominate the diamond trade because cheating would result in not being able to find wives for their children. Jews dominated the diamond trade because they believed in G-d, who calls cheating in business an abomination. Without this, no amount of laws will help you.

    • jim says:

      Jews didn’t dominate the diamond trade because cheating would result in not being able to find wives for their children. Jews dominated the diamond trade because they believed in G-d, who calls cheating in business an abomination. Without this, no amount of laws will help you.

      Pretty much everyone believes in such a God. Yet this God is a lot more effective in altering their behavior when there are social consequences in this world for disobeying him.

      And I rather think most Arabs, indeed most people, would give their lives for two brothers or eight cousins.

      • B says:

        That’s not true, most people don’t believe in such a god. Not in the same way you believe in Australia.

        Most people who wouldn’t give their lives for one brother or one child wouldn’t give their lives for two, or for any amount of cousins. But many people will give their lives for their teammates who are not related to them.

        My experience with the Arabs tells me that many of them are willing to sell their cousins for a bit of money. Giving up their lives doesn’t enter the equation.

        • Chris B says:

          “My experience with the Arabs tells me that many of them are willing to sell their cousins for a bit of money. Giving up their lives doesn’t enter the equation.” Sure. I will take your personal experience with some Arabs you don’t like over inclusive fitness and the ability of self sacrifice to actually evolve. Sure thing. As for people dying for their country, this seems to be a massive pozzing of genetic propensity to fight and sacrifice for close Kin, or massive manipulation of people’s need to fit in with society. The genes were not developed in an arena in which mass media existed.

          • B says:

            Sure, why would I trust my personal experience and that of my peers, friends and mentors over a half-baked pseudoreligious framework?

            I don’t know what “pozzing” is, but I suspect that you would apply the term to any human activity above the animalistic level. You know, El Greco and William Blake did what they did because of pozzing of a genetic propensity to show off for mates, etc. This is not a very interesting or productive way to think about human activity.

          • Chris B says:

            Genetics as pseudoreligious? That’s a new one. As for thinking about human activity, if your criteria is not based on the whys and hows linked to biology then you might as well just save time and pull explanations out of your backside.

          • B says:

            Genetics is not pseudoreligious.

            The application of concepts from genetics to explain complex human behavior is pseudoreligious.

            Roissy’s “god of biomechanics” (who apparently dictates lots of non-childproducing sex) and all that. I linked Stove’s Darwinian Fairytales above, where he points out all the ways in which people act contrary to the just-so narrative of evo psych.

            Evo psych is bullshit when it’s used to explain how we have gay people because having a gay uncle is a great advantage in survival, and it’s bullshit when used to explain how people sacrifice themselves for an ideal because that will help them get chicks, or help their cousins get chicks, or is fulfilling a genetic mechanism originally designed to help them or their cousins get chicks.

          • Hidden Author says:

            Yes, suicide bombers kill themselves for the lulz instead of their tribe!

        • bjiebfv says:

          Does that include Mizrahi Jews, you fuckking Zionist faggot?

    • peppermint says:

      » Jews dominated the diamond trade because they believed in G-d, who calls cheating in business an abomination.

      乁( ◔ ౪◔)ㄏ

    • anonymous says:

      im guessing that jews in fact dominated the diamond trade by cheating in business

  16. Mycroft Jones says:

    Jim, can you explain what you mean by “Universal Creator God”? When I read the books of Moses, I see a God who said “be holy, for I am holy”. Then he isolated himself by several layers of indirection in his Tabernacle.

    In Genesis 9-10 we have the concept of holiness defined for human society; 70 distinct human ethno-nations, with defined geographical boundaries. Then there were rules of land inheritance that said foreigners could come among you, but not own land. And had to assimilate for as long as they remained.

    To me, this God is Universal, because he is One God for all races of men. But he is also a Holy God, because he himself divided man into ethno-nations and gave us a continuing sign that this is His intention from then until now, and into the future: the confusion of languages. There is no worldwide language. And even when people speak English with perfect grammar, the confusion remains, as words are continually redefined depending on context. It takes a proper cross examiner to discover that the conversation you just had with that Eastern European, meant something else to him than it did to you.

    In short, religious people today aren’t holy and don’t understand holiness because they don’t understand the original meaning of the word: “separation”. Nothing more, nothing less.

    The Genesis story, and almost every creation narrative worldwide, is a story of progressive holiness, not a story of creation ex nihili.

    First there was chaos.
    Then darkness was separated from light.
    Then heaven was separated from earth.
    Then land was separated from ocean.
    Then man was separated from the clay.
    Then the stars and heavenly luminaries were separated from the light.
    Then plants were separated from the clay
    Then flyers and swimmers were separated from the clay
    Then land beasts were separated from the clay
    Then woman was separated from man
    Then the sabbath day was separated from the six working days

    The holiness concept pervades the Bible at a very deep level.

    You can compare the flood narrative (all flesh had corrupted its way) with the Babel story (and all men were separated over the surface of the earth). Why does it say men were separated? So that corruption wouldn’t spread over the whole earth again.

    When there is a sickness, what do you do? Quarantine. Holiness.

    When two burning sticks are brought together, they burn even hotter. Separate them, and the flame may even go out.

    • jim says:

      universal, as distinct from ancestor gods, and the gods of field and stream,

      Creator god, made the universe.

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        Jim, have you considered that a Holy (separatist) Creator God, working through the agency of lesser, subsdiary “sons of God” gods, doesn’t have any of the vulnerabilities that a Universalist (Christian, Muslim) Creator God has?

        The Hebrew text of the Bible (Deuteronomy, Job) implies that the Creator God divided up each nation of humankind, and assigned them their own god. It doesn’t go into detail on the implications of that though.

        • jim says:

          That would be a good solution, but my cynicism is too corrosive for me to get into the prophet business.

        • peppermint says:

          also, in the Bible, Jacob jews Esau out of his birthright, and then tricks Isaac into giving Jacob his blessing instead of Esau, so, Isaac says to Esau,

          36 And he said, Is not he rightly named Jacob? for he hath supplanted me these two times: he took away my birthright; and, behold, now he hath taken away my blessing. And he said, Hast thou not reserved a blessing for me?

          37 And Isaac answered and said unto Esau, Behold, I have made him thy lord, and all his brethren have I given to him for servants; and with corn and wine have I sustained him: and what shall I do now unto thee, my son?

          38 And Esau said unto his father, Hast thou but one blessing, my father? bless me, even me also, O my father. And Esau lifted up his voice, and wept.

          39 And Isaac his father answered and said unto him, Behold, thy dwelling shall be the fatness of the earth, and of the dew of heaven from above;

          40 And by thy sword shalt thou live, and shalt serve thy brother; and it shall come to pass when thou shalt have the dominion, that thou shalt break his yoke from off thy neck.

          So get to it White people! It is written that we shall have the dominion and break the yoke of Israel from our necks!

          Also, as Dystopia Max pointed out, we don’t need the Old Testament for the core of Christianity, we can use Greek mythology for Christianity as well.

          • Mycroft Jones says:

            The New Testament was designed to work with the Old Testament as a core. Because the Old Testament was jettisoned early on, Christianity careens around like a drunken man. From the very beginning. Without end. Every Protestant sect that embraced the Old Testament as core, did very well. However, they get rich fat and lazy, look for ecumenical oneness with other Christians, and then the progressive poison seeps back in.

          • Blue Meanie says:

            a good point.

            if you examine the relations between Jacob and Esau, ie between Israel and Rome- you see a specific pattern.

            Esau only seems to gain the upper hand through Jacob’s own failings. When he fails to live up to himself, Esau steps in and tortures him. that last excerpt from Genesis is an important one.

            Esau’s ‘house’ shows up later in the chumash as Amalek.

        • B says:

          The Torah says more or less that all the nations have their own angels (meaning, in Maimonidean interpretation, not a magic invisible guy with wings but a sort of set of key principles/destiny/trajectory governing their fate,) with the exception of Jews who are directly under G-d.

          There are certainly no other gods, which is explicit-any worship of other gods is just vain worship of sticks and stones.

          • Talmid HaSepher says:

            Sons of God, yes, that maps to angels fairly well. Why would these shephered/angels allow their subjects to worship false gods? I find the answer in the Babel story. Confusing the tongues relates to confusing the mythological narratives as much as the grammar and syntax of their languages.

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        Can you refer me to some of your posts where you describe ancestor gods and gods of field and stream, in a way that distinguishes them from Creator god(s)? If it isn’t too much bother. I don’t want to comment too much further without knowing what your terms mean.

    • Blue Meanie says:

      the reason why they built the Tower Of Babel was because they thought they could prevent death from another flood, hence a tower ie. they thought they could defy god. I think you’re on with your other point, they are separated in order to prevent them from selfish desires.

  17. mukatsuku says:

    Japanese religion is even more Jim-worthy than that: whether your family is nominally Buddhist or Shinto, religious observance is merged into a national religion. Babies are taken to a Shinto shrine; and you return to your hometown on the Buddhist holiday Obon, to tend to your ancestors’ gravesite.

  18. Dystopia Max says:

    I sense the coming together of a lot of disparate ideas in this post. Sadly, it’s wrong, because at least one or two of those ideas are wrong. Larry Auster described the problem better:

    “The key to Christian this-worldly confidence is not that an individual Christian be Jewish (an absurd and offensive idea); it is that Christian society—any Christian society—must include non-Christian cultural and political sources.

    This is an absolutely fundamental point that Christians must understand. The original teaching of Christianity as presented in the New Testament is about how to live in what Jesus called the kingdom of heaven. It is about the individual soul’s relation with God through Christ. It is not about the political organization of society. The New Testament simply assumes the existence of political society and goes on from there. Because Christianity is not, like orthodox Judaism and Islam, a complete recipe for this-worldly existence, Christians must “render unto Caesar,” i.e., render unto a non-Christian basis of authority. Christian society is thus more complex—more differentiated, to use Eric Voegelin’s term—than any other. It is multileveled, mediating between the pole of the Christian, spiritual realm and the pole of political and cultural existence in this world, which does not come from Christianity itself. If the society loses its this-worldly pole it will go out of existence. This is the reason why Christian society is the riskiest and most dangerous type of society, the most open to catastrophic derailment, such as the derailment brought by modern liberalism. Yet Christianity’s this-worldly “lack,” which makes Christian society so vulnerable in comparison to the religiously structured society of traditional Judaism and Islam, is also the thing that, by requiring Christian society to be multileveled in order to function in this world, makes it the fullest and truest articulation of the human soul, extending downward to the apeirontic depths (the many) and upward to transcendent spiritual truth (the One).

    Historical Christianity included the Old Testament as part of its scripture. This was a non-Christian source that provided the sense of living in this world as a community of people under God, a sense that is not provided by the New Testament. Thus Protestants, including the people who created America, were able to build strong national societies because they based themselves heavily on the Old Testament with its powerful sense of a people under God.

    The non-Christian source that supplements pure Christianity doesn’t have to be the Old Testament. It could be classical philosophy or Greco-Roman culture or Germanic barbarian nationhood or feudalism or English nationhood or the American way of life or any number of other sources. It could be the traditional Catholic Church, which provides a template for this-worldly society. The Roman church of course carries the traces of its days as the official religion of Rome, and the Catholic liturgy also has deep roots in the ancient Jewish temple service.

    People who try to form their practical ethics on the basis of a pure Christian teaching inevitably go gnostic. Look at the evangelicals today who have turned into globalist open borders wackos. Look at how the Christian traditionalist writers at What’s Wrong with the World have articulated a single, pure, all-ruling moral ethos against “killing the innocent” that in certain circumstances, e.g., if enemy invaders included innocent hostages in their ranks, would require a “morally pure” people to allow their enemies to kill, defeat, and enslave them. Some morality!

    Christianity is at the center of our culture, but is not the totality of it. People who make some unmediated version of Christianity the totality of their view of culture and politics become a danger to their society.”

    Christianity is risky, dangerous, and potentially very destructive because it’s true, it illuminates other truths, and it enables the Christian to wield those truths: for good, or ill. It is quite definitely true that the condition of those who apostasize from its truths are worse off than if they have never heard of it in the first place. It is not true that any of the alternatives to it can be considered tenable by thinking men, nor will they be defended by those who have already tasted the truth.

    It is enough to say that he who discovers and follows Christ truly can end up saving his entire family, clan, tribe, and nation, often in ways both unexpected and unprecedented, because only Christ can enable one to rise above his own nature. The greatest danger is that those who already have a great nature by genetics, circumstance, or practice may not see the need for this, and thus be lost.

    Gnon is not God, and cannot offer the individual the salvation, the discipline, or the destination that he most keenly desires, nor can he teach one to invuitively build the structures and societies that we have only just learned to appreciate.

    Pursue Truth first, and the narratives will reveal themselves. When Christ awakens the hearts and heads of men, the darkest of societies can turn in an instant.

    • jim says:

      No religion can coexist with progressivism. Unless armed with nuclear weapons, it is going to turn into progressivism.

      Christianity was able to coexist with Roman paganism because the pagans had lost their will and lost their way, because Rome, which told Christians they must burn a pinch of incense to the deified emperor or die, was fundamentally more tolerant than progressivism, which tells Christians that Jesus was community organizer, and that Christianity, rightly understood, is progressivism.

      So your church is busy bringing illegals over the border, encourages wives to destroy the family assets and render their children fatherless, tells women that their only sin is insufficient self esteem, and also works to improve the self esteem of gays and transsexuals. Your Church may have Christians on the pews, but it does not have Christians in the pulpit, for if it did, there would be another Waco.

      Any religion, to survive, ultimately has to overthrow progressivism as the state religion.

      • R7_Rocket says:

        “Any religion, to survive, ultimately has to overthrow progressivism as the state religion.”

        The most prominent options I see in how to depose progressivism is the Russian Option (possess nuclear weapons)… the other option is to wear progressivism’s skin while slowly undermining progressivism.

        • peppermint says:

          why weren’t the Golden Dawn leaders suicided in prison and the rest of Golden Dawn offered plata o plomo during those 18 months? why haven’t they been forced to flee the country instead of facing trial, which is going to be a bigger farce than the Zimmerman trial? why haven’t the institutional partners allowed Syriza to save face more than renaming the troika memorandum to the institutional partners loan agreement?

          Why is Paul Kersey allowed to sell his books through

          As Jim keeps saying, progressives believe that all religions are progressivism when interpreted correctly. They also believe that all current hominids, from Australoids to Pygmies, are really northern european Whites when raised correctly. If it was true, the residual sentimental white skin prejudice would melt away when white-skinned people met other people who aren’t actually different except for how they look, and racism would be seen as a pathetic gambit to temporarily retain some white skin privilege. As Moldbug says, this was not totally excluded in the literature in the middle of the last century, and, of course, at the beginning of the last century, Spengler wrote some history of the world stuff that totally ignored race and the Jews.

          Well anyway, Jim also told me that the universities aren’t going to just melt away and all the professors of creative writing and calculus to be reduced to begging for hot dogs outside 7-11, he thinks it will take some kind of forceful military thing or whatever.

          But if progressives don’t believe in themselves enough to keep Paul Kersey off of, their religion isn’t going to survive.

          • jim says:

            The reason Paul Kersey can sell his books is that no progressive has heard of him, or can comprehend what is in his books. He is protected by crimestop.

            Much as progressives failed to see the message in District 9.

          • peppermint says:

            They do know who David Duke is. He just told all his supporters that they’re trying to shut his YouTube page down over some bullshit copyright infringement accusation. Hatespeech is already against YouTube’s rules.

            Why don’t they just get rid of him? He isn’t exactly fooling anyone when he says he isn’t an anti-Semite in his book Jewish Supremacy, is he?

            • jim says:

              David Duke is relatively harmless. He also makes the right that notices race look stupid, whereas Paul Kersey makes the right that notices race look smart – which is part of the reason progressives can see David Duke and cannot see Paul Kersey.

              As the Incans could not see Pizarro’s men until swords pierced their hearts, progressives cannot see real threats.

          • pdimov says:

            “Jim also told me that the universities aren’t going to just melt away and all the professors of creative writing and calculus to be reduced to begging for hot dogs outside 7-11…”

            An economic collapse has precisely this effect on professors and scientists. Or, if you prefer, on “professors” and “scientists”.

  19. Just sayin' says:

    “Nazis tend to believe that whites would not make war on each other except for the evil mind control rays emitted by Jews. Thus world wars One and Two were supposedly Jewish plots.”

    *Invades Poland*
    *Prepares General Plan Ost*

    • jim says:

      Well I did not say that Nazis make a whole lot of sense.

      • jay says:

        Middle easterners were also practicing war on each other as much as the europeans. Why do they still suck at it?

        • jim says:

          Angles and Saxons expanded by genocide. Middle Easterners, like modern Americans, found themselves ruled by those they conquered. In the middle east, as in modern America, being a successful warrior, or part of a group of succesful warriors, was apt to result in one having no descendents.

          When priests are on top, being a warrior is seldom a good Darwinian strategy. Whites were bred for war because aristocrats were bred for war, and aristocrats had more surviving children, because being a warrior was a good Darwinian strategy when warriors were on top.

          • Ansible says:

            Saxon genes account for only 20% of british dna. Can’t have been that successful at genocide.


            • jim says:

              That the original inhabitants of Britain were genocided is, of course politically incorrect, so there a large amount of fake science on it, much resembling the fake science on global warming.

            • jim says:

              On checking what I assume is your source I find that to get the intermarriage result, they cooked their data with a mystery fudge factor:

              We found evidence of another major wave of migrations, very likely over many hundreds of years, about which effectively nothing is known. It is probably the biggest single contributor to DNA now in England and much of Scotland, but it has had no impact on Wales.

              This wave of migrations is probably just part of the anglo saxon migration, but if they acknowledged it as such, the implication would be genocide and total replacement over most of England, with a few isolated groups of the previous inhabitants hanging out here and there.

          • Simon says:

            jim, would you be willing to do a post on this?

        • B says:

          Middle Easterners, for quite a long time, didn’t suck at war compared to Europeans. The difference is recent (Alexander and co. notwithstanding.)

          I suspect modern warfare is intrinsically linked to the modern state, which never quite emerged in the Middle East in the same way. Meaning, an American soldier thinks of himself as an American soldier first, and then a Nebraskan or whatever. An Iraqi soldier, quite the opposite. So levels of trust are higher in the Western militaries (though they are sliding.) Then you get into things like self-discipline and the ability to maintain equipment, which are really built on basic social principles that don’t exist in cultures with low future time orientation.

          Notably, given Western training and leadership, non-Western troops have performed quite well. See the French Goumes, Algerians and Indochinese, the British and their Indians, the Russians and their Muslims. And in some cases non-Western troops have been able to beat the hell out of Western militaries quite recently: the French in Vietnam and the Russians during the first Chechen War are two notable examples.

          • jim says:

            Middle Easterners, for quite a long time, didn’t suck at war compared to Europeans. The difference is recent (Alexander and co. notwithstanding.)

            Even though the crusades repeatedly ended with Muslim victory, due to internal division and lack of discipline, casualties tended to be enormously one sided in the crusader’s favor. The crusades on the Christian side were financed by passing the hat around, by younger sons with no inheritance prospects going off to look for land, loot, and glory, on the Muslim side by taxation and conscription. So what would happen is that fashion and attention would wander on the crusader side, perhaps because loot was getting a bit thin, reduced to boring stuff like dusty library books, and while Christian attention was elsewhere, the unending stream of conscript cannon fodder would gain the advantage, at gigantic cost in lives and treasure.

            Remember that the full might of the Ottoman empire was turned back from Vienna by one Christian prince of one minor Christian nation, under dire threat that other Christian nations would take advantage of his distraction, as indeed they did.

            And in some cases non-Western troops have been able to beat the hell out of Western militaries quite recently: the French in Vietnam and the Russians during the first Chechen War are two notable examples.

            Well I don’t know what happened in the first Chechen war, but Indochina was standard war of communism – the communists displayed unlimited willingness to sacrifice unlimited lives, and the west was disinclined to play that game.

            And, even so, I am pretty sure that if the Americans had played it the way the colonial powers used to play it (create a desert wherever their authority was successfully defied) the Americans would have won, though on the other hand, such measures might have undermined America’s soft power, which soft power in the end proved significant.

          • Hidden Author says:

            Describing the Muslim leaders’ conscripts as “the unending stream of conscript cannon fodder” doesn’t do justice to how conscription worked in pre-modern times. In modern times, democracy and nationalism won against competitors by instituting a levee en masse. But in pre-modern times, conscription was a matter whereby a prince a) removed vagrants from the street and/or rounded up extra serfs/slaves and b) trained, indoctrinated and incentivized them into forming a military subculture separate from and used to dominate civilian society as opposed to the democratic/nationalist approach of treating the military as “the nation in arms”. Imperial Germany and its core, the Kingdom of Prussia were famous for what they did with their nation in arms but originally that Napoleonic-era reform was implemented with considerable hesitation because the King of Prussia/Emperor of Germany preferred the old system of conscription that treated the soldier as separate from the common people he imposed the King’s dominion over instead of treating the soldier as part of the common people he imposed the King’s dominion over.

          • peppermint says:

            you know, Emmett Till’s father was convicted of rape and given the choice of going to prison or going to the Army. He was later convicted of rape while on the Italian campaign, and, military justice not yet having caught up with civilian justice, was hanged by the horrible racists.

          • R. says:

            Remember that the full might of the Ottoman empire was turned back from Vienna by one Christian prince of one minor Christian nation, under dire threat that other Christian nations would take advantage of his distraction, as indeed they did.

   There were in total something like 100,000 troops, mostly German, and by the time the Poles (with some German help) staged the largest cavalry charge in history, the Turks were weakened. Also, Poland .. minor?

            The Commonwealth was one of the largest and most populated countries in Europe at the time. Calling it ‘minor’ does seem quite unintuitive. What’s the reasoning behind that?

Leave a Reply