Separation of Church and State has failed catastrophically.

Same problem as anarcho capitalism. The vacuum is apt to be filled. And today it is filled with an official government belief system that daily becomes more extreme, and is enforced more coercively.

In retrospect it is clear that in England the demand to disestablish the Anglican Church came from a competing religion, then called Evangelism, descended from Puritanism, which was already most of the way to becoming the state religion of England though it continually changed its name in the process.

The history of official religion in the US is more complex. When the United States was many separate states with a common defense and a common foreign policy, back when people said “The United States are” rather than “The United States is” there was absolutely no separation of Church and State, for each state had its own state religion, and the seminary of the state religion of Massachusetts, charged with promoting and enforcing the state religion, was Harvard.

After the English restoration the religion of New England became aggressive, political, this worldly, and bent on conquest and domination. They forever resented the English restoration which had disempowered them and purged them from lucrative positions in the Church of England and in the English government. Whig history began as their plan for reconquering England and the world.

The state Church of Massachusetts was state church of New England, and New England set up its Rome, its Papacy, in Massachussetts. The civil war and the Mormon war was New England conquering America – and then, following the civil war, denied it was a religious institution and proceeded to apply the doctrine of “separation of Church and state” as a very thin coat of white wash over the state religion of Massachusetts being enforced on everyone in America. And after World War II, everyone in the world, except those protected by nuclear weapons, Russia and China. There is a direct correlation between one’s alma mater’s proximity to the Boston-NYC-DC corridor and the height of one’s position in the government and ruling class of one’s country. Outside of Russia and China the only substantial resistance comes from Muslims. If you are Muslim a tranny nonetheless wins your song contest, your universities are run from Harvard, two thirds of the youngsters attending university are women due to affirmative action for women, and shortly after they attend university they find themselves covered in semen from head to foot and are told that they are liberated. Approximately half of all Muslims are moderate Muslims, and if you are a moderate Muslim you support the gay parades, you have only one wife in the event you have a wife, and if you do get married you will probably marry a women nearing the end of her fertile years, and are failing to reproduce. Immoderate Muslims, most of whom support Islamic state or some faction equally violent, are getting laid, marrying young women in their most fertile years, and having numerous children.

Ann Coulter famously said “Kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity”. Predictably, the US government adopted a policy of killing their leaders and converting them to progressivism, which policy is not entirely failing, but is having considerably less success and more serious problems than admitted. Conversion to progressivism is not keeping up with rate at which real Muslims, the ones that make women submit to their husbands, breed.

By and large, I tend to focus on power at the bottom – that women interrupt their boss tells me that they are hired for reasons other than their contribution to profit, that businesses are forced or morally pressured to hire women, and then stuff them into parts of the business where they cannot do too much immediate damage. Blacks walk down the street like aristocrats, taking up lots of space, while white males walk like serfs.

I also write a lot about female sexual preferences. Sexual selection, female choice, results in a positive feedback cycle, hence the peacock’s tail. I expect my readers, unlike Harvard alumni and Word Bank economists, to know the difference between positive feedback and negative feedback, to, unlike the typical Harvard alumunus, understand why the peacock’s tail is a really bad thing for peacocks, and to know that positive feedback is apt to have extremely bad consequences, and almost always needs to be broken and disconnected in the most direct way possible.

But this post is about power at the top. It is, however, also about my favorite topic: Positive feedback loops. And if you did not get that the peacocks tail is a manifestation of a positive feedback loop and that the peacock’s tail shows that women should never have been emancipated, do some homework before commenting. Seems that these days all they teach in university is how to hate white males, even if your degree is nominally in computer science. If your degree is in computer science, you damn well should know what a positive feedback loop is and why it is a bad thing.

During the reign of Charles the First of England, there was a remarkable outbreak of holiness. By and large, the holiest people tended to get the preaching jobs in the Church of England, and, since there was not a whole lot of entertainment and social events other than going to church, they persuaded other people to be holy.

To some extent this holiness was genuine and sincere. On the other hand, since Church of England jobs had good pay and status, it was to some extent pharisaical, and became increasingly pharisaical. And this pharisaical holiness started to increasingly resemble nineteenth century leftism, alarming the King, so Charles the First set to appointing Bishops that opposed and suppressed left wing pharisaism – or perhaps Bishops that, like Charles himself, enjoyed a good time and were not particularly holy. And this led to civil war, which the exceedingly holy won.

And pretty soon each candidate for office was even holier than each of the other candidates.

And pretty soon pharisaical holiness developed a striking resemblance to twentieth century leftism, the twentieth century labor movement and the hippies, Which alarmed Oliver Cromwell, who, like Stalin, found himself outflanked on his left, so he cracked down on it, a good deal more vigorously and more successfully than Charles the first did. Cromwell is both a villain to reactionaries, for executing a great King, and a hero to reactionaries, for putting a stop to leftism, and for equipping General Monck with a praetorian guard, the Coldstream guards.

Cromwell’s leftism did not go all the way to twenty first century leftism and celebrate sodomy, but the wind was blowing that way, as men ever more holy had to denounce yesterday’s holiness. The war on Christmas and the war on Marriage began under Cromwell, foreshadowing the twenty first century celebration of sodomy.

After Cromwell died, General Monck staged a coup, and to this day the Coldstream Guards, who were originally his praetorians, guard parliament. General Monck restored the monarchy, and the monarchy, Charles the Second, purged puritans from state institutions, including the Church of England.

This pissed off the puritans no end. Charles attempted to purge New England’s ruling institutions, but whereas puritans were unpopular in England, pretty much everyone in New England was a puritan, and the puritans eventually regained power in New England by a revolt that England let slide, and eventually legalized.

And having regained power, they proceeded to get holier and holier, until they were holier than Jesus (abolitionism and prohibition). And here we are.

115 Responses to “Separation of Church and State has failed catastrophically.”

  1. Your ahistorical position on Puritanism is perhaps your greatest weakness. Appearing Leftism on the past is much the same as applying psychological concepts onto the past. They had no concept of such things, so it becomes increasingly difficult to do. Undoubtedly many aspects of Puritanism were radical, they were probably the most radical Calvinists, but many aspects were conservative.
    You also make the mistake of faulting Puritanism with modern Evangelicalism, where the most direct link can be applied to Pietism, which itself infected Puritanism at later stages. Pietism came from Lutheranism, not Calvinism. Pietism is also great at making the best known non-believers too, and the most unstable personalities, Engels, Kant and Nietzsche (Kierkegaard too, even though not an Atheist) were sons of abusive Pietists ministers, I’ve even heard Marx’s parents were Pietists (albeit Jewish ones, don’t quote me on that). While the Calvinist royalty in Germany kept the status quo.
    Today it is similar, many Calvinists seem the most conservative, while the Irish, those Cromwell detested are quite liberal. This is not to say anything, but to throw a spanner in your thinking. History is complex, but your bad analysis of Puritans is just lazy and one sided. And IMO is really just conspiracy theory material from socially inept Ashkenazi of the NRx.

    • jim says:

      That Puritans were leftists is not some radical new idea. Marx wrote a lot on that topic. Indeed it was more obvious in his time, because the restoration had not yet been entirely reversed, so the Puritans of Cromwell’s time were far to the left of the society Marx saw around him.

      As recently as the early 1970s, people still looked to the puritan movements that Cromwell suppressed as exemplars of radical leftism, for example the Hippy movement “the Diggers” consciously identified with the diggers of Cromwell’s time as exemplars of leftism.

      There can be no doubt whatsoever that the Diggers of Cromwell’s time and the Puritans that first settled America and first held thanksgiving, were radical leftists by late twentieth century standards, enemies of Christmas, Capitalism, marriage, the family, and patriarchy, even though we have now gone so far left that they now look right wing to us.

      The Jew theory only fits the data if you look at the twentieth century. The earlier you go, the worse it fits.

  2. Sam J. says:

    We wonder what’s wrong with our society and we list all these failings of society but is there a sort of root cause? Notice how a word can sometimes lead to an advanced understanding of a situation? Sometimes the right word phrase can open up disconnected thoughts. Dindu as an example. A very, very good one is Cuckservative. Think at how this one explains and expands your thoughts about how the Republicans have treated their base.

    I had a brain storm today. I submit that Communism is still alive and is destroying our society but a different kind. “Economic” Communism was all the rage for decades and decades but in the end it proved a failure but there’s another kind of Communism, “Social” Communism or “Societal” Communism more exactly. These are the Black Lives Matter, SJW, the leveling that says every weird sexual fetish is normal, the people who constantly attack Men and masculinity. I’ve thought of a word that describes them. Socoms as in “Societal” Communist”. Maybe it will catch on. Lot easier to say than SJW and very clear once you know what it’s a short cut for. Economic Communism has failed but Socom hasn’t yet. We may see it fail in our lifetimes though. The proper way to refer to them is the tyrannical Socoms as they use tyranny to force their views on every one else.

  3. […] is his usual magnificent self here: Separation of Church and State has failed catastrophically. It’s a bit scattershot, but only because the topic has tendrils that extend down and touch […]

  4. vxxc2014 says:


    The people in charge of Harvard and the Official Church the last 50 years aren’t Puritan White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. They’re Jews. The same people who then openly began to harm us every way they could and in this generation 1993-2016 have ruined us by stealing, destroying industries, corrupting our government and dousing our population with pornography, crime laws of anarcho tyranny they wrote, family law that destroyed the Father and the Family and the list continues to everything they’ve touched.

    You know the people blocking the Asians from taking over Harvard?

    They’re Jews* Jim. Only some of them but enough. Now the list of their crimes we may add inciting the murder of policemen through the media, funding the black terrorist front BLM through Soro and now inciting both Black and Whites into a diversionary war to save Americas totally bankrupt Elites who can see the end coming no matter what and have pulled down OUR TEMPLE to save themselves. Or perhaps just maliciously get one last stab in.

    Now you are and clearly have been compromised on this matter. Start telling the truth, be silent or at least stop pointing the finger of blame at your fellow whites. You’re lying and you know it.

    You see the old Testament read either as History or Instruction manual is like the Koran except the Koran only instructs conquest while The Old Testament instructs Genocide for all others – and is the History of said racial genocide in practice.

    The Jews seized Harvard from the WASPS 50 years ago and they justly bear the blame for what’s happened. How that guilt translates into policy none can see but it’s Them.

    *Not only Jewish friends, employers, benefactors but wartime comrades. Yet Duty is Duty and any grouping of guilt must be on the actual guilty party.

    How’s names not groups looking now?

    • JRM says:

      Yes vxxc2014 you are correct that the Jews have fully infiltrated all the cultural power plants like Harvard, I wouldn’t say “seized” but certainly wrested.

      I certainly agree with the bulk of your post. Nevertheless there is/was a Massachusetts State Religion aka Progressivism which was rooted in Puritan salvation trauma. I don’t think Jim is “lying”, and this phenomena is fully worthy of tracing and analyzing.

      The key to bringing it forward to today is identifying where the set of values was recognized by certain (((intellectuals))) as a natural haven for their talents at social parasitism.

      You have the right key to the last fifty years; Jim’s post is not without value however, and the background understanding will elucidate a great deal about both religious sincerity/holiness spirals, and the hollowing out of our institutions by Jewish tricksters and con artists. A tragic intersection in American history.

    • jim says:

      They’re Jews* Jim. Only some of them but enough.

      Only some of them. And what do all of them in the Cathedral, Jews and non Jews, have in common?

      There are certain Jews who do not get into Harvard, regardless of their ability. What do they have in common with certain non Jews who also do not get into Harvard regardless of their ability?

      • vxxc2014 says:


        I’m quite happy to remain with ‘names not groups.’ [TM].

        I’m not an intellectual. I’m a soldier.

        Understand Sir a threshold was crossed in Dallas.

        Do consider. Others are.

        Have a good evening one and all. We may enjoy the sight of Turkey saving itself. Cheers.

        • vxxc2014 says:

          2d reply to be polite: I realize the Orthodox and for that matter no one who is innocent gets into Harvard.

          I have no interest in the innocent indeed my inclinations regardless of group are towards benevolence. Soldiers benevolence in War active or passive is valuable.

          However good deeds don’t solve the problem. Understand that someone or something will solve.

          Again Have a good evening Sir/Gentlemen…

          And Happy Turkey Day!

  5. lalit says:

    Is India included in the list of countries with Rulers, justices, senior bureaucrats educated in that narrow triangle in the Boston-NYC-DC Corridor? i think not. India is not fully independent, that much is true. But India is under British Rule, not USG Rule. India is, was and will always remain a British Colony.

    • peppermint says:

      Who rules Britain? Someone other than the English, since the English must give their pubescent daughters to pakis.

      If not the ((Americans)), then the Jews directly.

      • jim says:

        Who rules Britain? Someone other than the English, since the English must give their pubescent daughters to pakis.

        Does not follow: The Khmer Rouge murdered each other, as did the Jewish Bolsheviks.

        You are projecting your own ethnic loyalty onto those that completely lack it. Is Merkel not German? Yet she wants the white race and German civilization to disappear and be forgotten.

        • peppermint says:

          In the US, the ((globalists)) had a blame sharing thing going on between the Republicucks and the Dhimmicrats that had me fooled up through my early ’20s.

          In Britain, they could blame their unpopular policies on the ((Eurocrats)).

          The way they want to play Brexit is that the vote was ostensibly about economics, so they’re going to have a cuckservative SJW PM, and double down on hatespeech laws that already defanged the Brexit campaign and prevented and organized attempt at getting a nationalist PM. Tactically, this situation looks bad for us, but it’s actually a massive victory, because they can’t blame ((Eurocrats)) anymore, anything unpopular is on the ((British government)) itself.

          You say it’s a holiness spiral, but the holiness spiral is what burned he wool over American eyes, vis. Barack Obama marginalizing the Republicucks and thus making them impossible to blame, and ((educators)) and ((media)) marginalizing cuckstainty to the point that no one likes cuckoldry anymore.

          What happened in England wasn’t a holiness spiral destroying the lies about ((Eurocrats)), but the damage is done here, and we only needed to expose the Jews once.

          Everyone knows about the role of ((merchant banks)) now.

  6. lalit says:

    Jim, this link you provided in the article

    That Mark Yuray guy’s writing style is eerily similar to yours. That same sarcastic, sneering, mocking style.

    Is this an instance of
    1. imitation being the sincerest form of flattery
    2. OR Great minds thinking and writing alike
    3. or are you two identical twins?
    4. OR are you two the same person

    • Jack says:

      Are you high on curry or what? Their writing style isn’t even similar. Yuray writes like a normie, though he seasons his articles with improbable hyperboles e.g ‘NRx is less Jewish than HAMAS’ (no, it isn’t). Meanwhile Jim writes direct but long sentences, replete with conjunctions which serve to emphasize his points, often lacking auxiliary verbs within the sentences.

      A typical Jim sentence would be “if blacks not segregated, if one rule for blacks and whites enforced, then need endless affirmative action to maintain illusion of equality between the races, thus have professors with room temperature IQ, thus ever increasing funding for nigger studies departments, therefore civilization declines ever more rapidly”. This is not actually a quoted Jim sentence but rather a sentence modelled after Jim’s writing both in terms of subject-matter and structure. Yuray definitely doesn’t write like that.

      A Yuray text would read “since the dawn of civilization alcohol has been with us. Does anyone think the ancient Egyptians could build their grandiose pyramids without large scale beer consumption? That’s preposterous on its face. Without brewing beer, it is the Egyptians who’d be slaves to the Hebrews in Canaan rather than vice versa!” You see, Jim knows exactly what he sounds like and gives no fuck, whereas Yuray is a classic case of “doing it wrong” trolling, aka perpetual self-troll.

  7. Barnabas says:

    American Evangelicals embrace role as agents of the Cathedral triggering the Russian immune system.

    • Hidden Author says:

      So the real Jesus is a neoreactionary who supports the persecution of His followers? He was just kidding about that bit where He said, “Whatsoever you do to the least of my people, that you do onto Me.”?

      • jay says:

        Where they go. Feminism follows and all other progressivisms.

      • jim says:

        Cathedral compliant Christians who adopt niglets and valorize single mothers are not his people.

        • Hidden Author says:

          Adopting black babies seems in line with New Testament tradition though valorizing single mothers definitely isn’t. Anyways, when Jesus said that the world would persecute His followers, the existing states were all authoritarian monarchies so obviously His view of Caesar was a complex one that did not idolize him like you guys do.

          Bonus Fact: The word for “world” in many languages ranging from Hebrew to Ye Olde English referred to the era at hand as much as to the planet at hand. Time and space both created a sense of place. So while Jesus counseled against revolution, He also did not treat Caesar as the fount of all honors, mortal and divine–hence, the Roman persecution of His followers for the first 300 years of their existence!

          • Contaminated NEET says:

            Well, Rabbi Yeshua was a commie cult leader. What do you expect?

            You’ve been commenting here so long, HA – don’t you recall what Jim had to say about his teachings?

          • peppermint says:

            the Roman persecution of ((Jesus’ followers)) is a Jew hoax on perhaps a larger scale even than the Holocaust. The whole reason ((Jesus’ followers)) managed to set up shop is that the Romans were willing to tolerate other people having their own religions, as they had their own ancestral gods and a number of ideas about existence.

            The problem the Romans had in the end was not that they were too willing to tolerate other people’s gods, but that they were too willing to tolerate other people: they imported foreign goods and labor the way we do now, up until they ran out of Romans. Theoderic forbade intermarriage between his Goths and the “Romans”, since the Romans had miscegenated so much.

            And make no mistake, while Cicero was in favor of importing foreign labor and the welfare system was set up in the early years AD, Roman Emperors as early as Claudius sided with the Jews against the Greek Egyptians.


            • peppermint says:

              By the way, don’t bother replying with stories about saints you heard in sunday school. ((Jesus’ followers)), including a shocking number of Aryans, have a typically Jewish regard for the truth when it comes to spreading the Truth, being a Light unto the World, and tikkun olam.

              • Hidden Author says:

                Christian say-so does not verify Christian persecution but Nazi say-so verifies everything Nazi. Gotcha!

            • jim says:

              Accusing the Romans of favoring the Jews, though true, is misleading. The Romans bent over backwards to avoid religious trouble with Jewish fanatics, but the Jews just would not take yes for an answer, so in the end the Romans went Roman on the Jews. Indeed Roman persecution of the Christians – which was indeed infrequent, light, and erratic – was primarily a result of their bad experience with the Jews.

              They tolerated everyone except Jews and Druids, and if they were hard on Christians that is because Christians resembled Jews, and they had a hard time with Jews.

          • jim says:

            Adopting black babies seems in line with New Testament tradition

            Oh come on.

            Today, adopting a black baby is a symbol of adherence to a belief system that competes with Christianity and is profoundly and inherently hostile to Christianity.

            Adopting black babies is a demonstration of committment to universalism. The New Testament is not universalist, and Christianity is particularist. It is a demonstration of commitment to a competing religious system. The New Testament does not explicitly prohibit shouting “Allahu akbar” any more than it explicitly prohibits adopting black babies, but pretty obviously someone who shouts “Allahu akbar” is no Christian.

            Paul’s instruction on widows commits Christianity to particularism – that God gives us the duty to care for near before far. Paul’s instruction against eating meat sacrificed to idols commits Christians to refrain from demonstrating adherence to competing faiths. Whites adopting blacks is a demonstration of adherence to a competing faith, just as shouting “Allahu akbar” is.

            If universalism was not in competition with and suppressing Christianity, then there would be nothing unchristian about whites adopting blacks, but in the context that they are rival religions, whites adopting blacks is profoundly unchristian. Paul tells us that when idols are no longer a live issue, then we can eat meat sacrificed to idols. And this implies that if universalism was not a live issue, whites could adopt blacks. But it is a live issue, therefore they cannot.

            Paul did not explicitly address the issue of burning a pinch of incense to the emperor either, but subsequent Christians interpreted his instruction against eating meat sacrificed to idols as “Don’t burn a pinch of incense to the emperor” – don’t do whatever non Christians are doing to demonstrate their adherence to a non Christian belief system. And if you could not burn a pinch of incense to the emperor back then, you cannot adopt niglets now.

        • Corvinus says:

          “Cathedral compliant Christians who adopt niglets and valorize single mothers are not his people.”

          They decidedly are His people, as they were created in His image. God has decidedly no issue regarding white people adopting non-white people. That is His plan for them. Saying otherwise makes you look foolish, but that is your wheelhouse.

          • Barnabas says:

            Yes, adopting black babies is God’s plan, revealed in the early 2000s to Angelina Jolie and Madonna, his prophets. More recently he revealed his divine will that there be no nation states. His spirit reveals this first to secular bureaucrats and atheist Jewish billionaires who then instruct the rest of us. God works in mysterious ways.

          • jim says:

            God does have an issue with people who neglect near for far.

            God does have an issue with women who render their children fatherless.

            When a white person adopts a niglet, he gains social status by demonstrating how unracist he is, but then when the niglet grows up, there are problems, which usually manifest as violence. That the adopter was untroubled by the prospect of these problems shows him to be cruel and uncaring, shows that he was willing to sacrifice those close to him for status, much like those parents who enthusiastically promote sex changes for their prepubertal (and almost always adopted) children. That people rarely or never sex change their biological children shows that they are sacrificing adopted children to Moloch for status.

            And so are white Christians who adopt niglets, though in a less drastic fashion.

            • viking says:

              Jim give it up Christianity is not defend able I wish it were and we can study its glory days atc but it is in fact a jewish sect. its irrational its self abnegating and its is definitely universal can you say catholic. And while using intelligence to twist the faith for your purposes is certainly a time honored tradition, some idiot will always come along and start quoting hippy jesus and its game over. jesus was a nigger loving whore loving feet washing faggot

              • jim says:

                Yes, translating the bible into common tongue was an irreversible disaster.

                And from time to time I toy with the idea of a religion in which which the Aesir and the Vanir were ancestors of the Aryans, the Aesir being the hunter gatherers and then Vanir the farmers, which religion steals all the good stuff from Islam and none of the bad stuff. After death one is metaphorically or literally judged by ones ancestors – people rather like oneself, rather than a god that is far too big to relate to.

                But, on the other hand, Russian Orthodoxy is doing OK. Why can we not have American Orthodoxy?

                • Hidden Author says:

                  How does the set of values YOU choose affect objective reality? Either no religion or none but one reflect objective reality but all CLAIM to. And if the claim part allows anyone and everyone to peddle their favorite line of bullshit, I don’t see any relevant factor besides delusions of grandeur as a qualification for you to have that role.

                • jim says:

                  The set of values that the state imposes on everyone affects objective reality. Since our current State religion is headed towards suicide and mass murder, we are going to need a replacement, assuming we survive at all.

      • Barnabas says:

        Typical empty-headed Evangelical move to respond with a non sequitur about who the “real Jesus” is.

    • R7_Rocket says:

      Indeed. The American Evangelicucks have conserved ZERO of their principles. In contrast, the Russian Orthodox Church is rolling back the pozz from Russia.

      As a result, the Russian Orthodox Church has rightly identified American Evangelicuckoldry as a vector of Harvard Pozz…

      • Hidden Author says:

        The Russian Orthodox Church chose Caesar over Christ when they agreed to be sock-puppets of godless commies. Even now, the leaders of both Russia and its Orthodox Church are “former” KGB agents. Given that you tolerate mockeries of Christian principles when it suits you, you have no right to criticize the Left for doing the same. In general, Jim can be trusted to take the same pharisiacal, sanctimonious approach to traditional values as SJWs take to modernist values.

        • jim says:

          So what did the Russian Orthodox Church do to adjust doctrine and practice for Stalin that is as bad as what the Roman Catholic Church is doing to adjust doctrine and practice for Harvard?

  8. This relates to a theory I am developing. Basically, ask yourself the question, if you wanted to cause a lot of harm to a person or a group of persons, how would you begin. Suppose you have some kind of social pull, influence. One excellent way to start it would be to accuse them of grievous evil. This can hurt multiple ways. First, it can destroy their social status and prestige. Second, it makes their voice unheard. Third, it quickly removes any compassion other people have with them, making it easier to pass repressive, punitive legislation or just kick their ass by extra-legal violence, few will support them, most will think it serves them well, justice was done to the evil ones. In other words, moral accusations are attacks, dangerous attacks, they amount to pulling a Social Gun on someone. In even other words, given that it is generally causing harm to other people is what we call evil… it follows that accusing people of evil… is evil.

    This really turns everything on its head. Most kids grow up on a constant diet of superhero comics and Star Wars type modern cinematic myths. These mythologies typically present a fight between Good and Evil. And most people easily buy in to the narrative. The realistic view would be that in any conflict both sides tend to accuse the other of being Evil, because that is simply an effective Social Weapon, as described above. And thus if we generally believe that one side is evil and the other is not all that really happened is that the other side was more influential and was more able to get its narrative accepted. The main difference between the Jedi and the Sith is that the Jedi have better press – the Sith surely have a different narrative where they are the heroes and the Jedi are the villains, but that narrative simply lost the propaganda war.

    I am not proposing full moral relativism – I still think at some level objective good and evil exists, however it is helluva hard to find the truth, and in most cases the truth will not be found, in most cases simply the more influential narrative wins and thus we tend to see the winner, the powerful as Good and the losers as Evil.

    Thus everybody ever saw a Evil is best thought as victims – not necessarily innocent ones, it may very well be that they were truly objectively evil, however, the main reason we see them evil is that they were weaker, they lost, and the winners wrote history. And propaganda.

    If you want a better world, a more moral world, where fewer people get attacked and get destroyed, you need to want a world where moral accusations are rare, controlled, suppressed. Almost like dangerous weapons, as they are dangerous weapons – they are Social Guns. (I am not advocating for actual gun control now, it is just an awkward parallel.) A moral accusation is something very close to the initiation of violence.

    The authoritarian solution is to reserve this right to the State. Only the State is allowed to lay down the rules via an action or a belief will be seen as evil. Everybody else may only argue if Alice or Bob violated those rules or not, but not the rules themselves. Such an organization, in charge of defining Evil, may as well be called a State Church. It at the very least highly overlaps with that kind of role. The Sovereign is the one who says who is the enemy (Schmitt), the Bishop justifies it, explains it.

    The libertarian solution is to put an extremely strong social taboo on moral accusations. It could work roughly like this. You know Alice or Bob have views that sound kinda racist and yet you are not allowed to call them evil. You know they hang out with nazis and yet you still cannot call them evil. Maybe you learn they are really bona fide racist nazis and yet you are even now not allowed to call them evil. When you learn they are actually planning violence – that is when you can call them evil. More realistically, it is almost certain that they will prepare their planned violence by first starting a smear campaign against the target demographic, because that is how it always works, as I explained above, anyone planning to hurt a group of people will first try to isolate them and remove any support they may have, and the way to do that is to accuse them of being evil. So Alice or Bob, before planning their campaign of ethnic violence, will accuse the target ethnic group of being evil, and THAT is when you are allowed to call them evil: they pulled the Social Gun first, so now you can pull it on them. In every other case, it is taboo: whoever pulls the Social Gun first and accuses some folks of being evil, must be seen as themselves evil. Instant karma. Is this even plausible that this could happen or only the authoritarian solution is worth exploring?

    Once we understand this reversed logic of good and evil, we learn why the road to hell is always paved with good intentions, why so many apparently good sounding plans have “unintended consequences”. Because that which looks good is not actually good: attacking other people is rarely good, and of course any attack can easily result in collateral damage.

    One story going rounds on the Internet is how Westerners hunting lions in Africa used to be good for everybody: they got the experience and the trophy, the African farmers got money, and the lions did not get killed by said farmers as cubs but were allowed to grow up and steal some goats. Environmentalist groups denounced hunters as evil and had put pressure on stopping hunting tourism. Now hunters need to find a different hobby, African farmers get no money and lions are silently killed as cubs, because now it makes no economic sense to let them steal goats. Everybody lost. In the standard narrative, this is a regrettable unintended consequence of good intentions, a road to hell paved with them. In my model, it is a predictable outcome of an act that was not good at all. The goal was to attack hunters, largely as a part of a general campaign to redirect prestige from white Optimates and Vaishyas to white Brahmins. Farmers and cubs are merely the collateral damage. There was nothing good in it, no good intention whatsoever, it was simply an attack, as aggressive as it gets. The reason it may look, in the mainstream eyes, as a result of good intentions, is simply that they were successful in the propaganda war and made people believe their intentions were good. I think my model is sound and predictive?

    • peppermint says:

      Tolerance is not a virtue, it OS a truce, and it collapses when the children grow up with different views.

      • jim says:

        Your both right – accusations of evil are almost invariably preparation to destroy the target, and therefore normally come from evil people with evil motives, but at the same time tolerance is intolerable.

        The correct solution is that the sovereign lays down the rules as to who you are allowed to call evil for what reasons, and if anyone calls someone evil other than by these rules, that person is committing heresy from the state church. We need an archbishop to tell us what pieties are required, and a grand inquisitor to hunt down people who want to add new pieties, or reject the old pieties. As the King’s most important job is to stop people from trying to be King, the inquisition’s most important job is to shut down people who are trying to be inquisitors.

        If you don’t have an inquisition and a grand inquisitor, then it is a vacuum, and people will move to fill that vacuum.

        • Oliver Cromwell says:

          Problem: top spots are usually held by the best people. If you don’t select the best people to be king/inquisitor, eventually they fail to preserve themselves, as has happened numerous times. If you get overclass immigration, this is especially problematic.

          • jim says:

            Yes, big problem. Alexander the Liberator lacked intellectual sovereignty. Instead of him being the fount of all honors, mortal and divine, he instead begged a bunch of left wing intellectuals in London to give him status.

            One can easily imagine Prince William becoming the fount of all honors, mortal and divine, but he is not heir to the throne, prince Charles is, and prince Charles could not get laid if he rolled up to a whorehouse with a garbage truck full of money.

            But what is the alternative? Since we are bound to wind up with something very like a state church and an inquisition, better to formalize it. Especially better to formalize the inquisition.

            • Oliver Cromwell says:

              Countries are ruled by aristocracies, not individuals. This is true irrespective of governmental form. If the officers do not obey the king, he is not king. If the officers and courts do not defer to the parliament, the country is not a democracy. If the intellectuals defer to the king or the parliament, he or it probably does not care what Harvard thinks.

              The aristocracy must be both homogeneous and securely in power.

              Jews have been a particular problem because they are a natural aristocracy but often feel themselves insecure. So they side against the state. In countries where Jews have been safe for a long time, such as the UK, there are lots of patriotic conservative Jews. Whereas the handful of Eastern European Jews that South Africa admitted as refugees in the 1930s became the main organisers of all future sedition.

              We have recently been seeing socialist movements organised by out-of-power natural aristocrats congeal into a new conservative orthodoxy, that calls its opponents populists, and believes it has a right to rule regardless of democratic decisions. This would be a good outcome if its ideas weren’t so damned dysfunctional.

              • jim says:

                I don’t think Jews are subversive because insecure. They are subversive even in Israel. Example: Israeli Supreme Court.

                Imagine how the US supremes would behave to the US if all Jewish. That is pretty much how the Israeli supremes behave to Israel.

              • Corvinus says:

                “Countries are ruled by aristocracies, not individuals.”

                Corrected for accuracy –> Countries are ruled by individuals who are members of a particular group and embrace a specific ideology.

                “Jews have been a particular problem because they are a natural aristocracy but often feel themselves insecure.”

                White nationalists also share that same anxiety.

        • Corvinus says:

          “As the King’s most important job is to stop people from trying to be King, the inquisition’s most important job is to shut down people who are trying to be inquisitors.”

          Which is fascism to the core. Exactly why today’s citizens regardless of country will fight to the death those neo-reactionaries who dare impose their will upon the liberties they fought to secure and maintain.

          • jim says:

            Ah, your vitally important liberty to silence anyone who disagrees with you and wants to keep his job, without the inconvenient necessity of explaining what would constitute sufficient agreement.

          • Erik says:

            If we’re going to be called fascists anyway, how about the death penalty for using the slur “fascist” about anything other than WWII-era Italy?

  9. peppermint says:

    It’s hard to believe separation of church and state ever existed, except before the War between the States where it existed as a detente.

    What has passed for separation of church and state more recently is a different detente, between overt christcucks who to this day believe that the genealogy of ((Joseph)) connecting him to ((David)) means something for ((Jesus)), and sometimes crypto-spiritualist, sometimes pseudo-scientific utilitarians.

  10. Minion says:


    What do you say about how reactionaries should view Islam? Although it seems you hate Islam for various ethno-nationalist-religious reasons, you obviously admire their commitment to patriarchy, theocracy, etc.

    It seems that the “right”, including the Milo worshiping alt-“right”, abandon any pretense of social conservatism once Islam comes to the picture. For example, they have for the past 2 decades decry how Muslims “oppress” their women (even though you find traditional Muslim attitudes towards women to be perfectly reasonable), or how Muslims like killing and jailing practicing gays. I know the blogger Bonald has said many years ago that he refuses to criticize Islam because critics of Islam invariably turn to the left in order to attack Islam for its social conservatism.

    So should non-Muslim reactionaries attack Islam? Conservatives hate Islam because they want to protect gays, sluts, and secularism from Sharia. Given that a Christian revival is unlikely, should we root for Muslims to destroy Europe from within?

    • Anonymous says:

      Islam gets most things right, but goes overboard with brutality, and has certain features that make it less competitive versus a similar but not as brutal religion (such as traditional Christianity). Of particular note is polygamy, which legally permits the alpha males to grab up too many good females – this actually depresses overall fertility, since those secondary wives are not going to have as much children as they could have if they were the monogamous wives of other men (anyone have stats on secondary wife fertility?); it also enrages the men who missed out on female access, yielding the constant state of conflict and pillaging the neighbours for women.

      • Minion says:

        >but goes overboard with brutality”
        Its no more brutal than the Old Testament (in fact, sharia is largely similar to Mosaic law)

        Arguably, the “compassionate Conservatism” of modern Christianity was what allowed liberals to run rampant in the West, as Christians were not willing to use force against them.

        >Of particular note is polygamy, which legally permits the alpha males to grab up too many good females
        Except it does not. Polygamy means rich beta providers get to have harems, not Jeremy Meeks, since they still have to be provided for

        >” it also enrages the men who missed out on female access”
        Again, this is false, since Islam allows slavery and marriage of non-Muslim women, meaning that the marriage pool of Muslim men will always be greater than that of Muslim women. Marriage was universally practiced by all members of Muslim societies (in fact, only Europeans inside the Hajnal line had a significant amount of unmarried people)

        • jay says:

          ‘Again, this is false, since Islam allows slavery and marriage of non-Muslim women, meaning that the marriage pool of Muslim men will always be greater than that of Muslim women. Marriage was universally practiced by all members of Muslim societies (in fact, only Europeans inside the Hajnal line had a significant amount of unmarried people)”

          Hence why Islam had bloody borders. Although their defeats when trying to expand also seems to lead to them turning violence inwards.

          Lots of so called men trying to restore the pure Islam who in reality also had unconscious sexual motives.

          Likewise normative monogamy is a requisite for social energy that made western civilization great:

        • jay says:

          but goes overboard with brutality”
          Its no more brutal than the Old Testament (in fact, sharia is largely similar to Mosaic law).

          OT doesn’t feature decapitations or amputations in Mosaic Law.

          Likewise more restitution, lashes and death.

          • Minion says:

            “Hence why Islam had bloody borders”
            All successful societies do. Rome and Athens both had bloody borders, and enslaved conquered peoples- yet it is considered the height of antiquity civilization

            “Lots of so called men trying to restore the pure Islam who in reality also had unconscious sexual motives.”
            Sometimes it is pretty explicit. Many have expressedly joined ISIS because they wanted to sleep with a slavegirl, or because they wanted to establish badboy cred in order to get a wife

            “Likewise normative monogamy is a requisite for social energy that made western civilization great”
            Ancient Rome and Athens did not practice true monogamy, as they had sex slaves as well. Monogamy does not make sense when you have a surplus of foreign women to copulate with

            >”OT doesn’t feature decapitations or amputations in Mosaic Law.”
            >”Likewise more restitution, lashes and death.”
            So not the same thing but still the same thing anyway.

            Stoning is a punishment adopted from Mosaic law by Islam for example. And decapitation is probably the most efficient and simple way to kill a person, so its not like the Israelites would have been adverse to it either

        • jay says:

          How social energy arises from absolute monogamy:

          More fuller text of J.D Urwin “Sex and Culture”

        • jay says:

          Sorry earlier is wrong link:

      • ducal9 says:

        It’s not so much Islam’s brutality (or theology) that stops them dead in the West; it’s their terrible aesthetics. From the time of the Greeks (and probably earlier), we’ve had a real fixation on beauty and imagery that’s never sat well with the iconoclasm of Muslims. Yes, their “pattern” decorations are nice but to us, that’s no more than background noise… if anything, it’s just dizzying and depressing. Even apart from pagan influence, we had Jesus smacking down purity spirals in favor of the finest perfume (John 12:3). This continues through to Hollywood, where no matter how debased our art may be, our films must look visually immaculate, (same with our video games) if they want to sell.

        • Minion says:

          “It’s not so much Islam’s brutality (or theology) that stops them dead in the West; it’s their terrible aesthetics”
          The ban on iconography has its roots in the Old Testament. Its just that Western Christianity was unable to completely shrug off its pagan past (possibly because Greco-Roman paganism was advanced enough to pique the interest of civilized Christians, while Semitic paganism was only a step above African animism)

          • jim says:

            It is not altogether clear how first temple Jews interpreted the commandment

            Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

            But it is clear that second temple Jews, like nearly all Christians, interpreted it as prohibiting creating images for the purpose of worshipping them, and also prohibited the cult of personality. Second temple Jews had no problem with creating non religious graven images – for example their coinage had graven images on it.

            But they got upset with Pontius Pilate prominently placing the words of the emperor in his palace, after the fashion of the “thoughts of chairman mao” because even though they were not literally graven images, it was cult of the emperor.

            Second Temple Jews, like modern Jews, tend to interpret the law in the overly literal manner for which Jesus rightly criticized them. But they did not interpret the commandment on graven images literally.

    • jim says:

      Although it seems you hate Islam for various ethno-nationalist-religious reasons, you obviously admire their commitment to patriarchy, theocracy, etc.

      Yes. They are our enemies, but they get lots of stuff right that we get wrong.

      Given that a Christian revival is unlikely, should we root for Muslims to destroy Europe from within?

      Islam is the solution that we do not want. But, because of differential fertility, it is the solution we are likely to get.

      I remarked elsewhere that if Islam kills our gays we lose sovereignty. We should protect our gays from Muslims and kill them ourselves.

      Come the restoration, will decree a period of amnesia to allow gays to get back in the closet. Gays that come out of the closet will get the high jump. We will claim, truthfully enough, that there was something about the pre restoration environment that caused people to become gay, and pretend, half truthfully, that come the restoration, large numbers of gays turned straight.

      • Rhetocrates says:

        I disagree strongly with this.

        There’s some good evidence (albeit very spotty, for all the obvious reasons) that predilections to homosexual behaviour might be contagious.


        If so, they should all get the high-jump, as a matter of quarantine.

        • peppermint says:

          It’s socially contagious and everyone knows it, including every bicurious Millennial, and Garfunkel&Oates with their song about wanting to be lesbians for feminist reasons up until they got a pussy in their face.

          Today every post-Millennial child who has picked up a mannerism of the opposite sex is asked about mutilation, and every girl has to make out with another girl or be uncool.

          Gays have special access gay spaces that nubile women hang around in, are protected by special civil rights laws, have special access to health care through gay community centers and NGO employment. There is little reason to be a normal man, just be a tranny and don’t get snipped.

          As soon as gayness becomes uncool, gays will disappear.

      • Hard Right says:

        “We should protect our gays from Muslims and kill them ourselves.”

        LMAO. Even MPC should like that quote.

      • Eli says:

        >I remarked elsewhere that if Islam kills our gays we lose sovereignty. We should protect our gays from Muslims and kill them ourselves.

        Have you been studying Talmud? It is quite in line with what’s there.

  11. Alan J. Perrick says:

    To me, the way that the United States went for separation of church and state was due to the desire to expand without a lot of overhead, whereas the French (along with a certain outside force) separated church and state so that their kingdom wouldn’t fall into the hands of Calvinists or any other kind of Protestant Christian state religion.

    But, as I wrote recently, it’s time to grow up and push back against the foreign races. Outright treason has to be condemned whether as heresy or something.

  12. Alan J. Perrick says:

    Charles I had married a Roman Catholic, which was unpopular at home, but popular abroad which suggests misplaced loyalty. Something else is that the British Empire had slavery outlawed before the United States, as well as other European states doing so before-hand, and that the way that the American South was slaving was a bad thing, importing and multiplying a dangerous species that afflicts the local population to this day.

    It could be that the control of the king, to not do the thing popular with the European continent and marry their foreign born nobleladies with their foreign religions, allowed England to focus on her colonies which are now basically independent and had, at least for a couple hundred good years, been flourishing. Such a result and purpose is important, I think.


    • jim says:

      Holiness escalation was extremely conspicuous in the lead up to the civil war. Reading contemporary accounts, I don’t recall anyone mentioning that he married a Roman Catholic. Does not seem to have been on their radar.

      No one thought that slavery was a particularly bad thing until the early nineteenth centure – a hundred and sixty years after the events we are discussing. Note the close correlation between renewed war on marriage, war on underage sex, war on booze, and war on slavery – it was another outbreak of holiness.

  13. A pint thereof says:

    This “holiness spiral” theory of the English Civil War is garbage.

    The war was about “ill instruments”, as Charles I, waiting on the scaffold, put it in his final speech.

    It was Mammon, the Usurocracy, and the shifting of Venetian money power to the west. It had nothing to do with “holiness”.

    Moldbug’s ideas are just the typical Jew’s attempt to hide the big hooked nose from the eyes of history

    • Erik says:

      A reference for the “ill instruments” might be handy. Please tell me if this looks to be the correct context:

      “I never did begin a war with the two Houses of Parliament. And I call God to witness, to whom I must shortly make an account, that I never did intend for to encroach upon their privileges. They began upon me, it is the Militia they began upon, they confest that the Militia was mine, but they thought it fit for to have it from me. And, to be short, if any body will look to the dates of Commissions, of their commissions and mine, and likewise to the Declarations, will see clearly that they began these unhappy troubles, not I. So that as the guilt of these enormous crimes that are laid against me I hope in God that God will clear me of it, I will not, I am in charity. God forbid that I should lay it upon the two Houses of Parliament; there is no necessity of either, I hope that they are free of this guilt. __For I do believe that ill instruments between them and me has been the chief cause of all this bloodshed.__”

      It is far from clear that this is da joooos. It makes no mention of mammon or usury; it does mention Commissions which fits with Jim’s statements about lucrative positions and candidates for office.

      • jim says:

        No Joos in England until after the civil war. Did they meddle using time travel devices?

        • A pint thereof says:

          There were Jews in London before the civil war. The highly influential Marrano Jew Antonio Fernandez Carvajal acted as one of Cromwell’s spies.

          No time travel needed. Try again.

          • jim says:

            The first Jew in England enters England as a crypto Jew (he purports to attend Christian mass) when the civil war is about to begin. Therefore, not a cause of the civil war, though they may well have given a helping hand once things got started.

            • A pint thereof says:

              The Jews were already embedded in London, working as spies on behalf of the man who prosecuted the Civil War!!!

              Just how much more involved could they be? O right, they also financed the war from Venice and Amsterdam.

              Cromwell even promised the Jews all of Ireland as their “new Jerusalem” as recompense for their crucial support. And for whom do you think the Bank of England was established?

              Means, motive, opportunity. But no, it was all to do with some nebulous “holiness spiral”! Pull the other one.

              • jim says:

                The Jews were already embedded in London, working as spies on behalf of the man who prosecuted the Civil War!!!

                The first jew shows up in London when tensions between the civil war faction (puritans) and the monarchic faction (orthodox old style anglicanism) are already on the point of civil war. Likely some Jews helped things along, but they did not start this, and to this day it is not about Jewish power.

                • A pint thereof says:

                  I didn’t say it was about Jews or Jewish power. To quote:

                  “It was Mammon, the Usurocracy, and the shifting of Venetian money power to the west. It had nothing to do with ‘holiness’.”

                • jim says:

                  I have read the writings of people at the time. They very much believed, passionately believed, it was all about holiness.

      • A pint thereof says:

        The “ill instruments” refers to foreign actors outside of Parliament and the Royal court.

        We know that the (((merchants))) of Venice and Amsterdam agitated for and financed the war.

        Charles was England’s last real chance at establishing what Dante expounded upon in De monarchia. And that’s why he had to die.

        • Erik says:

          “We know that” – no we don’t. Reference?

          • A pint thereof says:

            Sigh. If we must:

            See L. Wolf, ‘Cromwell’s Jewish intelligencers, in The Jewish Literary Annual, London, Union of Jewish Literary Societies, 1904.

            • jim says:

              You are determined to find Jews, no matter how peripheral their involvement.

              The standard depiction of the Jew who secretly rules the world shows him as an orthodox Jew – but obviously orthodox Jews are excluded from the ruling elite. To join the ruling elite, a Jew must convert to progressivism. And progressive Jews act like conversos. Very low reproduction rate, high intermarriage rate, embarrassed by Israel’s wall. If a Cathedral Jew shows signs of Jewish Orthodoxy, the Cathedral Inquisition (social justice warriors) will out him and persecute him.

              The Cathedral is disproportionately Jewish, and Cathedral Jews are disproportionately decadent, but it is no more plausible that Jews rule America than that they ruled King Ferdinand’s Spain.

              There were a lot of wealthy and powerful Jewish converts to Christianity in King Ferdinand’s Spain, but they lived in fear that the inquisition would knock and ask them how sincere their conversion was. And so do progressive Jews in America.

              • Mark Yuray says:

                Excellent comment, Jim. This x1000. Do the Joo-hunters even know which Joos they should be hunting?

              • A pint thereof says:

                If I was someone who thought that the Jews did secretly run the world, then I’d find nothing in what you just wrote that’d disavow me of that position.

                But I don’t think that. Power, and thus money, are what motivate the princes of this realm. And the fact that since the Middle Ages Jews have been intimately connected with the money supply just means that their are many hooked noses among those said princes.

                One doesn’t need to be “determined to find Jews” when money’s involved; they’re just there, like woodlice under a rock. This doesn’t imply any magical thinking that a #holiness spiral does. It only implies rational self-interest…..

                • Hidden Author says:

                  I don’t really subscribe to the extremist ideals Jim does, but holiness spirals are an explanation of how irrational factors (which also exist due to bias, emotion and lack of knowledge) intersect with rational self-interest. Or you could provide a better account of which irrational factors interact with rational self-interest and how.

              • Frances Fernanda says:

                This feels like you are willfully missing the point, Jim.

                Jewish banking Jews financed the Revolution in exchange for Cromwell’s promise to let them return to England to re-establish their parasitical banking. He delivered on the promise. And the rest is history.

                Jews seek and get power by and for rational self-interest and ethnic solidarity, not to proselytize Orthodox Jewish religious beliefs. “Depictions” show Orthodox Jews to enable instant visual recognition of an exaggerated joke, not because that’s what powerful bankers actually look like.

                Jews have played a leading role in social Marxism–pushing various elements of modern progressivism (feminism, multiculturalism, pro-homosexuality) with the explicit goal of weakening Christian family culture. They weren’t just playing along, they were driving.

                This sentence is self-contradictory: “The Cathedral is disproportionately Jewish, but it is not plausible that Jews run America.”

                Really? They dominate Wall Street, Hollywood, the Cathedral, the Federal Reserve, the Supreme Court, the foreign policy and national security establishment, and political campaign finance. With 2% of the population.

                Even the alt-right is haunted by fear of being called anti-semitic. Some people in our sphere blame too much on the Jews, but the JQ deserves more intellectual engagement than the blow-off that you give it here. And that Mark Yuray does with the “Joos” reference. The neoreactionary fear of being labeled anti-semitic is one sign of Jewish power.

                It’s not either/or. The question isn’t whether Jews are the ONLY power in the world or whether Jews are an imaginary boogie-man. The question is: who really does hold power? It seems to me that the “Joo hunters” are at least considering the question. While those who dismiss any discussion of Jewish Power and pretend that it’s all “the Puritans” are dodging the question more than answering it.

              • Sam J. says:

                “…The standard depiction of the Jew who secretly rules the world shows him as an orthodox Jew – but obviously orthodox Jews are excluded from the ruling elite. To join the ruling elite, a Jew must convert to progressivism…”

                How convenient! A Jew who joins the elite, POOF the elephant disappears, is not a real Jew. So Jews never do anything wrong. They’re Dindus also.

  14. Oliver Cromwell says:

    What practical advice would you give to a 25 year old man of today?

  15. Chris B says:

    OK, but what is this feedback loop? what is driving it. Moldbug makes the De Jouvenalian point that it is unsecure power doing it. What is your mechanism?

    • jim says:

      The feedback loop that gave us the peacock’s tail and women riding badboy cock?

      Or the feedback loop that gave us ever more pharisaical holiness?

      • Jefferson says:

        Aren’t they the same?

      • Chris B says:

        2nd one.

        • jim says:

          Simple. Holiness in power commands holiness, gets pharisaism. Pharisaism in power commands even more holiness.

          First social justice warrior: “I care deeply about my fellow man.”

          Second social Justice warrior: “I care deeply about far away strangers in the ghetto.”
          (Weeps tears because he cares so much.)

          Third social justice warrior: “I care deeply about far away strangers who are so far away that you could not locate them on the map. But don’t ask me to locate them on a map because such a racist request would trigger me horribly”
          (Throws epileptic fit at the thought that someone might trigger him.)

          Fourth social justice warrior: “I care deeply about far away living creatures. Save the Amazon Rainforest!”

          Fifth social justice warrior: “I care deeply about far away non living things. Save the Antarctic Wilderness!”

          • Minion says:


            I have to disagree with you as to how liberals arrange the holiness hierarchy. Gays are obviously on top of the totem pole, even if they are otherwise privileged white males. Gays are so sacred, that as Common Filth likes to point out, that even anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim alt-righters still worship gays like Milo, and defend homosexuality as symbolic resistance to Islam and Judaic morality (the Old Testament, like sharia, punishes homosexual sex with death). The sacredness of Gays is so strong that it even transcends the priestly Left and even spills onto its ostensible opponents as well.

            Vegans and Deep ecologists, who sacralize the environment, as opposed to human degenerates, are a fringe part of the left. Cathedralist liberalism by and far is allied with corporate America, and therefore shies away from overt anti-capitalism/industrialism, as opposed to the non-Cathedral left, which has little power anyways.

            Gays, trannies, and sluts are good for business, hence their sacredness is universally recognized. Deep ecology is bad for business, hence their sacredness is largely unrecognized.

            • Ansible says:

              Gays are so high up the totem pole that 49 of them got shot and not a word was spoken as to the real cause of it (Islam). Gays are dropping mighty fast. One might say they are dropping like flies.

              • peppermint says:

                ONCE AGAIN, the oldfags don’t even understand themselves. Faggotry was cool when personal self-actualization, i.e. hedonism, sometimes generalized into utilitarianism, was the highest goal. The oldfags rejected the ((Bible)), which on he balance was a good idea, but replaced it with other Jew hoaxes like Freud and Kinsey, with essentially soul-based psychology.

                Faggotry just isn’t as interesting when you understand psychology in its evolutionary context, or when you have other problems, as even ((Maslow)) understood.

                Whites may or may not appreciate that Whites are systematically being exterminated. Young White men still treat their women as whores and compete with each other more viciously for whores than the niggers do.

                They do understand that they don’t have jobs and niggers are given jobs.

                Young White women will think what they are told to about feminism and being whores. They still would prefer to be owned by one man who is exclusive to them and somehow imply it without articulating it.

                In this country, crime is code for niggers and law and order is code for White supremacy. Trump took a nuanced stand on recent events denouncing the “senseless deaths” of the crime while calling for the restoration of law and order.

                Those aren’t code words to the flips. Duterte Harry is restoring law and order and it will be hard for the media here to explain why we lost the war that he won.

                The question, then, is whether the young White men have been bought off by commies with weed and whores, or whether they know somewhere it hasn’t been beaten out of them by the terror in school that this is wrong. I believe that pretty much all post-millennials and most milennials are already ready to take down this system and can probably kick enough genxers in the nuts and drag them with us. We just need to wait for these out of touch poofter boomers to retire and die.

              • Minion says:

                The reason why Islam was not blamed was because they did not want to offend queer “Muslims”. They were happy to bash conservative Muslim homophobia, even if they assured us that conservative Islam isnt really Islam.

            • jay says:

              One may say deadly diseases like AIDs are a sort of divine judgment on homosexuals.

      • Barnabas says:

        Isn’t one ultimately in conflict with the other? Doesn’t hypergamy value power over holiness?

        • jim says:

          Depends. If holiness gets power, hypergamy will spread its legs for holiness.

          Hence the tendency of holiness in power to attack marriage, deeming it unholy.

  16. Jack Highlands says:

    Excellent precis of ‘The Problem’, Jim, building on what I consider Neoreaction’s main contribution to political philosophy: every culture has a state religion, whether they know it or not.

    I’m tempted to send it to my aging Harvard alum father, but unfortunately for him, I doubt he has the background mindset to understand more than 10% of what you are saying.

    My own preoccupation, of which there are hints in your entry here, is that all these state religions are ultimately ethnically specific – all religions become schismatic representations of specific peoples.

    Highlands’ maxims:

    ‘Every race gets the religion it deserves.’

    ‘Every religion is the dimly recognized expression of a race’s inmost beliefs.’

  17. Mark Yuray says:

    Glad you liked that quote. This piece is quoteable as hell as all Jim pieces are.

    Re: Muslims

    Going through the list of sovereign states/entities, it’s clear that on the top level of sovereignty, there are only three truly sovereign states on the planet. Russia, China and the “International Community.”

    Going through the list of semi-sovereign states, there are a lot more. If we’re talking at the level of civilizations, Muslims are clearly somewhat sovereign. ISIS, al-Qaeda, Taliban, etc. plus Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, etc. They ally with the Cathedral, but it’s difficult to pretend that they share a telos with it. They may share one in practice, but in theory they are going to establish a global Caliphate according to a literalist interpretation of the Quran. And in practice, they are doing just that in numerous areas.

    Israel is semi-sovereign. North Korea is just a puppet of China.

    Poland, Hungary and the Visegrad bloc are semi-sovereign. Austria is less sovereign than they are, but still getting there. All of these could just be considered part of the defiant white-wide Middle/Red Empire. In a way, so could Israel.

    Is Islamic sovereignty a question of ISIS battlefield tactics or a question of Saudi Arabia purging the heretics?

    Iran discounted from analysis because we are talking about Sunni Islam, not Zoroastrianism in Arabic script.

    • Minion says:

      Israel is largely Cathedral territory. Tel Aviv is one of the most gay friendly cities in the world, and tons of Israeli propaganda focuses on Israel’s love of gays opposed to Muslim homophobia of its enemies.

      As for those Muslim states you mention, the problem is, while they have the same nominal goal of a Caliphate ruled by Sharia, they are enemies of one another. UAE, Kuwait, and Saudi are allied with the Cathedral (for strategic reasons), and are at war with ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood. They are big fans of Sisi (who is is, contra to popular misconception, an immoderate Muslim who persecutes gays and atheists, but again, is anti Brotherhood).

      Qatar is pro-Muslim Brotherhood, but if Al Jazeera English tells us anything, its that they are more than willing to pander to Cathedralist sympathies in the West (AJ Arabic on the other hand is pro Brotherhood and Al Qaeda- so it might be taqiyya, or it might represent the ideological divide between Western and Arab Muslims)

      Everyone hates ISIS, including other immoderate Muslims (contra Jim’s assertion), but since the conflict in the middle east has many different sides, they get largely ignored by its enemies (eg Assad is more interested in fighting the Islamic Front/Ahrar ash-Sham/Nusra; Turks only care about crushing Kurdish communists; Gulf States want to curb Shia power- all of which ISIS wants to do as well).

      Immoderate Muslims (speaking as one) only sympathize with ISIS in as much as they are not liberals/secularists (I know many immoderates who have condemned ISIS but then say that liberalism is a far greater threat, as liberalism is outright apostasy, and is more attractive to millennial Muslims- this has lead to a wave of mass atheism across the Middle East, something both ISIS and their immoderate Muslim critics both seek to combat)

      >”Is Islamic sovereignty a question of ISIS battlefield tactics or a question of Saudi Arabia purging the heretics?”
      Its likely a product of the failure of secular Arab Nationalism, as well as being able to look at were the West is going with its liberalism. Pictures of Muslim countries in the 50’s and 60’s showed women in Western clothing, but in the 80’s there was a revival of the khimar (headscarf) among Muslim women. This was a direct consequence of realizing that Western liberalism is leading down the path of female promiscuity, and a corresponding desire among Muslims to prevent it (the 50’s gave an illusion that Western liberalism and social conservatism could co-exist).

      ISIS has negligible power outside of Iraq and Syria (besides terrorism- but even that is from lone wolf sympathizers rather than from members of the state apparatus)

      Saudi Arabia purging its heretics has little influence outside of the Gulf. There are tons of immoderate Sunni Muslims who oppose wahhabism on purely theological grounds, although they are still on the same page when it comes to their social conservatism (although I know that many of them say that they will eventually unite into one umbrella as a defense against moderate islam and secularism).

      • Mark Yuray says:

        Interesting Arab analysis, but I think you have to remove your blinders.

        “Immoderate Muslims (speaking as one) only sympathize with ISIS in as much as they are not liberals/secularists (I know many immoderates who have condemned ISIS but then say that liberalism is a far greater threat, as liberalism is outright apostasy, and is more attractive to millennial Muslims- this has lead to a wave of mass atheism across the Middle East, something both ISIS and their immoderate Muslim critics both seek to combat)”

        This sounds like all immoderate Muslims are on the same side, and saying otherwise is like saying Daily Stormer fans hate The Right Stuff fans because the one group wants a National Socialist Reich and the other just wants a white ethnostate.

        With regards to Israel, I note you mentioned Tel Aviv. Funny that.

        In 1948, Menachem Begin believed that Irgun could seize Jerusalem and cause a Jewish Civil War with David Ben-Gurion’s IDF. He wisely chose not to, and the Jewish State survived. Now Begin’s descendants are running the state Ben-Gurion founded.

        Mayor of Tel Aviv:

        “Huldai ran for mayor in 2008 municipal elections as part of the One Tel Aviv list, a partnership between Labor and Kadima. He was supported by the Pensioners, the city council’s largest faction.[3]”

        Sounds like a Mapai man.

        Mayor of Jerusalem:

        “Barkat endorsed Benjamin Netanyhau for PM in the 2013 and 2015 Knesset elections.[17][18]”

        Sounds like a Likud man.

        Are there two Israels? It certainly seems like it. And the Israel of Menachem Begin, Irgun, Lehi, Likud, and the hardline nationalists seems to be winning. Tel Aviv’s gays will disappear in a generation. Their opponents will not.

        • Minion says:

          Immoderate Muslims are not on the same side of ISIS, mostly because ISIS considers other Muslims (including immoderate ones) apostates and therefore they must be killed. Immoderates have no problem with some the controvertial stuff that ISIS does (eg slavery, hanging fags, etc) but they do have a problem when they start to get killed too

          • Hidden Author says:

            If ISIS considers immoderate Muslims apostates, then who are they appealing to in their recruitment efforts?

Leave a Reply