The solution we do not want.

One of my commenters asks “Why not just become Muslim?”

I presume he means conservative Muslim, since a whole lot of Muslims are pozzed, are not breeding and not getting any pussy.

That is the Mormon solution (control women’s socialization) plus the orthodox Jewish solution (make female status artificially low), plus the ever popular individual male solution (illegal violence or the quiet potential for it) plus you turn off the Cathedral’s ever vigilant immune system plus you have a pre-existing community. (Just grow a wildman beard, attend mosque, and you are in like Flynn.) If you want to marry those eighteen year old socially conservative virgins, you need high socioeconomic status (they are in high demand), which leads to a problem with the wildman beard (tricky to have high socioeconomic status with the wildman beard), but that one is easier to navigate than political correctness, plus if you are Muslim you get a pass for all political incorrectness relating to gays and women. No one is going to ask a Halal bakery to bake a gay wedding cake. I see a lot of engineers putting on a dress and declaring that they are trans women in order to get ahead. Declaring yourself to be a Muslim almost makes you trans brown. Should be almost as good for your career as declaring yourself a trans woman, a whole lot better for your sex life than declaring yourself a trans woman, and the wildman beard is not nearly as bad as the dress. You also get a free pass to be manly, which helps with the ridiculous beard. If you lift iron and do a little bit of high intensity training, the beard will not look quite as bad.

Plus this is the solution we are going to get if we don’t do anything dramatic, if we continue to drift along our present course, if the passengers don’t attack the cockpit and kill whoever is flying the plane to its doom. Wherever we get data on Muslim births in Western countries the data shows that Muslims are massively outbreeding the natives. I assume this is conservative Muslims, since anecdote suggests that pozzed Muslims have the same dreadfully low reproductive rate as pozzed Jews. Islam is quietly becoming the official religion, in that sacrilege against Islam effectively carries the death penalty (in most western countries if you drop bacon on the pavement outside a mosque the judge will give you a jail term comparable to that which he gives for raping and murdering small children, and while you are in jail some Muslims will kill you while the prison authorities turn a blind eye, like the blind eye Berkeley police turn to black bloc beating up pro-trump protestors) while sacrilege against Christianity is almost mandatory: (Gay wedding cake, Church required to pay for abortions, Pope kisses the feet of aids infested homosexual transvestite prostitutes, government funded sacrilegious “art”, free pass for gays and feminists to physically attack Christians and disrupt religious services.)

So, you ask, what is not to like?

What is not to like is that when Islam conquers a civilization, that civilization dies. When people talk about the great achievements of Islamic civilization, they are actually talking about the achievements of peoples enslaved by Muslims, and what remained of their libraries after the Muslims finished looting them for toilet paper and kindling.

The Trinity is God the father who, though he might seem pretty mean to merely mortal perception, is limited by law and logic, the God that can command genocide, but cannot lie, thus is compatible with science, a more approachable God the son, who is wholly man and wholly God, who experienced every suffering that mortal flesh suffers, including the sense of abandonment by God, and the Holy spirit, who talks to people.

Because the Christian God the Father imposes limits upon himself, unlike Allah, science is possible, and Christians do not have to say “God willing” all the time. The limitless and arbitrary caprice of Allah makes science impious, and promises impious. A good Christian says “I will do so and so”, and then does it. A good Muslim says “I will do so and so, God willing”, and then very likely does not do it.

If the Christian God decides to create a stone so heavy he cannot lift it, then he cannot lift it. Allah cannot create a stone so heavy he cannot lift it. Kind of like playing Solitaire. There is nothing preventing you or God from cheating at solitaire, but then there would be no point to the game. The Christian God not only throws dice, he throws dice where even he cannot see them. He is omniscient but we have free will. Allah, on the other hand, cheats at Solitaire. Hence no Islamic science.

The Christian God the Father cannot lie. The Muslim Allah lied all the time. During Mohammed’s career, Allah would declare one thing, that was convenient for Mohammed at the time, and then when convenient for Mohammed, would declare a different thing. Which is why science and promises are impious if you are a sincere Muslim.

Judeo Christianity sucks. We need Christian Christianity. The trouble with Judaism is that they keep reinventing their religion all the time to accommodate the times and the surrounding society, as any group in exile must, but keep torturing their holy texts to prove that they are not reinventing their religion. This results in an alarmingly creative attitude to truth, promises, and contracts. A negro or a Muslim will just casually break a promise or a contract. A Jew will not break a promise or contract outright, but he is apt to find, and with great chutzpah proclaim, an ingenious and surprising meaning for the promise, the bet, or the contract, much as he is apt to find, and with great chutzpah proclaim, an ingenious and surprising meaning for the words of his holy books. Hence the failure of Orthodox Jews to contribute much to science, compared to prog, atheist, and agnostic Jews, who have contributed immensely to science. Almost every Jew who has made important scientific progress finds the Orthodox Jew twisting and torturing his holy books to be rather ridiculous.

It also means that Judeo Christianity is not really capable of resisting progressivism. I have had a debate with by Jewish commenters as to whether Jewish Orthodoxy or Christianity is better and resisting progressivism, and I ask, where is the Jewish Phil Robertson?

Christianity inherits its solution to theodicity from the Jews in substantial part.
1. Evil exists because of human and satanic choices, free will. Genesis: Fall of man in the Garden of Eden was caused by, and caused, consequences remarkably similar to those one would expect in a universe of where natural selection and evolutionary psychology are true.
2. God allows evil because God is trying us, wants to see what we are made of, wants us to make hard choices that really matter. Book of Job.
3. The goodness and greatness of God is beyond mortal comprehension. If it does not make sense to us, if it looks to us that God is a mean bastard, hard biscuit. Book of Job.

But Christianity also inherited the Greek philosophers’ concept of the unnamed one god, God as the underlying cause, reason, and logic of the universe.
4. God created an orderly universe of cause and effect, and thus mere flesh and blood is apt to get squished as the cold logic of the universe unfolds.

You will notice that these features of Christianity support a world where truth is spoken, promises are kept, and science is actually scientific. Which is a big part of why it was Christians that made the scientific and Industrial Revolutions, not Jews and not Muslims, why it will be Christians that settle space and conquer the universe. (Maybe atheists are better at building rocket ships, but they will not have the children to fly those rocket ships to new worlds and settle them.)

What we need to do is import the good parts of Islam into Christianity: Patriarchy, repression of women, execution of homosexuals, holy war, intolerance of sacrilege, intolerance of heresy, and intolerance of apostacy. Retain the good bits of Christianity, the trinity, the attitude to logic, reason and law, the Orthodox communion of the saints, where the final authority on faith, doctrine, interpretation of the bible, and morals, is ancient Christians. Keep the Episcopalian married clergy, plus Episcopalian subordination to earthly authority. Decorate the result with a few Episcopalian symbols and call the result Episcopalianism, and make it the official state religion of the US empire in place of progressivism, with all other religions subordinated to it, second class, and unequally backed by the state. In school, kids get taught that official Episcopalianism is wise, good, and right, and all other religions are stupid, much as today they are taught that official progressivism is wise, good, and right, and all other religions (except possibly Islam) are stupid and evil.

We always have an official state religion: As Boldmug tells us:
The trouble is basically that sovereignty is conserved. If you try to design a political system that discards some element of sovereignty, like the right of the state to promote truth and suppress error, a parallel, informal state will rush into this gap and fill it.

Since control over information is incredibly powerful in the age of broadcast media, this parallel state will become the strongest organ in the actual government. It will be completely irresponsible and unaccountable, since it’s not even part of the official state. But there is no political, economic, or intellectual check on its operations. Once again, sovereignty is conserved.

This sovereign information-delivery system naturally assumes the religious imperiousness we expect from an intellectual sovereign. It is also disorganized, centerless and leaderless, which means there is no possible way for it to feel pity or shame. Sound familiar?

There is no way to disestablish religion. It’s just an unsolvable engineering problem. If the state disavows its religious authority, all it’s doing is disavowing control over that authority. Which leaves said authority in a perfect position to control the state. So the nominal objective of separating church and state leads naturally to the theocratic state. This is not a new phenomenon in Anglo-American history.

Even if you don’t care about quality of government, but just about quality of thought, putting the church in charge of the state — ie, the nerds in charge of the jocks — has a nasty effect on quality of thought. Thought is distorted not by the repulsive force of a fascist jock state that discriminates against nerds, but rather by the attractive force that offers free power to power-craving nerds.

The state which disavows religion is basically a flawed engineering structure that’s leaking power. The power leak has a horrific evolutionary effect on the nerd population, basically favoring sniveling, student-government weasels over good sensible open-minded people. Noticed anything like this around you? Anyone? Bueller?

This is only one of many reasons why humanity flourishes under leaders who unite both nerd and jock qualities, ie, true aristocracies, and has serious difficulties when these qualities are opposed or even just divided.

Anarcho capitalism is apt to tempt some more cohesive group, like Muslims, to come in and kill the men, and take your property and women, and separation of church and state is apt to lead to a hostile and cohesive religion taking over your state. Progressivism took over from Christianity, and in due course Islam will take over from progressivism.

Back in the seventeenth century, the Church was the mainstream media and the education system, and Charles the first appointed the archbishop and the Bishops, and the Church damn well taught what he wanted. The puritans, of course, felt this was a very bad thing, and were all in favour of religious freedom (except that they agreed that atheists and Roman Catholics should be executed) In 1640, they seized power, Bishops were in effect abolished, and the Established Church was formally stripped of almost all its power – while informally becoming Puritan, a hundred times as powerful, a hundred times as intrusive, and a hundred times as oppressive. Formally and officially the Puritans brought freedom of conscience, informally and unofficially they brought brutal religious repression.

Which is pretty much what we have today, except that today’s Puritans are holier than God.

In 1660 Charles the second returned, bringing with him official formal theocracy. The Archbishop crowns the King, and the King appoints the Archbishop. The Archbishop tells the Bishops what to say and think, the Bishops tell the priests what to say and think, and the priests tell the assembled congregations what to say and think. The British people celebrated this enthusiastically, recognizing the formal theocracy as abolishing informal theocracy. They celebrated by engaging in pagan festivals such as maypole dancing, that had been cruelly suppressed by the Puritans.

If we are openly ditching the first amendment, what about the second? Well, it turns out it is mighty difficult to deny organized hostile groups arms, so you might as well allow your support base to carry arms, as in Iraq. Ideas are more powerful than guns. The dictator Sadam Hussein of Iraq did not allow his people ideas, but he did allow them full auto military style weapons. Looks like he knew what he was doing.

All married property owning men, all soldiers, all cops, all authorized mercenaries, all rentacops, and all security watchmen should be allowed to keep and bear arms, because in a well functioning society, that is the ruler’s base of support. He looks after them, and they look after him. The rest, probably not. Not single men, nor men without property, because they have nothing to lose, and therefore will likely fail to defend society and uphold order. Guards and suchlike have been vetted that they will protect protect property and order, so should be allowed to keep and bear arms even if they do not have wives and property.

169 Responses to “The solution we do not want.”

  1. Grand Inquisitor Bob says:

    All married property owning men, all soldiers, all cops, all authorized mercenaries, all rentacops, and all security watchmen should be allowed to keep and bear arms, because in a well functioning society, that is the ruler’s base of support. He looks after them, and they look after him. The rest, probably not. Not single men, nor men without property, because they have nothing to lose, and therefore will likely fail to defend society and uphold order. Guards and suchlike have been vetted that they will protect protect property and order, so should be allowed to keep and bear arms even if they do not have wives and property.

    This is a pretty bad boomerism Jim, you have to admit. Statements like this is why socialism is no longer a swearword among the younger generations.

    • Koanic says:

      Capitalist rural land management creates major externalities because rural land is a resource with a major impact on human genetic outcomes, to which capitalism is mostly unresponsive. The legitimate demand for socialism arises in response to this externality, and to usury and oppression of the poor. The OT Law, while generally capitalist, regulates to mitigate these externalities, with measures that might be considered “socialist”.

      • jim says:


        I am in a rural area now, and such extravagant unreality could only come from a city dweller.

        Capitalist land management is not, for the most part, the giant agribusiness. It is mum and pop.

        When you attack “capitalist land management”, you are telling the peasant with one cow that he is being oppressed by the peasant with two cows, so he should help you kill that horrible kulak’s cows.

        And, having divided the peasants, you then kill both peasants.

        Over a hundred million people were murdered in various attacks on “capitalist land management”. Your attack will end up like every single past attack. Every such attack was an attack by urbanites on country people, which always wound up murdering many of the country people.

        Trotsky, a failed Jewish money lender who failed because he pissed away his capital, was absolutely typical of those attacking “capitalist land management”. He was angry because the peasant could accumulate capital, raising calves to be cows, while he pissed away his capital. So he wanted to murder the peasants.

        Anyone who attacks “capitalist land management” hates country people, in part because they create nice things and he does not, and wants to murder them. This has been proven by experience time after time after time.

        I have created a few nice things, most recently my garden, my road, and my retaining wall made of natural weathered rocks concreted together. I built the computer on which I am typing this. That is capitalist home management very similar to capitalist land management. What have you created, Koanic? How many children and grandchildren do you have?

        The core of capitalism is people creating capital for themselves. And this is what the anticapitalists hate, as proven by their deeds time after time. They hate the man who creates stuff, and they especially hate pop on a mum and pop farm, because he personally has possession of what he creates. That is why Carlylean Restorationist thinks the British Housing projects were great. He hates people living in homes that they themselves created. That is why he hates the man who built a pizza shop.

        • Koanic says:

          > Capitalist land management is not, for the most part, the giant agribusiness. It is mum and pop.

          I don’t see what that has to do with it. OT Law makes it all Pop, unless they rent it to agribusiness for efficiencies of scale.

          OT Law is compatible with wealthy men gaining lots of land to manage. It just resets to the patrilineages every so often, and without uncompensated confiscation. I doubt this sort of system can serve as a basis for “kill the kulak” rhetoric. On the contrary, OT Law supports the right of the kulak to own the wastrel as a slave.

          > Every such attack was an attack by urbanites on country people, which always wound up murdering many of the country people.

          One contributing factor to the current imbalance of power in favor of city vs rural is that it is illegal for the rural to enforce genetic homogeneity and cohesive clans, tribes etc. Thus the rural is atomized, and the city is atomized, via purely capitalist land transactions. But since the city is more centralized than the rural, the city has more power. I am not attacking the rural, I am restoring its defensibility, the first component of which is cohesion.

          I have no interest in answering your questions about my personal life.

          I would prefer to live in the foothills of Texas on a ranch, but it is inadvisable live there if the rural cohesion necessary to resist Mexican invasion is illegal. And so the ranch I love will transfer to another owner, out of the family of my godfather, and all the labor that brilliant engineer put into improving it will be lost, like tears, in rain.

  2. proteus says:

    The low IQ of the people who practice islam is probably the biggest reason for their lack of scientific achievement. There’s no need to get theological about it. Sand nigger admixture kills scientific achievement. The scientific achievements of “muslims” were the achievements of the byzantine greeks and persians they conquered, and continued after the conquered converted to islam, but not after they mixed with the conquerors.

    The lack of achievement of orthodox jews is because they’re not allowed to get secular education.

    • jim says:

      Diverse races are Islamic, due to conquest. Some of those races are high IQ. Orthodox Jews are high IQ, produce no more science than Mohammedans. If orthodox Jews convert to atheism, progressivism, or Christianity, then they are apt to make major contributions to science.

  3. […] but you already get it, don’t you? Again, I’m no apologist. I completely agree with this post by Jim. This is the solution we don’t want. But I’m not sure Gnon cares about what we […]

  4. […] A. Donald: The solution we do not want. Jim dons the cap of Christian apologist as he explains that, while Islam solves certain problems […]

  5. […] seeing as Muslims do such an awesome job of policing their women, Jim’s big piece concerns The solution we do not want. This was an ☀“Official” #NRx Best of the Week Honorable […]

  6. vxxc2014 says:

    “Ideas are more powerful than guns.”

    No they’re not.

    It is true you can fool the gun bearers for a time but that time has passed.

  7. Bee says:

    “Islam is quietly becoming the official religion,….”

    Western elites have converted to Islam years ago. They choose it to replace Christianity in the West because Islam offers more top down control of the populace. Western elites don’t plan on being devout. They plan on going to the mosque one day a year, faking Ramadan by hiding food in their homes.

    George W. Bush celebrated the end of Ramadan every year that he was in the White House. Bush and Blair proclaimed the “Islam is the religion of Peace” nonsense.

  8. Oliver Cromwell says:

    “A good Muslim says “I will do so and so, God willing”, and then very likely does not do it. ”

    So the cultural determinist believes.

    The genetic determinist believes that an Arab doesn’t want to get out of bed so he says “God willing” and skips the meeting. An Englishman or a German wants to keep his promises anyway so he says “God willing” and turns up on time to show that God was willing.

    The genetic determinist theory might be wrong, but there are a lot of Christian countries where people don’t keep their promises. We don’t really know what a Nordic Muslim country would look like. It could well conquer and repopulate the entire world.

    • jim says:

      Maybe it is racial – a negro will never keep promises, no matter what his religion. On the other hand, when Icelanders subscribed to a religion that had sex and fighting all the time, they were real men, when they converted to Christianity, not so much.

      Chechens and Kosovars provide a test of the theory. They are white and Muslim. Chechens are more Aryan than most of us. Looks to me like they can only sustain a substantially lower level of civilization. Chechens are white, but act like smarter browns.

      • peppermint says:

        Chechens have White face shape but muddy colors. Persians and Turks are more White. Bosniacs are actually White, as White as Spaniards and Greeks who also have a lot of mud in their DNA.

  9. A.B. Prosper says:

    Now as for the religion, long and short, don’t worry about it . A religion will come into play when ist ready top come into play either a restoration of Non Judeo Christianity or something else

    Its probably won’t be Islam as very few Whites seem to take to it and frankly it encourages conduct, fatalism and the like that aren’t a good fit.

    Sikhism might work but it doesn’t have legs in the West , Hinduism is too weird for most Westerners and Buddhism while its often good for individuals when properly understood as ritualized Stoicism sucks for a social model

    Anyway unless you name is Constantine , its not something you can push all at once. It has to happen on its own terms over time

    If I had to guess some kind of new forest religion (to use those terms) might happen we already have one with the global warming/deep earth/Gaia stuff and with Wicca . Gardenerian Wicca was originally at least someone patriarchal

    If you can stand the larpyness of it Folkish or Racists Asatru /Odinism/Heathenry might suffice , it has some “hardass” elements (see Wolves of Vinland) already and it could easily be grafted with eco freak stuff and merged.

    It would have to have a critical mass though and it will take a long time to do .Also I kind of agree with Vox Day on the notion that it might not exactly be a Western society as we know it.

    • jim says:

      If we cannot revive Christianity (and if the only people who seek to revive Christianity as it used to exist a couple of hundred years ago are people like me then things are not looking good for Christianity) Western society as we know it is over.

      Rome fell shortly after paganism fell. Julian the apostate tried to revive paganism, got an undead religion. If we get an undead Christianity, which is likely if someone like me is Julian the Apostate, Western civilization as we knew it is over. But the white race and technological civilization might well survive in some form in a new and considerably reduced geographical area.

    • lalit says:

      Europeans would far worse than to go for the Norse religion. Look how badass it is.

      In heaven, there was only war during day where everyone died, then a resurrection for everyone in time for dinner, feasting, drinking and lots of sex. Then they all passed out, woke up in the morning and went to war again. Now that’s a religion worth converting to in a Heartbeat. That’s a real religion for a real man! Swedes should read that and weep!

      • Alexhandr says:

        Really, lalit? Muh dick is your argument? Pathetic. What are you, a negro or a white man?
        “Muh pagan religion has sex and fighting all the time, I’m a real man!” Way to think like a petulant child.

        • jim says:

          “Muh pagan religion has sex and fighting all the time, I’m a real man!” Way to think like a petulant child.

          But the Icelandic religion had sex and fighting all the time, and when the Icelanders subscribed to that religion, they really were real men, and when they converted to Christianity, not so much real men.

          • oogenhand says:

            And today, they abort ALL fetuses carrying Down genes. Their country is almosteeming completely White.

            As a Hindi, what do you think about Rodnovery (Swantowit, Triglav =Slavonic Paganism)?

      • jim says:

        Yes, I very much wish that was still a live religion.

        However, intrinsic to that religion was a warrior priesthood, that personally upheld law and order with sword and axe. Like Roman Catholicism, it is a religion that has to rule.

        • Mycroft Jones says:

          I wish to point out that the original Hebrew priesthood (before the Talmud) were exactly warrior priests. Their foundation was Levi, who was one of only 2 (out of 12) brothers who went and avenged his sister after a foreigner treated her like a whore. In fact, he and one other brother slaughtered a whole city of men and took their wives and children captive, for that insult. Then Moses, of the same priestly tribe, was Israel’s war leader and general for many years. Warrior priests? Hell yes! There is a reason Cromwell’s Crowd was able to found America.

        • lalit says:

          Jim, here is an essential question. How does Christianity defeat Norse Paganism? Why do the Vikings leave their religion and go to Christianity? How does such a thing happen? Does it happen after a long war when a society is too exhausted to subscribe to a warrior religion? Or does it happen because the society is undergoing extreme hardship due to famines or disease when people are vulnerable to superstition, any confident superstition?

          The Fall or Roman Paganism is well documented. What is not so well documented is the fall of the Norse religion. What could the cause have been?

          • oogenhand says:

            The Franks defeated the Saxons because the Franks knew both Germanic and Latin, while the Saxons only knew Germanic. So the Franks knew everything about Paganism, while the Saxons knew little about Christianity.

            In the Middle-Ages, the Bible was only read by ver intelligent people who could talk away the turn that other cheek stuff (scholastics). Nowadays, too many people, both Christians and non-Christians, know that Christians are supposed to turn the other cheek, and that euthanasia is forbidden.

            Asatru allows euthanasia. So what happens if a Christian is mutilated by an Odinist?

          • jim says:

            No, if anything the reverse. Icelanders were becoming so affluent, educated, and sophisticated that a cheerfully bloodthirsty religion started to seem to them like children’s tales.

            But that was not the core problem. The core problem is that a fish rots from the head down. The pagan priests stopped genuinely believing, and found themselves facing Christian true believers.

            • oogenhand says:

              Saudis and other Gulf Arabs are affluent, educated and sophisticated like no tomorrow, and there are plenty of young Saudis willing to die for ISIS.

              Only because Christianity requires you to live like a beggar, having only one wife inter alia, makes people think ALL religion is incompatible with having lots of stuff.

              If anything, it was the Christians not being true believers. Charlemagne had several wives, and the Crusaders took prostitutes with them, leading to a breakout of gonnorhea.

              The Franks had a real state, a real country. The Saxons didn’t. And the very same features that make Christians well adapted to centralized states, i.e. monogamy, nuclear families, not marrying your cousins, not going vigilante at the slightest provocation, strongly work AGAINST them if the state is captured by their enemies, like now.

              Anyway, nowadays, true conviction lies at the other side. Even those who only pretend to believe in Odin because it suits their racial agenda have at least True Belief in White Nationalism, and are willing to die for White Nationalism.

              Heck, even Pim Fortuyn was willing to die for his Right to Party.

  10. james says:

    The other problem with Islam is its tendency to destroy historical architecture and monuments erasing it from history and erasing our heritage.

    • lalit says:

      This is because Islam promotes the view that the native society was “Jahiliya” (degenerate) before it came and rescued the natives. Great monuments/architecture go against that propaganda. So everything about the pre-Islamic culture is erased. Yes, if you convert to Islam, you will forget all about Alexander and Caeser even as the Persians have forgotten all about Cyrus the Great and Ardeshir, the conqueror of Attila the Hun.

  11. james says:

    Mohammed wasn’t actually raised by a good Father:

    Hence why Islamic Patriarchy is the most defective Patriarchy that exists on the earth right now. Compared with Roman,Greek and Chinese Patriarchy as well as Christianity.

  12. Cavalier says:

    I would convert if there were any light-skinned, light-eyed, and long-legged Moslem women. There aren’t, so I won’t.

    • Mycroft Jones says:

      There are, actually. I live in a neighborhood where the Canadian government has been resettling boatloads of Syrian refugees and Iraqis (not refugees). I was surprised how many blonde hair blue eyed Syrians there were. Then I remembered the slave trade that only ended less than 100 years ago, and I wasn’t surprised after all. After all, the Caucasus mountains are right on their border. And Turkey still has a strong Hellenic presence, including the blonde hair and blue eyes.

      True story: when younger I visited an “off limits” Muslim rebel area. The natives thought I was from Saudi Arabia. Ask any European to guess, they’ll look at me and say Dutch or Danish. Whatever Saudis were funding these Muslim rebels, they must have looked pretty white.

      However, if you think you have a chance with any of these slender white Muslim women, not a chance. The Thirst among Muslim men is greater than you could imagine.

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        PS: I’m not counting Albanian women as “white”.

      • Anonymous says:

        >Then I remembered the slave trade that only ended less than 100 years ago, and I wasn’t surprised after all.

        (((slave trade)))

        • Mycroft Jones says:

          Officially ended, that is. Unofficially, the talent scouts, beauty pageants, modelling agencies… modern form of recruiting sex slaves.

      • Cavalier says:

        Interesting, esp. since I’ve never seen any indication first- or even second-hand.

        Saudi aristos only look white to a nonwhite peasant with limited exposure to white people. They look as white as Indian Brahmins, optimistically.

        >you don’t have a chance
        If she’s owned by her father or husband, probably not—though a reasonable chance if by husband. Nonwhite girls really seem to melt at the prospect of having an offspring with my porcelain skin and ice-blue eyes, and the rest of my genetic endowment doesn’t hurt either. I seem to by default come in above basically every Moslem man without millions to throw around.

    • jim says:

      There are plenty of light skinned light eyed Muslim women.

      • Cavalier says:

        I’ve known a couple of long-legged and not-dark-skinned Moslem women, and even “knew” one of them. I’ve seen some light-skinned Moslem women, but the Moslem standard of light skin isn’t the same as my standard. I’ve never seen a light-eyed Moslem woman, except that one green-eyed Afghani woman on the cover of TIME. Even Bashar’s nearly-indistinguishably-white wife’s eyes are just about coal black.

        And then you really get into the weeds, because nearly everyone in the Middle East is at least a little bit mixed, and it’s written all over their faces. Plus, you know, Islamic inbreeding, and simple dysgenics from living in a fucking desert since the You-Know-Who invasions thousands of years ago.

  13. Dave says:

    Jack made an excellent comment on the failings of Islam, for anyone who missed it:

  14. Oliver Cromwell says:

    Converting to Islam causes social harm, but is individually beneficial.

    Since my allegiance doesn’t affect the social trends much, the correct decision is to defect to Islam.

    I should defect back if a Western traditionalist counterrevolution looks like it might succeed, but right now it looks an awful lot like we are doomed.

    • lalit says:

      This is exactly how you move to a Defect-Defect Equilibrium from a trust-trust equilibrium.

      • Oliver Cromwell says:

        I wasn’t the one who breached trust. The correct move when the other guy is defecting hard isn’t to keep trusting. That’s why there’s no defect-trust equilibrium.

  15. Hi Jim!

    The whole thing sounds very weird unless we define the concepts religion and church accurately.

    For example, for many people these are inherently linked to a concept of God or gods or at least some kind of supernatural. But this perspective ignores how people used to have all kinds of superstitious supernatural beliefs that were not part of their religion. So if religion is only a subset of the supernatural beliefs, maybe it contains some none-supernatural elements as well.

    A second problem is defining the supernatural. To the scholar who knows the laws of nature the difference between the natural and the supernatural seems clear. To the medieval peasant it is not so, to him exotic animals and demons are the same thing: just stories about weird beings that may be true or not. He simply believes a set of statements about the world and does not really see a clear supernatural or natural difference. Only true or false. It requires a very scholarly view to draw a line between the natural and the supernatural.

    A third approach is that empirical facts are empirical facts everywhere but (indigenous) religion differs in every culture, because it is made up, not empirical etc. but again this ignores how what we see today as empirical reality was less so in the past, reading books about what medieval people thought about what medicine heals what illness had very, very little relationship with empirical reality and thus this too could easily have been different in every culture. Legends of aphrodisiacs were just as different as legends of gods because almost as unreliable and made up. Empirical reality is the same everywhere only in the modern age where we know it well. Otherwise every tribe had a different idea what causes malaria. So being culturally because not empirically determined is not a defining feature of religion either.

    So we don’t really know what is a religion, at least all the obvious definitions seem wrong to me.

    That sucks, because then we don’t know exactly what is the business of the state church or why is it even a state church and not a Minitrue.

    In my view religion can be interpreted as simply information: opinions, facts, logic, legend, emotion all together. Normally they form a system. This again is not unique, science, too, forms a system.

    However, the unique feature of religion is probably that is emotionally moving through touching really fundamental questions like death or the meaning of life. So religion is something to be passionate about. For example, anything worths dying for has a religious dimension, be that nationalism, family or friendship.

    But avenging a really bad insult can worth dying for. Defending my child is definitely worth dying for. Yet it is not religion. I think the difference is that that is an isolated thing. Religion forms a system.

    So religion is defined by two features: systematic, like science, and emotionally moving and passionately motivating like someone pulling a gun on your child.

    Science is systematic, but mostly dry facts. And there are emotionally moving sentences in isolation. Religion is the two together. Tie emotionally moving sentences into something systematic, which at this point means touching the fundamental questions of living and dying, a whole worldview that feels like worth dying for, and you have religion.

    Is Leftism a religion? Yes – it is a systematic theory of oppression which if could be ended would end immense amounts of human suffering, very emotionally moving, worth dying for.

    Any right wing alternatives? I am not _that_ much into my skin color to put it on an altar. Nor the over the top “Gott strafe England” type of nationalism, I don’t have good historic memories about this, it was far, far too good at making white people kill each other. And Christianity clearly lost to Proz. Currently all I care passionately about is my family and having a civilized society for them to live in. Any suggestions?

    • Anonymous says:

      >Currently all I care passionately about is my family and having a civilized society for them to live in. Any suggestions?

      Intelligent people need religion to reproduce, without religion they go sterile. Dumb people reproduce with or without religion, so they don’t need it for that purpose. If you’re intelligent and don’t go sterile, you’re in the right track.

      Ultimately it’s not only up to males, but rather, eugenics should apply to females just as well. Which means that intelligent women must, by all means necessary, be prevented from “fulfilling their potential” (muh career, muh talentz) by having them compelled to live *exactly* the same life that traditional women had lived a few centuries ago, that is: zero education, and marriage in early teens within strict patriarchy.

      There must be created a positive correlation between intelligence and reproduction, among both sexes, not just among males. Which means that intelligent women must not do anything with their intelligence that is not directly related to family-life. Which means that they will feel “bored” and will constantly whine about how “boring” their life is. Even mediocre women whine in this manner, all the more so intelligent women will whine.

      “But I have an IQ of 145, why should I be stuck home, raising my 12 kids, when I can go pursue Muh Dreams like the men do and contribute to society by becoming a scientist, author, or artist?!” will be their wailing.

      At this point a male owner shall struck the 145-iq female on her face, and remind her that civilization-building is the domain of men, and women’s sole contribution to society is the facilitation of civilization-building by men, which facilitation is brought about by women being the best wives and mothers they can be, which means wifely duties, never refusing to have sex with one’s husband, and giving birth to & raising as many children as biologically/medically possible. *Especially* if you’re a high-iq female.

      Gnon doesn’t care about your sentimental, moralistic, romantic ideals. Eugenics requires “tough measures”, bordering on cruelty, or constituting cruelty. So be it.

      • viking says:

        I dont think religion per se is needed, but purpose and hope and we are easily convinced their is hope and purpose so not a big deal, however nihilism is a bad thing.

        Ok while i admit forcing a 145 IQ bitch into submission is one of lifes true pleasures at least for this 130 IQ alpha Im not sure its sustainable. One of the problems is as elites become more powerful they begin to cheat the lesser beings out of the contracts they agreed to on the way up. Eventually they have left an opening another elite can use via demotism. Lesser dont want much but that always ends up being too much for some elites and the squeeze is on. Now eradicating the lower races and a holistic ethno culture that strives toward shortening its left tail ought to mitigate this, however we can not eliminate the lesser gender. And this will always be our Achilles heel. half the population of 145 IQ bitches is a tempting sight for the ambitches. As fun as it is it might be worth considering my idea of breeding stepford wives. We could breed them sterile and only moderately intelligent, then when we want children implant engineered smart male or dumb female zygotes. Of course some guys would want to cheat for the thrill but its worth considering

        • Anonymous says:

          A great idea is to restrict, for a very short period, the blood-flow to the brains of 145-iq newborn females. That way, they’ll still have all their genetic potential to bequeath to their sons, but won’t be a problem themselves.

          • Mycroft Jones says:

            Completely unecessary. Once a woman’s priorities are set early in life, she won’t be “bored” by her social focus. Women have their own dominance hierarchy, and outbreeding other women is a good strategy, as is building up your offspring to outcompete the offspring of other women. You know how a Jewish mother will say “You know my son? He’s a doctor!” Women get bitter and bored when they are prevented from child-bearing.

            Saint Paul said that a woman will be saved by bearing children. He spoke truth. A childless womb is a ticking time bomb.

          • viking says:

            hahahahaha maybe we could do it on the wedding night instead

      • The 19th century had a good solution for intelligent women: since they tend to be married to rich men (and often inherit money on their own too), they pop the kids out, leave mothering to the nanny and engage in a gazillion social-charitable projects. Why not? We need their genes, their womb, but there is no reason an intelligent woman in the rich circumstances intelligent people tend to deserve must waste her time cooking or teaching kids the alphabet. Just hire servants for that!

        So in this sense, working women are not an anathema, as long as they still pop the kids out.

        The problem is today even conservatives are a bit too modern so they think traditional gender roles mean stuff like cooking and changing nappies forgetting elite, aristocrat women never ever did anything like that, but the idea of having servants is too outdated even for conservatives…

        The reason we want the aristocratic woman work in something charitable instead of business is that they tend to have such instincts anyway, let women into business and they make things too soft. Let intelligent women organize charity projects about feeding the poor and they tend to be well suitable for that, they can virtue-signal and so on, ideal setup, while keeping out of the more competitive male stuff.

        So I think you are wrong about this. The proper male answer to her is to pop those 5 (well, not 12) kids out, c-section with epidural, not such a huge deal, leave the rest to the nanny and other servants and go on organizing some super non-boring charitable stuff where she can feel important and holy and self-realizing. This is the actual 19th century aristocratic experience and this is something that works as a suitable compromise between women’s desires and reality.

        Assuming a high IQ woman should be her own servant and cook and change nappies instead of leaving all this to servants is just too egalitarian, too democratic, too modern.

        • Cavalier says:

          The SWPL elite (not all of them; the elite) stretch their household budgets to the wire to afford servants. Why do you think they’re so eager to import the Third World?

          • IDentifiable Friend says:

            I think this is the key. The status of having servants. That is why the 1% is importing Mexicans, Indians, and used to import black slaves. It is all about having reliable help; white people too expensive for their budgets. They want to live like kings, after all! So, screw your tribal kinsmen.

            A proper system of property ownership would stop this behavior cold. You know, like all the Latin countries (Mexico etc) which limit land ownership and civic office to citizens, and limit citizenship. (no birthright citizenship) If you limit land ownership so land is non-transferable except by short term lease, and so inheritance is limited to genetic offspring, (none of those adoption tricks the Babylonians pulled) then the land gets spread out among the native populace, and if you want to bring in cheap servants, you can. But odds are you will find affordable native service by that point. Latin countries seem to have no problem finding local servants.

            • Steve Johnson says:

              “That is why the 1% is importing Mexicans, Indians, and used to import black slaves. It is all about having reliable help; white people too expensive for their budgets. They want to live like kings, after all! So, screw your tribal kinsmen.”

              There’s an elephant in the room here too – Mexicans and blacks have repulsive looking women so the aging harpy upper-class wife won’t mind having them around. You could probably get Russian au pairs for not too much more money but …

        • Anonymous says:

          >The problem is today even conservatives are a bit too modern so they think traditional gender roles mean stuff like cooking and changing nappies forgetting elite, aristocrat women never ever did anything like that, but the idea of having servants is too outdated even for conservatives…

          Why should androgyny be selected-for among upper-class females? If you “outsource” motherhood to low-class women, eventually, over a long enough time-frame, high-class women will lose their inherent motherly instinct. The mechanism is simple: masculine upper-class women reproduce just the same as feminine upper-class women, whilst masculine lower-class women are selected-against, because they serve no motherly utility to themselves or to others, therefore fail to reproduce. Thus, the lower-class females will retain their femininity while the upper-class elite of females will be dyke-infested, and thereby society will be geared toward dyke interests. (exactly what in actual fact has happened)

          The world doesn’t need any more dykes.

          You want to apply selection on females to the same extent it is applied to males, that is: ruthless selection, weeding out of defective females. Androgynized females are defective, and should be severely socially pressured into motherhood and servility: if they are “uncomfortable” with motherhood and servility, deprive them of a high-status male mate, plus, stigmatize “the hell” out of them — women fear nothing more than marginalization and being shunned by the tribe. That way, high-IQ feminine females will reproduce aplenty, while high-IQ masculine females will sustain rot in their ovaries and die lonely amidst cats.

          >Assuming a high IQ woman should be her own servant and cook and change nappies instead of leaving all this to servants is just too egalitarian, too democratic, too modern.

          Hey, you know what is really too egalitarian, democratic, and modern? The belief that the survival of civilization can be compromised because a bunch of indolent cunts are no longer willing to engage in the most preliminary form of self-sacrifice by undertaking the role assigned to them by nature, and opt instead to indulge in the same liberties that men have established by sweat and blood. Well, here’s a motto for you: “no lives matter.”

          No lives matter. The lives of masculine-brained females have no intrinsic value – insofar as they persist in their anti-social and anti-natural behavior-patterns, their lives shall be deemed as less than worthless. Don’t let your sentiments “cloud your judgement”; female androgyny is civilizational cancer, a perilous aberration lacerating though civilization’s delicate social fabric, and this malignant clump of cells has to be removed consonantly with chemotherapeutic treatment (collective re-education of females about their societal role, which re-education they will resist kicking and screaming, which resistance must be overcome point-blank), which is painful but indispensable if you want your prospects of dyke-extirpation to be high.

          Here is a non-egalitarian, non-democratic, non-modern proposal: to carry out unreservedly an inquisition against the myriads of androgynized females infesting the elite of every Western society until these dykes are utterly expunged. If such “women” make up 5% or 35% of the elite is impertinent – no lives matter, and if we have determined that a tremendous biological hazard is posed by the fact that 145-iq females beget 0.5 children on average while 85-iq females beget 3 children on average, because these snob-faced libertine LBRTD WYMYN are busy pretending they were men, then, as it is said: “the cruelest measures are sometimes the kindest.”

          >The proper male answer to her is to pop those 5 (well, not 12) kids out, c-section with epidural, not such a huge deal, leave the rest to the nanny and other servants and go on organizing some super non-boring charitable stuff where she can feel important and holy and self-realizing. This is the actual 19th century aristocratic experience and this is something that works as a suitable compromise between women’s desires and reality.

          No, the proper male answer is to refuse to make such a retarded compromise between literally the *arbitrary will* of women and the imperative of civilizational self-preservation, and instead to actually have those 12 (not 5) children, preferably in the old-fashioned manner of parturition, preferably starting before (not after) the age of 16, preferably actually raising those children in a big family (no outsourcing of motherhood), where you can have “the nanny and other servants” employed to facilitate (not replace) the work of parenthood; but the mother shall never, ever pursues any of her silly “desires” at the expense of being a mother connected to her children.

          Women actually being women, striving to safeguard the interests of the family, is at the core and the root of anti-egalitarianism, anti-democracy, and anti-modernism. Letting cunts run loose with deleterious social-signalling & misguided-charity (spending husband’s or father’s hard-earned money on some bullshit causes) is the very opposite, and should be formally verboten.

          • Cavalier says:

            I’ve spent some time examining portraits and, later, photographs of euro aristos. I never noticed female androgyny; in almost every case the women were very feminine in appearance. In fact, if there was any androgyny, it went the other way—sometimes the men looked a little feminine.

            What I did notice was that shortly after the Restoration, the English aristocracy began to look less English, and more German.

            • Anonymous says:

              Behavioral androgyny first and foremost — physiognomy is secondary. See: support for Feminism among aristocratic Anglo women.

              • Cavalier says:

                The two are inextricable. See: women are unprincipled status maximizers, news at 11.

    • viking says:

      “It requires a very scholarly view to draw a line between the natural and the supernatural.

      A third approach is that empirical facts are empirical facts everywhere but (indigenous) religion differs in every culture, because it is made up, ”

      I think most people pretty much believe what they are told to believe no matter how smart and what they are told influences fact as well as fiction.

      to day smart people believe niggers are human, less smart people know they are not.

      • Cavalier says:

        They’re human, as any hominid for the last 200k years that makes fire, knives, and primitive art is human, and any hominid for the last 500k years, including neanderthalensis and heidelbergensis, is human.

        • viking says:

          kind of a broad definition of human, apes and corvids make tools, but sure niggers are like 1.8 million year old humaninids, somewhere between a chimp and a modern human

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        The negro is fully human. He is just a different species of human.

  16. Robert says:

    Everything that is good in Islam came from Christianity. It is easy to make a case biblically (holy war might be tricky, but easy for just war) for any one of the following “patriarchy, repression of women, execution of homosexuals, holy war, intolerance of sacrilege, intolerance of heresy, and intolerance of apostasy.” There have been many Christian nations that support these things. Converting to Islam is the same as surrender, it is the same as taking a wife who is not white, it should be unacceptable to us.

  17. Orthodox says:

    The problem with the Episcopal branch is many churches turn homo and cease to exist. The rest may be on a path to rejoin the Catholic Church if allowed to keep their married priests.

    • viking says:

      The last pope and I mean last in both senses offered episcapal preist full rights as catholic priests even if married [ men married to women of course] the offer includes them taking their entire congregation as well if they want,so its an option i never heard any did

  18. Anonymous says:

    >You will notice that these features of Christianity support a world where truth is spoken, promises are kept, and science is actually scientific. Which is a big part of why it was Christians that made the scientific and Industrial Revolutions, not Jews and not Muslims, why it will be Christians that settle space and conquer the universe. (Maybe atheists are better at building rocket ships, but they will not have the children to fly those rocket ships to new worlds and settle them.)

    You ascribe to theology what you should ascribe to race. White Europeans, whether Christian or pagan or atheist or Muslim, can fly to space, because high visuospatial iq, high visuospatial imagination, and high trust.

    Christian niggers don’t colonize space, Christian Armenians don’t colonize space, Christian Arabs don’t colonize space. The issue is race, religion being merely a proxy for race. Atheist Jews are as reliable in keeping promises as orthodox Jews, that is, unreliable.

    Who would you rather take to space with you: Eskimos with great perception and limited verbality, or a modern day Talmudic atheist? I’d take the Eskimo.

    • jim says:

      If race is all that matters, then converting to Islam is a fine solution. But looking at white converts to Islam, I get the feeling that it is not a fine solution.

      How do you feel about the Islam solution, that we convert wholesale to conservative Islam?

      • Anonymous says:

        Right. People who switch religions invariably have something wrong with their brain. I don’t mean that religious people who lose faith, or atheists who start believing in God, are all asylum cases. But rather, if you switch from the religion of your immediate family to something radically divergent from your immediate family, then probably there is something wrong with you – the exception being if your immediate family is a cult like Scientology.

        Which is why low-class prison-inhabiting whites who convert to Islam under pressure from the Muslim inmates who rape their infidel arses, are not a good indication of what Islam could do to normal whites if the State becomes officially Muslim.

        If my prophet married a 6 year old and fucked her when she was 9, exterminated all the Jews of Arabia except the Yemenite Jews, and after he had visited Hell in a vision by Allah remarked that “most of the dwellers of Hell are female”, then I am hermetically sheltered from the mind-virus of Puritanism. Muhammad may have been an illiterate terrorist pedophile gangster, but if you are required to believe that he did nothing wrong, you won’t ever get truly pozzed.

        You just don’t reconcile between Feminism and “majority of those in Hell-fire are women”. You can’t reconcile between “Jews are descendants of apes and pigs” + “there will come a day when the rocks and the trees will say to Allah’s slave (i.e to a Muslim): there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him” with liberal cosmopolitanism and tolerance for kikery.

        The problem is that Islam is Arab supremacist. But the solution is to simply kill all the Arabs, thus ensuring that Arabs won’t rule over whites. It may be a retarded religion overall, but so is orthodox Judaism, yet, if you can get pious Ashkenazi Jews to tolerate impious Ashkenazi Jews, you could also get pious Muslim whites to tolerate impious Muslim whites, which impious Muslim whites are going to colonize space, because they have the racial potential for it.

        Thus, the issue is race plus religion, not religion per se.

        • Robert says:

          It is very much an issue of race plus religion, just like the races are not equal, the religions are not equal. This is essentially the nature vs nurture debate, where nurture is religion. I believe the two must be considered, but that doesn’t mean we can’t discuss them one at a time. The only way forward for us is through Christianity, because through Christianity we can be free to seek after truth, we can be free to see the world as it really is, within Islam this is verboten.

          • Anonymous says:

            Islam as “background noise” is tenable. Islam fosters an atmosphere of anti-poz, because Islam has antibodies that other religions lack, or at least, very efficient antibodies relative to, say, sola scriptura / low church protestanism.

            Of course you don’t want Islam that is really Islamic, e.g ISIS, because ISIS can’t create anything, only destroy. You want a secular-Muslim king-caliph, whom one must not up-holy. Caliph is final arbiter in all things Islamic, and he approves of space programs. Are you holier than your caliph?

            But caliph won’t defy Muhammad, because his authority stems directly from Muhammad. Muhammad said nothing about space programs. But he said a lot about women. Of course, same is true of Jesus. Ideally, should have Jesus. Well, apparently you’ve been a very naughty boy for the past 250 years, a real stinker, and you need harsh discipline to set you straight. Muhammad’s yoke is heavier than Christ’s. If Jesus failed to set you straight, Muhammad will.

            It’s not what the West *should* have. It’s evidently what it has to accept. Jesus is fit for civilized people. Look at your college student who punches “fascists”. Is he civilized? Nope. Muhammad will get him civilized — figurative testosterone in the figurative water supplies.

            You don’t want nerds ruling jocks, saith Yarvin. Okay. Who is higher status among Muslims: Jihadist jock or sharia-scholar nerd? Obviously the former. Also explains why Jews fail spectacularly – among Jews, rabbi is higher status than warrior. Muhammad tells you to ditch the rabbis and start fighting, ergo nerds don’t rule jocks. Ideally, Jihadist jock abstains from pork and alcohol. But who cares? First of all he has to be Allah’s jock.

            Jihadist jocks, high status Jihadist jocks who get the hottest pussy, will get your leftie protester faggots in line. Am I wrong?

      • viking says:

        seriously Jim? do you not yet understand that nature/ nurture is a false dichotomy that cultures are neither transferable nor fungible but co evolve in a biological feedback loop. You cant say islam is separate from sand niggers it is sand niggers adopting islam is actually miscegenation, just like adopting a jewish heresy was miscegenation

        • Robert says:

          There is some truth to what you say, but how do you explain blacks (low IQ) and yellows (high IQ) both adopting the same religion, which absolutely happens. You seem to say that it can and cannot happen simultaneously.

          • viking says:

            well obviously blacks and yellows can adopt our culture but it will never serve them as well as it serves us. our culture arose to reinforce our survival strategies which in turn reinforced our culture. If niggers and slants adopt western openness they will be eaten alive by their co ethnics, so they adopt the parts that serve them and exploit the parts that are nigger christianity and slant christianity or for that matter round eye buddhism and hinduism the same, no.

      • Cavalier says:

        How do you feel when you look at, say, the Alawites? They could probably pass in southern Italy. How do they compare to southern Italians?

        • viking says:

          sort of like when i look at chimps only more so, they are cousins Im moved. But i dont operate on my chimp emotions i act on my white mans brain.
          So yes i acknowledge there’s a problem at the margins regarding race. To an extent the cucks are right.Greeks are closer to turks than icelanders, the bosphorus is an artificial line, at times western civilization extended much farther and theres some white looking people with some white looking cultural markers way past the bosphorus.But there has to be a border somewhere and that will do for now. On the other hand there are reactionaries that would like to make the border the hajinal line again i think that to extreme.If you must know eventually i intend to take the entire universe for whites its ours if we would put our minds to it.The other races need to go or be reduced to small populations in game preserves

          • Cavalier says:

            >there are reactionaries that would like to make the border the hajinal line


            • viking says:

              Yeah I get it but their reasons do not stand up to the scrutiny they allege.Among other reasons they would be wrong are; The Hajinal line would be an excellent border of where leftism is strongest and outside of which self preservation is strongest. When one tuns the Human achievement search to include where achievers genetics came from not what university they attended the picture get fuzzy.The greek Roman and Byzantine empires.The united states. The pretty celtic anglophere. The hallstatt culture.The past performance does not guarantee future results. The their are possible other reasons for Hajinal success or outside hajinal less success you may be overlooking, success tends to breed success first mover advantage.What worked in that time may not work again may even be the problem like outbreeding for trust and betaness.Racial unity is a good policy for whites, species unity is not. Any problems we might have I think we could solve as a people I think divided we fall.

    • Mycroft Jones says:

      That “high trust” is only among the beta males of Europe, and only because the blue pill narrative blinds them to the fact that the alphas fuck all the women when they are young and fresh, then when the women hit their late 20’s the betas get to wife them up and breed them. That is the system that feudalism set up 1600 years ago, then the Puritans managed to bust it up 400 years ago, and now we have reverted to sexual feudalism.

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        Feudalism selected for these trusting beta males because any serf who wised up and complained, didn’t get to breed. If he was even allowed to live. The Lord had ways to socially outgroup him so no woman would go near him. So, the beta male, the cuck. Sloppy seconds and dirty thirds and filthy fourths all the way down through history. At that price, you can take your “high trust” and go hang. Technology is over-rated at that price.

        • jim says:

          I don’t think so. I read old books. I don’t get that impression.

          My impression is that a medieval serf, however rough a deal he got in other respects, got a far better deal sexually than the modern beta male – generally getting a virgin and obedient wife. Sometimes, not commonly, but often enough he had to put up with a wife who had been with one alpha male before she got married off, but he usually demanded some quite substantial financial compensation from the alpha male for taking care of his leavings. Women who fucked around more than that just did not get married.

          In old books what I see is poor, but able and ambitious young men, marrying their wealthy boss’s discarded mistress, and getting a quite decent chunk of land or valuable job opportunity with the discarded mistress.

          • Mycroft Jones says:

            How old are these books? The Protestant revolution 500 years ago cleaned things up considerably, so beta males could THEN get virgin wives, and that is when Europe exploded in population and took over the world.

            The Norman explosion 1000 years ago is an interesting study in its own right, Normans went from Denmark to Sicily, and did mercenary work as far away as Central Asia and Armenia, all while being the heart and core of the Crusader states. Wild north men bred with the feudally selected Frankish women and BOOM population explosion, Crusades, Cyprus and Malta become Christian again. Frisian men bred with feudally selected Frankish women and BOOM, Holland becomes world mercantile power and kicks out the Spaniards. Feudally selected Frankish men get out of dodge, going East to Prussia and Poland, breed with the wild women there and BOOM, Luther rises up and kicks the Catholics out.

            A good fruit tree needs wild root stock to grow with vigor; maybe it is similar with societies.

            • jim says:

              How old are these books? The Protestant revolution 500 years ago cleaned things up considerably

              Not that old, but I will turn the argument around. Given that virgin marriage was officially normal and normative, and data about ordinary people’s daily lives around before 1500 is mighty thin, what evidence do you have that serfs got sloppy seconds without some substantial compensation for putting up with their lord’s leavings.

              • Mycroft Jones says:

                Tannahill’s “Sex in History”. Books older than 500 years may be thin compared to what came after, but there is still a wealth of material. A lot of this is common knowledge, it is just a matter of connecting the dots. I connected the dots this week after reading up on A) Feudalism B) HBDChick C) Jayman D) The history of the Normans E) Roman latifundia F) Worldwide history of slavery

                Plus the history of the popes and catholic countries in general; Catholic morality is notorious and it hasn’t changed up to today; Catholic school girls were always that way, even before Catholic schools. Even though every so often you get a rare one that tries to by holy and righteous, and she pops out a dozen kids. The way Catholic countries practice the mistress system; the biography of de Sade; even the novels of de Sade give hints of what was normative and what wasn’t. The sorts of things that seem wierd today, but aroused the French of yesterday.

                Christianity was fully cucked by 600 AD; it was around that time that the “Pericope of the Woman Caught in Adultery” was added to the New Testament, and ever since, that section of the New Testament has been used by priests to look the other way and not punish an adulterous woman. Simple test if a priest is cucked: look at how he applies the Pericope to an actual case of adultery and whoredom in his parish. I checked out SSPX, supposedly the bad-ass traditional Catholic priests. All cucked. The blue pill is strong in them.

                Considering that Justinian’s empress forbade any woman to be punished or even accused of adultery, it wouldn’t surprise me if the Pericope was added to the New Testament at her behest. And any priest who complained got his throat cut.

                • jim says:

                  The way Catholic countries practice the mistress system; the biography of de Sade;

                  Recall that under the old regime, De Sade became a fugitive from justice, was imprisoned in the Bastille, and was freed by the revolutionary mob. It is clear that De Sade’s behavior was not normative.

                  But, apart from De Sade, you are not giving me actual sources. give me an actual source. (No, I don’t regard Tannahill as a source).

                • Mycroft Jones says:

                  de Sade became a fugitive from justice after he killed a wench during a threesome. In other words, he started harming the merchandise.

                • jim says:

                  De Sade primarily procured prostitutes. This is not evidence that serfs wound up marrying his leavings. Some of the many charges against him were raping his maids. This is evidence that sexual services were not normally and normatively part of a maid’s duty – in which case if an aristocrat enjoyed the sexual services of his maid, he probably had to provide special compensation, such as giving a serf a substantial dowry to marry her.

                  The father of one of De Sade’s maids attempted to shoot him, and appears that attempting to shoot him was fine under the circumstances. Which would indicate that normally the son in law of that father would expect a virgin.

                • Mycroft Jones says:

                  Also read the auto-biography of Casanova. Lot of good stuff in there. Very historical. You’d think it would be all about sex, but for the most part, it isn’t.

                • Mycroft Jones says:

                  Jim, de Sade was at the time of the French Revolution; the Protestant revolution was having its effect on the French. Typical blue pill serf wouldn’t know what a virgin was. If she said she was a virgin, then she was.

                  Remember, two narratives. The blue pill narrative to keep the serfs happily cucking along, then the reality for the upper class men who took what they wanted when they wanted, but had to keep it discrete so as not to disturb the blue pill narrative. The priests put a lot of work into constructing that blue pill narrative.

                  As with recent cases like the Gomeshi case, the lords did what they wanted, but once one woman came forward AND WAS BELIEVED, then all the other deflowered women would dogpile the “alpha”. de Sade, Gomeshi, different century, same thing. Funny, even in our era of sexual liberation, women feel someone is wrong with promiscuity, or they wouldn’t attack their former lovers like that.

                • jim says:

                  I am just not seeing examples of what you describe, and you have not produced any examples of what you describe. You just think it must have happened, cause feudalism is icky.

                  No what is icky is affluent males marrying used up women who are approaching the end of their fertile years and have had sex with a hundred men wealthier than their husbands, more charismatic than their husbands, handsomer than their husbands, and with bigger tools than their husbands. That is icky. The worst that happened under feudalism was a peasant married a peasant girl who had slept with one man before him, and that man more alpha than himself, and even that was not common or normal.

                • Mycroft Jones says:

                  I have no problem with feudalism, except where it overrides the Law of Moses. Feudalism, caste systems, all good. In this thread I should have been using the term “Manorialism” more often instead of feudalism.

                • peppermint says:

                  Law of Moses? Take your book religion shit out of here. Biology is the basis for law, not goat fucking dune coons.

              • A.B. Prosper says:

                Mycroft, primitive people did know what virginity was and were pretty adroit and detecting it either by an unbroken hymen or by having a pretty good idea of what kind of life the girl lead.

                It wasn’t perfect of course but prior to the modern era girls non urban women didn’t have access to a large pool of men

                Also while a virgin is always preferred, a very low partner number is manageable for a possible husband if the girl cannot easily run off.

                Its not necessary for the prefect to be the enemy f the good

          • Mackus says:

            My grand-grand(grand?)-mother, was maid that worked at local manor… as result of that, my grand(grand?)-father was illegitimate son of baron. She got married off to some peasant, who as compensation was assigned more land than any other peasant in the village.

            • Mycroft Jones says:

              Exactly. Every family has stories like that.

              • Mackus says:

                No. For my anecdote to prove your point, every other peasant in the village would had been given extra land.

                What you see here, is one peasant out of more than hundred marrying up baron’s ex-mistress.
                Which was substantially better deal that most men get today: marry women with much higher N-count, often single moms, and get no compensation for it.

          • Mycroft Jones says:

            Discarded mistress… another way of saying sloppy seconds. The legend of the “tavern wench” didn’t come out of nowhere. The courtly love distinguished between ladies, who were worshipped, and all other females, who the knights did what they wanted with. And if peasant men protested, they could be cut down.

            • jim says:

              It was De Sade that came close to being cut down, not the father of the maid. The father of one of his maids not merely protested, but attempted to kill De Sade, and suffered no consequences. It was De Sade that suffered consequences.

              • Mycroft Jones says:

                de Sade’s “grab em and rape em” strategy did have its drawbacks. Most noblemen used a bit of seduction and sweet talk, and had far less blow-back. There is a reason oratory was a required subject for all noblemen’s sons, and it wasn’t just to argue in court or in parliament.

              • Mycroft Jones says:

                Considering the number of maids de Sade plowed through, the limited amount of blow-back he received is remarkable. Of course, once an alpha dog is down, the bitches will dog-pile him, but that is another matter entirely.

                • jim says:

                  It is not clear that De Sade plowed through more than two maids. We know large numbers of maids left his service because of his sexual demands, but that they resigned does not indicate he nailed them, merely that he attempted to nail them.

                  More importantly, we just don’t have any examples of the scenario you describe, where the serf or commoner gets killed or suffers adverse consequences for resisting a lord using women belonging to that commoner, while we do have examples of the reverse: Lord uses commoner’s woman, gets blow back.

                • Mycroft Jones says:

                  Are you forgetting de Sade and the jailers daughter?

                • peppermint says:

                  Back when I went to college, I thought I needed feminism because I kept hearing about how Boomers were going to use all the Millennial girls during college as sugar daddies and longer-term mistresses so I would be left with leftovers if that when I graduated if I even got a job which I also kept hearing wasn’t going to happen because global economy.

                  The real solution is disestablishment.

                • peppermint says:

                  White aristocrats don’t want peasants’ daughters. Priests do, and so do non-white aristocrats.

                • Cavalier says:

                  Sure they do, if they can have them for free, or for some minor expense.

  19. Koanic says:

    Dead on, theologically.

    Sounds great overall.

  20. lalit says:

    Finally, why are we referring to MoldBug as BoldMug. Why play with Palindromes? Is this some sort of inside joke or code word? Man, reactionary Jargon is changes fast!

    • Steve Johnson says:

      That was the handle he used when he resurfaced on Scott Aaronson’s blog.

      • lalit says:

        Now why would he do that? Is he gonna change it to MBug or BMug at some point in the future? Why would you want to change a successful Brand Name?

  21. lalit says:

    Jim, Great Article. Couple other things I’d like to add.

    Islam, essentially is an ideology of Arab Domination (with the addition of a transcendental component, i.e. Allah/God). I use these points to support my thesis

    1. Only an Arab from the Qureishi (Muhammad’s tribe) Tribe can be the Caliph.

    2. All Muslims must forever be aware of which direction Mecca lies. One is therefore forbidden from defecating (or performing any “dirty” activity) while facing Mecca. Over time, this conditions all Muslims to defer to the authority of Mecca/Saudi Arabia/Arabs

    3. Muslims must make a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in their lifetimes. Practically, this means that poor muslims must sell all their property to be able to afford the air-fare and hotel stay. All the tourism gives Saudis a comfortable standard of living even absent Oil.

    Islam has a rigid hierarchy just like all ideological systems. At the Top come the Arabs of the Qureishi Clan, followed by Arabs of Saudi, followed by the Gulf Arabs, Followed by Arabs of non-gulf states such as Iraq/Jordan/Syria etc, followed by Turks and Whites, followed by Iranians followed by East Asians/Afghans, Followed by South East Asians, followed by Indians/Pakistanis who in turn are followed by Blacks who are at the bottom of this hierarachy as they have been at the bottom of almost all hierarchies.

    The hierarchy that places Indians at 2nd to bottom is the main reason why Right Wing Hindu thinkers have rejected Islam for Indians. They have also rejected Christianity for similar reasons but that is another story for another time. Similarly, right thinking whites will do well not to submit to any ideology that places them in a subordinate position to Arabs of all Stripes.

    • jim says:

      Yes. Indians should not be Christian, and Europeans should not be Hindu. Israelis should be Jewish, and Jews should be Israeli. Universalism invariably somehow winds up as someone ruling, and the rest being ruled.

      • lalit says:

        Could not Agree more with you Jim! Could not agree more.

      • >Universalism invariably somehow winds up as someone ruling, and the rest being ruled.

        Everything winds up like that, Jim, sovereignty is conserved, so that in itself is not an argument. The real problem with universalism that it tends to promote the rule of the craziest. Particularism, in my opinion, is rule by emotional ties, in-group ties, where rulers care about both being right and popular because it is on a very visceral level *their* people.

        We should explain to Boldmug that there are alternatives to Neocamerialism. What you want is to prevent elites from competing, fighting for power. It can be solved by having strong ethno-emotional ties between ruler and ruled. The issue is that only external war creates this, so we win internal peace only at the price of external war. Well, that could be a good thing! Regular low-key warfare could be a wink-wink to conscript the criminal types and send them to kill each other. It can be almost like an agreement, we kill their guys of the type who would otherwise be ISIS types, they kill our guys who would otherwise be bank robbers. But what exactly can keep it from escalating to up to and including nukes?

        • viking says:

          “We should explain to Boldmug that there are alternatives to Neocamerialism. What you want is to prevent elites from competing, fighting for power.”

          finally someone gets bricklayers didnt vote in the cathedral. Yes the elites fighting is the problem well not quite them fighting is a good way to sort the best elites the problem is the conspiring to game the system. yeah democracy is one way they do it but only a small low tech way. most elites acquire power outside democracy with the intent of controlling whoever is elected.To a great extent things like making a better mouse app is a positive way to aquire ruling status, however a bad way is to guess your potential slot and offer to sell it at a discount for an assured spot without a fight, this leads to trading and gaming and rent seeking etc. This is what thwarts the design of democracy modeled on evolution and capitalism. Now solve that and you dont need to wait for a collapse and then convince whites to go back to a stupid idea called monarchy

      • viking says:

        whites should not adopt desert religions that are designed by jew lawyers, whites should continue with natural forest religions that honor nature and her merciless justice

        • jim says:

          There are no living forest religions.

          • viking says:

            Im not actually proposing to revive druidism Im saying clean slate based on reality evolution no more slave morality if volk want to embellish as is common then fine as long as its understood to survive and multiply is the whole of the law.

            • jim says:

              Might work.

              Kind of harsh.

              Needs to be prettied up at least a little bit.

            • Dave says:

              I would suggest a religion where you spend the eternal afterlife watching posterity succeed or fail, feeling joy or pain in proportion to your genetic proximity to them. Sort of like Confucianism.

              Of course it’s hard to design a religion without exploitable loopholes, and even harder to convince people to believe it.

              • Mycroft Jones says:

                Loopholes are a feature, not a bug. Problem is when too many people know and exploit them. Rinse and repeat.

                Of course, a truly balanced religion doesn’t need loopholes. Look at the Samarians. They stick to the first 5 books of the Bible, and they have never needed loopholes. And their population is recovering nicely even though they were reduced to just 10 breeding pairs at one point.

                When you prevent scope creep, religion won’t get out of line.

          • lalit says:

            Ahem! Some sects of Hindus worship Trees, rivers, forests, mountains, the soil, natural laws and qualify as living forest religions. Of course, they worship rivers, trees, soil, forests, mountains in their immediate vicinity. It Fosters love and devotion to one’s surroundings. A man like that fights for his land to the finish when invaded.

            Germans/Scandinavians might do well to worship Topographial features of their lands the Rhine, Teutoberger Wald, the Alps etc. Then they might find it in their hearts to fall viciously at the immvaders just like they fell ferociously on the Romans in the Battle of Teutoberg Forest. As of now the “Turn the other cheek” message from a certain bearded smooth talking Palestinian has muddled their brains with the result that their women get molested while their men lecture to Poland about Tolerance and acceptance.

  22. peppermint says:

    The only way I’ll agree to christcuckoldry is if all the kikes are gassed so there is no jew or gentile distinction and the cucky parts of the bible are thrown out as heretical such as matthew mark luke and john

    • jim says:

      OK, but since one way or the other, we are going to have a religion, what is it to be?

      • peppermint says:

        Whites like to demand that each other lie in order to demonstrate factional loyalty. What lies, or, rather, prohibitions on countersignaling are necessary?

        The king must win all social status challenges, i.e. it must be illegal to challenge the king to a social status standoff by insulting him. It is not necessary to prosecute random 8channers for lese majeste provided they don’t try to take those attitudes and try to raise their status in meatspace by taking responsibility for posts.

        Ending compulsory education doesn’t end education. It should thus be traditional for the king’s wife to oversee whatever accreditation systems exist and the teaching of contempt for king and kin, of course, would be illegal.

        • Cavalier says:

          Yes, put a woman in charge of education. That will turn out well.

        • Anonymous says:

          >It should thus be traditional for the king’s wife to oversee whatever accreditation systems exist and the teaching of contempt for king and kin, of course, would be illegal.

          Societal policy that is state-sanctioned (king-sanctioned) to be female-dominated, aka “femdom”? Not even once.

          • peppermint says:

            Yeah, I was thinking about elementary school and having the king’s wife oversee it as a subtle way of reducing the status of participants, but elementary schools need to go away and the king’s wife can oversee daycares while there needs to be more serious oversight of actual education

      • viking says:

        This is the new religion GNON is Good because Gnon is Just Gnon gave whites the whole of the universe to because they earned it.This is the whole of the law- or not your choice jim. because jim if you dont want it gnon will give it to someone who does. gnon doesnt give a shit about you cuckstianity about your need to intellectually support patriarchy. Gnon only cares that you win, if you win you are good though you murdered your brother to win you are the christ.

    • viking says:

      no we would have to gas all non whites then start working our way up the left side of our own curve, christianity has to go

  23. Hammer Fan says:

    “What we need to do is import the good parts of Islam into Christianity: Patriarchy, repression of women, execution of homosexuals, holy war, intolerance of sacrilege, intolerance of heresy, and intolerance of apostacy. Retain the good bits of Christianity, the trinity, the attitude to logic, reason and law, the Orthodox communion of the saints, where the final authority on faith, doctrine, interpretation of the bible, and morals, is ancient Christians.”

    I strongly encourage you to check out a United Reformed Church in your area You will find much what you are looking for built into to the foundation of the denomination (the church order:

    Ministers, Elders (rulers), and Deacons (those charged with finances, care for the elderly and poor) may only be male. Patriarchy in the home has been established. Unrepentant homosexuals, heretics, adulterers, and fornicators are excommunicated (kicked out). Women are expected to dress modestly; children are expected to respect their parents and elders, attend private religious or home school, and that includes private religious college (if necessary). There is no tolerance for degeneracy.

    Canadian Reformed, OPC, and PCA (to a slightly lesser extent) are also good ones to check out.

    Yes, most Christian churches in the West are a total joke, but there are a few good ones.

    • Hammer Fan says:

      2nd link was meant to link to church order:

      • Hammer Fan says:

        Article 62 – Gross Sins
        Included among the gross sins, but not to the exclusion of all others, which are worthy of suspension or deposition from office, are these: false doctrine or heresy, public schism, public blasphemy, simony, faithless desertion of office or intrusion upon that of another, perjury, adultery, fornication, theft, acts of violence, habitual drunkenness, brawling, filthy lucre, in short, all sins and gross offenses which render the perpetrators infamous before the world and which in any other member of the church would occasion excommunication.

  24. Dave says:

    What shall be the official state religion’s position on evolution versus the Biblical story of creation? If God does not lie in the Book of Genesis, He lies in the fossil record.

    • jim says:


    • Alrenous says:

      Even the Yanomamo don’t take their creation myths literally. Literalism is new, about 50, and highly degenerate.

    • reactionaryfuture says:

      Less of problem then you would think. You could start by actually questioning Darwinism intellectually. Like, what is it? How is it proven? Did Darwin invent evolution as seems to be assumed by everyone? Why do people keep applying teleology to Darwin when he is quite clear in rejecting it? Has anyone talking about Darwin actually read him? What is the unit of selection? What are we even talking about? etc.

      • jim says:

        Evolution had long been suspected, and a reasonably accurate description was given by Lamarck. However the mechanism proposed by Lamarck was implausible and not widely believed, whereas the mechanism proposed by Darwin, natural selection, is compelling and undeniable.

        Applying teleology to Darwinism is a metaphor that Darwin himself used heavily. Evolution natural selection, though not teleological on the scale of evolutionary time, generates teleology. The heart really does have a purpose, and is shaped to fit that purpose.

        All scales are units of selection – the individual, the race, and the species.

        • reactionaryfuture says:

          Darwin was cheating. You can’t have teleology with Darwinian selection. That’s the giant dirty lie at the centre of it. There is no purpose. Its Whig history applied to nature.

          This whole “Darwin is reality and you may not question it.” is somewhat strange isn’t it? Like there is something else going on here.

          • Cavalier says:

            Whiggery evolves by the same evolutionary mechanisms as biological organisms. Of course they look similar.

          • jim says:

            You can and do have Darwinian teleology. Natural selection is not teleological, but causes teleology.

          • Cavalier says:

            P.S. We’re all just vibrating clusters of molecules. The purpose of existence is to exist, as the purpose of reality is to real. Organisms are the reduced products of their immediate environment, the physical laws, and the universe. If Darwin cheated, it’s because he didn’t want to attempt to answer the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything.

          • Anon says:

            how about

            teleogy originates from god but what exactly it looks like is determined by the beeings essence.
            beeings can have an as of yet unknown telos. hence science and discovery.
            darwinism is experimenting with essence and thus telos. except god created the underlying mechanisms: an orderly universe. thus still divine.

        • viking says:

          WOW JUST WOW JIM so you have gone full circle and your rants have boxed you in and you wont back down LOL well thats a good celt, so? HBD in the toilet, and lets deny the fossils to uphold the patriarchy and christianity? have you lost your fucking mind JIM?

          Throw the jew religion in the garbage where it belongs or a museum, it only served us when its altruism benefits accrued to us, that long gone.As a stand alone religion its the cuck scaffold just let it go, i know its hard Im a catholic school kid who fondly remembers latin masses. but it over jim its fucking over. dont be a sentimental cucl like the GOP embrace the darkness.

          HBD is our new religion the patriarchy is good and right because thats what the DNA calls for.Change the DNA we will consider changing our minds.

          Niggers are not our brothers in christ they are our competitors to be out competed. Reality is not a veil of tears an illusion its reality. we are not going to ignore reality for some fairy tale promise of heaven or 1000 virgins fuck that

          War not exit! because there is no where to exit and if there were it would be cowardly to leave the rest of our people our lands and our civilization behind.We are going to re take our lands our anglospheres and then the entire planet and solar sytem, and we are not going to bother with colonialism apartheid and all the other failed attempts at christian appeasements. we are going to eliminate all the competition once and for all. It is good and right that we rule the universe, because we can and that is the whole of the law.

          • jim says:

            embrace the darkness.

            HBD is our new religion the patriarchy is good and right because thats what the DNA calls for.Change the DNA we will consider changing our minds

            Simply go with the truth?

            I don’t think the masses can handle the truth.

            • peppermint says:

              As demonstrated by the bizarre transgender spectacle, the masses will go along with whatever they are told, including the truth. The truth has the obvious advantage that it’s impossible to gain social status by attacking the king on the grounds that he’s lying.

              In the early 20th century moralizing christcucks tried to bowdlerize Shakespeare. Today “post-“christcucks bowdlerize Richard Scarry.

              Lying becomes christcucks because they worship the princes of lies. The chief power of the Jew lies not in usury or pornography or ethnic nepotism networks taking over industries but in the falsification of history.

              • Mackus says:

                > The truth has the obvious advantage that it’s impossible to gain social status by attacking the king on the grounds that he’s lying.

                You can gain social advantage by telling lies, the more outrageous lie, the better.

          • psmith says:

            “Change the DNA we will consider changing our minds.”

            Gosh, of all the places I could have found a bonobo rationalist transhumanist….

            (j/k. but be careful what you wish for!)

            • viking says:

              well if you want hard core reactionary rational transhumanism go to Lands outside in where he will be glad to tell you how AI bots will replace humans and finally perfect capitalism, I just fail to see whats in it for my chimp self.
              You do realize HBD is the long leg of the trichotomy of reaction and while the whole niggers and bitches be dumb shit is fun we are chimps all the way down, blaming democracy is like blaming sneezes for flue. chimp DNA being pwnd is the problem and change it we will until then acknowledge the problem and find workarounds

          • AMK says:

            “we are going to eliminate all the competition once and for all. It is good and right that we rule the universe, because we can and that is the whole of the law.”

            I like this viking guy. He inspires me. And he’s right. Why not just end all competition once and for all?

            • Cavalier says:

              If we do that, then what will our sons do when it’s time for them to blaze a trail through the native Central/South American fauna?

              Just kidding. Let’s make the world great as England once made America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand great.

    • Orthodox says:

      Papal infallibility is a good rule. It has been invoked twice in history, IIRC. Evolution is not theology, therefore what the Pope says isn’t binding. Literalism stems from one branch of Protestantism, and not the Episcopal branch. Literalism is also a problem in Islam, something to get rid of. Literal interpretations of the Bible should be considered Low Church.

    • viking says:

      oh if you wanted to torture an explanation like a jew lawyer read the parts of genesis about the sons of god and daughters of men east of eden land of nod giants etc and then compare hominid dna admixtures and spin the chosen people into semi god non niggers. But please can we just start over ose the jews lose their religion let the jews and muslims kill eah other over their desert gods while return to the forest and God Of Nature GNON

  25. Mister Grumpus says:

    I love you man!

  26. Rreactionaryfuture says:

    You keep referring to the restoration, but it was followed less then 30 years latter with the “Glorius Revolution.” You are not looking at the underlying mechanics at play here. King James was subject to law, so not the sovereign despite the name. Parliament was calling the shots, so the real sovereign was somewhere there. When he started getting uppity, they brought in the perrenial sham monarchs from Holland. Give the formal title of king to someone subject to law is a pathetic attempt at routing around reality with words.

    As for political conservative Islam, what if I told you that was every bit a result of the Cathedral as SJWs?

    • jim says:

      That the Glorious Revolution was Lockean and classically liberal is a rewrite of History, where liberals give themselves ancient roots. The King exiled Locke and the Lockians, which is a whole lot better than what McCarthy did to the commies.

      The system was monarchist and aristocratic from 1660 to about 1810, one hundred and fifty years.

      Classical liberals were in power from about 1820 to 1850, one generation. After 1850 they were crushed by those to their left, anti slavers, anti colonialists, and feminists.

      • Steel T Post says:

        Abolitionists (anti-slavers) were Republicans. Suffragists (feminists) were Republicans.* Do you consider Republicans to be the “Left?”

        * “At the request of Susan B. Anthony, Sen. A.A. Sargent, a Republican from California, introduced the 19th Amendment in 1878. Sargent’s amendment (also known as the Susan B. Anthony Amendment) was defeated four times by a Democrat-controlled Senate. When the Republican Party regained control of Congress in 1919, the Equal Suffrage Amendment finally passed the House in May of that year and in the Senate in June.”

      • Rreactionaryfuture says:

        “The system was monarchist and aristocratic from 1660 to about 1810, one hundred and fifty years.”

        The formal “king” sure as he’ll wasn’t in charge, parliament was. That is a sleight of hand.

        And this “Not too hot, not too cold, sensible classical liberal” idea is pure delusion. It like a bedtime story, or fairytale people tell to children. Those people you term classical liberals were based on just as much bullshit as the anti-slavers etc.

        • jim says:

          The King was in charge. Again, you are trusting the whig rewrite of history.

          For example, Prime Minister William Pit the younger wanted to Emancipate Catholics in 1811. King George the fourth told him to take a long walk of a short pier, and Prime Minister William Pit the younger took a long walk off a short pier.

          When King George the third went mad, George Augustus Frederick, Prince of Wale, announced that God had appointed him Regent by divine right. Parliament violently objected, and wanted to appoint him Regent by the grace of parliament. George Augustus Frederick, Prince of Wales, got his way, resulting in a mental breakdown among whigs akin to Trump derangement syndrome. Instead of “Not my president” they went “Not my regent” and they are still today three quarters insane on this issue. History books have a massive reality distortion field around the question, which still today reduces academics to gibbering idiocy and can result in loss of tenure.

          King George the third ran things. King George the fourth generally let politicians run things, but when he intervened in politics, he got his way, and the politicians did not get their way. However, because he failed to exercise his authority very often, it gradually evaporated, as became apparent in 1820. In retrospect, it is clear he should have taken a more active hand in running the country and should have ruined, exiled, or executed everyone suffering from Regency Derangement Syndrome.

          He was a weak and indolent King, and lost power because of it, but from 1660 to 1820, Kings ruled in England.

          • reactionaryfuture says:

            You interpretation is premised on their being no instances of the king being subject to the law. All I have to do is provide one such example:


            This whole issue was a major argument before this, as even a reading of Filmer can show you. His whole body of work is devoted to debunking the idea of a monarch under law, which he was right to do.

            • jim says:

              I don’t get your point. Of course Kings rule under law. Does not follow that anything parliament says is law, indeed that doctrine is quite new.

              Kings of England have always ruled under law, but by divine right, been simultaneously absolute and limited, much as God is three and God is one. And George the fourth ruled under law, but by divine right.

              • reactionaryfutur says:

                As Filmer points out, laws are dumb. They must be interpreted by people, and enacted by people. A monarch under law is a sham monarch and we should be looking in the direction of who in the present can make the decision to interpret and enact the law for the genuine monarch in the sense of someone above the law. He makes the point many times, like in his essay on Aristotle’s forms of government:

                “”No man can say, that during the reign of the late Queen Elizabeth, that King Henry VIII, Edward VI did govern, although that many of the laws that were made in those two former princes’ time, were observed, and executed under her government, but those laws, though made by her predecessors, yet became laws of her present government; who willed and commanded the execution of them, and had the same power to correct, interpret, or mitigate them, which the first makers of them had; every law must always have some present known person in being, whose will it must be to make it a law for the present; this cannot be said of the major part of any assembly, because that major part instantly ceaseth, as soon as ever it hath voted””

                The whole anglo sophistry of binding the sovereign is flat out stupid. Its just a word game. Once you bind the “sovereign” you have just made it clear that person isn’t sovereign. Someone among those doing the binding is.

                • jim says:

                  That is precisely why whigs had a nervous breakdown, and are to this day still half insane on the topic, when George proclaimed himself regent by the grace of God, and refused to allow Parliament to vote him regent.

              • viking says:

                yeah exactly its all logically inconsistent monarchy and religion lets just stop this craziness, when you are playing this game someone always comes by and undermines authority based on BS and intelligent people have to agree. better we just get hones about whats inconsistent human evolved instincts and emotions and declare until crispr we decree orders that take irrationality and outdated instincts into account

      • viking says:

        Bottom line all this monarchy crap the moldy jew suggested is based on the false hope absolute rule could overcome the alleged problems of democracy.

        First never been an absolute ruler certainly not one anyone would care to live under even if one were found be an anomaly

        moldy doesn’t prove problems are really democracy in fact most problems would remain under monarchy

        its simply impossible to transition to monarchy at this point and we are on the verge of genocide so far fetched larps are treason

        • Mike Perilloux says:

          How about you shut up about treason until you have a fuhrer. Denouncing each other as traitors for tactical disagreement is the most retarded thing we could be dong.

          What’s your solution to the genocide problem? Is it democratic? How do you deal with the fact that democracy necessarily entails white genocide? If it’s not democratic, and in fact runs on something more like fuhrerprinzip, then we’re all in agreement about monarchy and we need to work on details.

        • jim says:

          Democracy necessarily results sooner or later in the people losing the confidence of the government, whereupon the government elects a new people.

          As is happening right now.

Leave a Reply