Archive for the ‘culture’ Category

Not the Jews

Saturday, April 22nd, 2017

The key fundamental point uniting the alt right is that all men are not created equal, nor women equal to men. There are important differences between individuals, groups, categories, and races.

And among those differences are differences which cause Jews in exile to be irritating and a problem. No one in the alt-right, including the many Jewish members of the alt-right, can or should deny this. But Jews are not the big problem.

Chan has done an analysis of the antifa officer and organization core, and even though antifa is backed by Jewish money and spreading Jewish memes, its leadership and organization is just not all that Jewish.

And if you point out that antifa is a wholly owned subsidiary of George Soros, well, George Soros is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Permanent Government in the State Department. Native ruling elites have a long history of hiring Jews to do the dirty work against their own people, and then discarding those Jews when things got rough. Started with Jewish tax farmers. Then when the peasants got pissed with the tax farmers, the ruling elite would encourage them to knock over a pawn shop.

Don’t be one of the idiots who gets distracted by the shiny broken glass and the shiny stuff in the pawnshop. That is just the Matador’s flashing cape.

If you gassed all the Jews, antifa would only be mildly inconvenienced. Cthulhu would continue to swim left. If you take all the progs in government and quasi government institutions for helicopter rides to the Pacific, there would be quite a few wet Jews, but, more importantly, antifa would be out of business and Cthulhu would no longer swim left.

Punching unowned women in the face

Wednesday, April 19th, 2017

The rule on hitting girls should be, “don’t hit someone else’s girl”. If a girl is misbehaving, you should call for the man who is in charge of her, ask him to take care of the problem, and if he does not, you should punch him out, not his girl.

Moldilocks went to the free speech rally in Berkeley declaring she was going to collect one hundred fascist scalps. She was wearing brass knuckle gloves, having watched too many Hollywood movies where action girl takes out five mooks while doing a backflip. She threw glass bottles at people.

A gentleman should never under any circumstances strike a lady, but Moldilocks was no lady.

If an unowned, unsupervised women, gets beaten by some male, your default presupposition, your prejudgment of the situation absent other evidence, should be that males are generally well behaved, unsupervised and uncontrolled women are frequently badly behaved, therefore chances are that she probably needed a beating.

Women are, of course, the precious sex, and men are the expendable sex. It is right that men should die for their women. Men have a duty to love and cherish their women, and women do not have a duty to love and cherish their men, but a duty to honor and obey. But not all women are precious. Unowned women frequently behave in ways that make them less valuable, and more expendable, than men. Observe that Moldilocks was beautiful, became a porngirl (her ranking is too low to qualify as pornstar) became unattractive with astonishing speed, her inner ugliness becoming externally manifest. Her inner ugliness made manifest revealed that this woman was worthless trash.

Some women are precious, not all women are precious. It is entirely OK to punch porngirls, especially unattractive porngirls. No punching cute porngirls in the face, but measures less likely to mar them are fine.

Women are precious because they can create life, whereas all a man can do is merely kill someone. A woman can make you immortal, whereas all a man can do is merely kill you. But porngirl Moldilocks is not going to make you immortal, so no great loss spoiling her face even further.

We won the battle of Berkeley

Sunday, April 16th, 2017

A free speech rally was held at the symbolically important location of Berkeley

Was the free speech sometimes anti semitic?

Yes, damned well was.

Naturally antifa, a wholly owned subsidiary of George Soros, tried to shut it down.  Failed dismally.

It is a symbolic victory.  Symbols matter, often more than the things that they symbolize.  We won, because police were relatively neutral this time.  That police were neutral this time, and that we win if police are neutral, sends an important message.

And, of course, based stickman was there.

“They picked Berkeley because they want to feel they could do this in the most liberal place in the country,” said Geoff Millard, an anti-Trump protester, Iraq war veteran and Mr San Francisco Leather 2017. “It’s important that we shut them down and let them know they can’t pull this crap here.”

Well, they could not shut us down, and we can pull this stuff there.

Trump accomplishments.

Wednesday, April 12th, 2017

The invasion of illegals has largely stopped.  Though no wall yet, arrests of illegals have fallen to a tiny fraction of what they used to be – because now when they try to cross, they will likely be arrested, so they don’t even try.  The wall matters, but men with guns matter more, and if there is no wall yet, there are more men with guns with more authority to use them.

That is the big thing that we voted for and we got it.

We got it now.  It is effect and working right now today.  So even if he totally cucks out from here on in, we still won.  We got the number one big item we voted for.  The wall is just icing on the cake.  Further, if he is willing and able to deploy men with guns, he will be willing and able to deploy a wall.  If he can get away with deploying men with guns, he can get away with deploying a wall.  OK, we also voted for the eviction of the anchor babies, and he is not doing that, and maybe he will not do it ever, but the number one big problem, the number one thing we voted on, the flood of illegals, has largely stopped.

The invasion of legals is still in full swing, with large numbers of male military age Muslim Democratic party voters screaming for infidel blood and white pussy being dumped on marginal electorates in flyover country to live on crime and welfare, but now Gorsuch is in, Trump is preparing to do something about it.  He has not done anything about it yet, but he has done something about H1B.  Previously unenforced rules about applicants being specially talented in ways not not readily available in the US are now enforced.  Pretty sure absolutely zero existing H1B holders would qualify, since demand for H1Bs is 100% demand for cheap low status slave labor.  Partly H1B is about saving money, mostly it is about status.  The bean counters and the HRs are troubled by the status of engineers.  Notice the complete absence of H1Bs in HR and accounting.  If he can stop H1B, despite corporate interests screaming blue murder, he can stop the rapeugee invasion despite the courts.

OK, enormous numbers of Muslims still legally pouring across the border to live on crime, welfare, and voting Democrat in marginal electorates in flyover country, but the H1Bs are either be drastically cut, or else H1Bs are going to be radically higher quality people rather than cheap slave labor.  A radical cut in numbers being considerably more likely than a radical improvement in quality.

Jobs are back due to threats, promises, actual de-regulation, and promised de-regulation.  Not to mention a sudden scarcity of fresh H1Bs.

The Global Warming movement is dead in the water.  Now government is talking about cheap energy, so now if you want your grants, instead of applying for a grant on the effect of global warming on squirrel nut gathering, you apply for a grant on obtaining energy cost efficiently.  Government funding for the left, though still enormous, has suffered major cuts.  You want a grant, now you have to sing a right wing song (cheap energy good, because man’s mastery over nature is good) instead of a left wing song (humans are evil and deserve unending and severe punishment for despoiling the earth).

Tranny thor, tranny spiderman, and tranny wolverine have all bitten the dust.  Supposedly the the comics industry spontaneously saw the light, but that is a joke.  You don’t have free speech.  Do you think the comics have free speech?  They got told by Obama to do sex changes on their most distinctively manly heroes, and now they got told by Trump to sex change them back.  Television, however, is still a disgusting attack on maleness, men, and masculinity.  Television is all about manning up to be cuckolded and raise someone else’s child.  Biological fathers on television are horrible people, for example Homer Simpson, the only good men being cuckolds raising other men’s children, when it is not about counterstereotypical women, counterstereotypical gays, counterstereotypical blacks, and counterstereotypical black males fornicating with white women.  (Who are allowed to be feminine if and only if they have sex with black men)  There is no indication that the celebration of cuckoldry is going to stop, but FCC changes give me considerable hope. If Thor is a man again, maybe men on television will stop raising other men’s bastard spawn.  Maybe dads being dads will become as mandatory as non dads being dads is now.  Notice how salient it is that Trump is a father, whereas it was barely salient that Obama was a father.  If Trump signaling fatherhood, and kicking ass on the FCC, chances are that television will also be signaling fatherhood pretty soon.

OK, I hear you say, but what about war with Syria, which goes totally against everything he promised?

Well, to the progs he saying “War with Syria”, and to his base, he is saying “No war with Syria”.  Which is kind of what you expect from Trump.  And I rather think it will be no war with Syria, that he is lying to the deep state, not to us.

Nixon famously said “I am not a crook”, but in one of Trump’s speeches, Trump implied he was a crook, and he is, and all the better because of it.  We were voting for a president, not a pastor.  The left has no morals.  Politics is war within limits, which limits are constantly in danger of being trampled down, and I voted for Trump in part because I expect him to stomp right over those limits.

Progressives care so very deeply

Tuesday, April 11th, 2017

White helmets killing babies.

Progressives care deeply about people far away. About people conveniently far away.

Caring for far away people

Trump already remakes the world

Monday, April 3rd, 2017

Clearly the permanent government is still in control, and Trump is not yet in control. But equally clearly, he is working on it.

With Trump’s election, the Arab Spring died. Suddenly and mysteriously, the mysterious benefactors that enabled Arab subversives to operate from a big important expensive office, stopped funding that big important expensive office.

Simultaneously, Marvel heroes no longer push females doing manly things and sexual deviants doing admirable things. Supposedly this is because of a sudden and mysterious change in public taste, but in fact Spider Girl and Tranny Thor and the rest were always violently unpopular. It is just that until now the official truth was that they were popular, and were bringing in new and more diverse readers.

The Black Lives Matter movement was always a front for the Department of Justice, which is a branch of the United States Government. When Trump was elected, it vanished like smoke, and the numerous incidents of racist cops maliciously gunning down unarmed black male honors students (who dindu nuffin) on their way to choir practice, vanished with it.

When gangs of thugs burned down supermarkets and petrol stations, and forced white people to abandon their houses, that was the Department of Justice in blackface.

With the vanishing of Tranny Thor and the like, has come a similar vanishing of sex incidents in software engineering. Are smart engineers no longer talking down to affirmative action engineerettes in the art harem? Are horny engineers no longer finding excuses to visit the art harem to hit on the affirmative action engineerettes?

When I saw Trump’s tech summit, I noticed that instead of dressing in Silicon Valley expensive dark casual, the summitteers were dressed in job interview formal. I immediately knew that complaints of mansplaining and being hit on by insufficiently high status males (with the subtext that the complainant is entitled to be hit on by higher status males, and in a just and fair society would be considered hot) would no longer receive such a warm hearing. Ideas are more powerful than guns, but fashion is more powerful than ideas.

Unowned women should be unprotected and fair game

Friday, March 31st, 2017

You want Roissy ran out of town on a rail. There is a good chance he “raped” your girlfriend, and if he did not, he had her before you, or will have her after you.

But who is going to run Roissy out of town on a rail? No one has incentive to do so, or legitimate authority to do so, unless husbands and fathers have property rights in women’s sexual and domestic services.

So if you want a society where Roissy gets run out of town on a rail, or better, shot like a dog, you need a society where husbands and fathers have legitimate, socially recognized, legally recognized, and legally enforced property rights in women’s sexual and domestic services, where a husband or a father can legally and morally legitimately shoot Roissy for sniffing around where he should not, as he can shoot a burglar for sniffing around where he should not.

And if you start “protecting” unowned women from Roissy (“oh the poor things”) you are abandoning male property rights in women.

The system that Victorians liked to pretend that they had, where unowned, unprotected, and uncontrolled women were presumed to be chaste and of comparable value to owned, controlled, and protected women, is not incentive compatible. No one has strong motivation to protect the society that you piously pretend that you have. You are not upvaluing unprotected women. You are downvaluing wives and daughters.

You cannot have the supposed Victorian and the supposed Puritan system, for the same reason as the Victorians and the Puritans could not have it either. The Victorian system resulted in far too many women giving birth in the rain in dark alleys, resulting in far too many Oliver Twists, resulting in the welfare state, resulting in far too many women marrying Uncle Sam the big Pimp. And here we are.

If you start “protecting” unowned women from Roissy you are not going to succeed, because unowned women are uncontrolled women. And your entire intended system goes down the drain.

You cannot “protect” unowned women from seduction and “rape”, because women are notoriously uncooperative with anyone trying to “protect” them.

Whereupon, surprise surprise, no one runs Roissy out of town no matter how much the preacher vainly rants about chastity.

If chastity is based on male property rights in women, unowned women are outside the system and are presumed to be unchaste – and need to be outside so that they can be discriminated against and treated as of lesser value and lesser worth. Roissy screwing unowned women cannot be allowed to matter, because unowned women cannot be allowed to matter.

High estimates of the number of whores in the eighteenth and early nineteenth century were not based on the modern usage of “whore” to mean a woman rents her pussy for cash by the hour, but rather, were estimates of the number of unowned, and thus presumed to be unchaste, women. Similarly “sluts”.

You cannot keep women permanently chained to the wall. You are going to have to let them loose every now and then to take care of the baby, pick up the socks, and cook the meals. So you need to have a system that is incentive compatible with what women want. If women get entirely their way, civilization collapses, because most men will not have posterity, so will not plant trees for their grandchildren to enjoy the shade. So you need to have a system where male ownership of women is incentive compatible with what women want, where women have reason to cooperate in a system that restrains their worst excesses. So you have to downvalue unowned women and upvalue owned women. And if you downvalue unowned women, you cannot allow yourself to care about what Roissy gets up to. (Unless of course, he starts sniffing around your wife or daughter, in which case you shoot him like a dog, and the cops shrug their shoulders and say “needed killing”.)

The problem is not that women want to bang multiple high value alpha males. They want to bang only one high value alpha male, and that high value alpha male also wants them to bang only that one high value alpha male. The problem is that finding themselves of low rank the high value alpha male’s ever growing harem, they start playing off one high value alpha male against another high value alpha male in order to raise their value. The solution is to associate this tactic with being low value. And if allow ourselves to care about what Roissy gets up to, we are upvaluing women who employ this tactic. No one should care about what unowned women get up to, or about what happens to them, thus motivating unowned women to come in from the cold, and owned women to stay where it is warm.

It does not matter if the archbishop proclaims that all fertile age women are the property of their father or husband. He can, and should proclaim that all fertile age women should be the property of their father or husband, but short of keeping them all permanently chained to the dungeon wall, not all of them are going to actually be the property of their father or husband. Hence Roissy.

If we could stop unowned women from seducing Mohammed, then we could have the system that the Victorians and the Puritans pretended that they had. But we cannot.

Or if we could prevent significant numbers of women from becoming unowned, then we could have the system that the Victorians and the Puritans pretended that they had. But that would require measures that are extreme, cruel, disturbing, and, worst of all, inconvenient.

Lancelot, Guinevere, romance, and the red, blue, purple, black, and white pills.

Tuesday, March 21st, 2017

Evolutionary psychology predicts that a man will love a woman he regularly has sex with, who lives with him and that he lives with and will be inclined to look after her welfare, which is not necessarily the same thing as doing what she wants. He will do what he thinks is good for her, and make her do what he thinks is good for her, even if she wants something different. Because one flesh. Taking care of her is taking care of her capacity to bear him children and raise his children.

It does not predict that she will love him all that much, since Gnon wants resources transferred from men to women, and from parents to children, but it does predict that she will obey him, respect him, and physically desire him, in order that he can take care of her and the children they have together.

That is how it supposed to work.

If, however, she is someone else’s wife, or is staying with her family rather the joining with him to form a new family, thus someone else is going to be looking after his kids by her, maybe the state is going to be taking care of her and he is just passing through, then evolutionary psychology predicts romantic love, that he will flatter her and do whatever she wants, no matter how foolish, unreasonable, and self destructive, as Lancelot treated Guinevere.

So, evolutionary psychology predicts that males will primarily experience romantic love in the case of adultery, and to a lesser extent in casual fornication. It predicts that they they will experience the love that a husband bears his wife after they have been living together and having sex for a while. And that women will tend to be at best good wives, rather than in love with their husbands. The wife who craves the seed of a man more alpha than her husband says

“I do not love my husband any more, therefore it is OK for me to service this rock musician and his biker roadies”

but women never love men all that much. They are not supposed to. They are supposed to respect, honor, obey, and desire their husbands.

Thus, the first mention of sexual love in the bible: Rebekah meets Isaac, explains herself. “And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah’s tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death.” The second mention of sexual love in the bible on the other hand has love and romance preceding sex and marriage instead of following sex and marriage – and things go badly wrong.

Romantic love was celebrated by the troubadours, and as depicted by the troubadours, was always adulterous love. King Arthur’s wife Guinevere desired Lancelot, and had sex with him, and Lancelot romantically loved Guinevere, King Arthur’s wife. In consequence Lancelot does lots of stupid humiliating self sacrificing things that prove his enormous burning love, Guinevere acts like an arrogant depraved obnoxious spoiled slut bitch, the fellowship of the Round Table breaks up, Camelot is defeated, and everyone gets killed.

This makes sense for maximizing reproductive fitness. Crazy destructive passion in order to cuckold other men, calm, gentle, firm, nurturing affection for one’s own family. Romance is what the troubadours depicted with alarming accuracy.

Romance is defect/defect equilibrium. Lancelot believes he is sacrificing himself for Guinevere in a Christlike fashion, and the troubadours believed he was sacrificing himself for Guinevere in a Christlike fashion, but in fact he is maximizing his Darwinian genetic self interest at the expense of everyone else. Guinevere also behaves badly to both Lancelot and to her husband King Arthur because she is maximizing her genetic self interest at the expense of everyone else.

Guinevere and King Arthur are in a defect/cooperate relationship. King Arthur is cooperating with Guinevere, by looking after her, and cooperating with Lancelot, in that Lancelot gets benefits as a knight of the fellowship of the Round table, while Lancelot and Guinevere are defecting on King Arthur.

King Arthur, of course, finds out, and Camelot gets defect/defect. Everyone is much worse off, and Camelot falls. That is Romance.

Sexual love is a bad thing except inside the confines of marriage. Men are supposed to have sex first and love later, and women are not really supposed to love men all that much at all. Nowhere in the bible are we told of women loving their husbands, and Guinevere treats both Lancelot and King Arthur very badly. We are, however, fairly frequently told in the bible of women seeking the love of their husbands.

If a woman thinks she is love, she is lying to get some alpha cock. Perhaps lying to herself because all the books she reads and all the movies and television shows she watches tell her that romantic love justifies and purifies every kind of horrible bad behavior. In reality, women are never in love all that much, rather they experience desire for love and sex, which they confuse with love when they proceed to do bad things in pursuit of this desire. Rather than loving a man, a woman desires to be loved by a man. If a man is in romantically in love with a woman whom he is not living with and having regular sex with in his own bed, he is crazy or evil.

What is the Red Pill?

It is the practical and applied knowledge of the Dark Enlightenment, the bad news about how the world really is, and especially and particularly the bad news about the nature of women. The Dark Enlightenment is science and the Red Pill is engineering. There is a certain cynical ruthlessness about the Red Pill. You are told how to use it against other people, and how to protect yourself from other people. Much seemingly virtuous and altruistic behavior, like the behavior of Lancelot towards Guinevere, is revealed to be foolish or, more commonly, wicked and dangerous. Even virtue is reduced to pragmatic self interest – virtue is trying to get into and maintain cooperate/cooperate relationships – as distinct from pretending to virtue in order to get into defect/cooperate relationships. Also, virtue is developing one’s own excellence, as for example lifting iron, or perfecting social skills.

What is the Blue Pill?

It is the official truth about the way the world supposedly works, and particularly and especially the official truth about the nature of women. If women were really the way that the blue pill says they are, then the behaving towards women the way that progressives say you are supposed to behave would work. Unfortunately, the way you are supposed to behave fails, and fails horribly badly with utterly disastrous consequences.

What is the Purple Pill?

It is an attempt to reconcile Red Pill truths with Blue pill morals: “Not All Women are Like That”. It is an attempt to avoid the most grossly self destructive behavior commanded by the Blue Pill, while still accepting that Blue Pill behavior is wise and virtuous behavior, rather than foolish, destructive, self destructive, and evil behavior. It is an attempt to reconcile with reality while remaining virtuous as Blue Pillers see virtue. But Blue Pill “virtues” are like Lancelot’s love for Guinevere: They are evil in themselves, and manifestations of evil. It was wrong for Lancelot to love Guinevere, as much wrong as it was wrong for Guinevere to have sex with Lancelot. Not only is it unwise to be the equal of your wife, it is also wicked. It is your job to supervise and discipline your wife, and some women, not all of them, not most of them, but quite a lot of them, sometimes need to be physical disciplined. You are wicked if you are not prepared to physically discipline your wife and your children in the unfortunate case that the necessity should occur.

What is the Black Pill?

The Black Pill is despair at the sad and cynical truths of the Red Pill, and the belief that we are doomed, that we as individuals shall not know a good sexual and family relationship, that we shall have few or no great grandchildren, that our race shall perish, that our homelands will be flooded by hostile angry sullen low IQ aliens who live on crime, welfare, and voting for the left, who get violent at microaggressions, that our civilization will die, overrun like Detroit and Salisbury by savages incapable of operating civilization.

What is the White Pill?

Deus Vult: That we will be victorious. That those of us that are lucky and strong will create proper families, that we will have love and grandchildren, that we will save our civilization and conquer the enemies of our civilization. That the able will rule over their inferiors, and men will rule over women, as is right for us to do.

Undead Christianity

Friday, March 10th, 2017

Europe is the faith, the faith is Europe. When Roman Paganism died, the Roman Empire in the west died. Julian the apostate tried to revive paganism, got an undead religion. My commenters tell me Christianity survives as a mustard seed, but to me, it looks like a dead parrot.

I wish Christianity could be revived, I hope it can be revived, but am not all that optimistic.

European Christianity was the official state religion, which is sort of odd because Europe was never really one state, even when there was a functioning Holy Roman Emperor and Holy Roman Empire. It has been said that the Holy Roman Empire was not holy, not Roman, and not an empire. But this is not true. It was not Roman, and not an empire, but it was holy. The Emperor, the Empire, and the state was subject to the Church in those matters where it is proper for the Church to command, and the Church was subject to the state in those matters where it is proper for the state to command. (With the usual frequent disagreements as to what is Caesar’s and what is God’s)

When the Empire faded, the Church inevitably and inexorably got drawn into earthly politics, backing one state against another, which led to the Church of England, the protestant reformation, and the sack of Rome, and eventually the bloody religious wars of the early seventeenth century. These terrible wars were resolved by the peace of Westphalia. The King gets to set his state’s religion, and other states are not supposed to interfere, though, of course, they did.

The peace of Westphalia in effect said “forget about universalism, leads to too much bloodshed”

The rise of Progressivism was the return of the holy universalist state Church, and led to the terrible wars of the twentieth century. These wars ended when one superpower became supreme, ruling in the not quite imperial style of the Holy Roman Empire, not quite an empire, but an empire nonetheless, and imposed its faith on all of Europe, and almost all of the world – but now that superpower is fading, while progressivism is more holy and more universalist than ever.

To cut the long story short, today progressivism is the state religion, and Christianity is effectively suppressed. My commenters assure me that a mustard seed remains, but I just don’t see it. Recently existent Christianity enforced patriarchal durable monogamy, with divorce being damn near impossible. The wife got a permanent obligation to honor and obey, the husband got a permanent obligation to love and cherish. And, apart from some tolerance for polygyny in early Christianity, Christianity has always been this way, until now. The New Testament, and the communion of the Saints, are quite clear on the topic.

The earthly church is a fictive kin of God, God and Church being a reflection of husband and family, (Ephesians 5:22-33) making all Christians in a church fictive kin, a tribe. Marriage is the sacrament that everyone has the power to make, the sacrament that priests could never take away from the congregation, and which links families to the congregation and to God, since the husband and wife rely on God and the congregation for social enforcement of the deal. If you end marriage as it used to be known, you end Christianity, and if you end Christianity, you end Europe. Durable Patriarchal marriage is not just one doctrine among many, it is a keystone part of the functioning of Christianity, hence the joke “Hatched, matched, and dispatched”.

For 1900 years, from the beginning of Christianity, to second wave feminism in the nineteen sixties, men removed their hats on entering church, and women covered their heads in church and on the way to and from church. For 1900 years women had their hair long. (1 Corinthians:11)

And now they don’t, and no one seems to notice that there is anything wrong with this. But don’t you feel just a little bit uneasy when you face a fertile age woman with a pixie cut? Something is wrong, something is off, something is odd, unpleasant, and disturbing, but you are not allowed to notice it.

Today’s Christians, including the supposed reactionaries like Dalrock, Bruce Charlton, and Zippy will tell you it was just a cultural thing, just Paul foolishly mistaking the fashions of his day for the universal laws of God. Which is not much different from saying that when Paul prohibited men having sex with males, he was just mistaking the fashions of his day for the universal laws of God. Similarly, Ephesians 5. Bruce Charlton will tell you that Ephesians 5 is just a metaphor, about the relationship between God and man, but not about the relationship between husband and wife. Dalrock will tell you he totally supports Ephesians 5, except he does not, and Zippy would rather not go there.

You cannot have Christianity without patriarchy, and if you are not entirely comfortable with patriarchy maybe you should be worshiping the Goddess.

In short, the Christian right, like the Republicans, are just progressives who are a bit behind the times. You may say that a short haircut on a girl is not like a man sodomizing a boy, and it is not, but if a fertile age woman wears a pixie cut, chances are she has been taking it up the ass from Mister Very Wrong, and she will forever feel in her heart that Mister Very Wrong was way more manly than you are.

The solution we do not want.

Wednesday, March 8th, 2017

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.